How to fix the GOP brand
A debate will now rage inside the GOP between the purists, who will as always call for more purity, and the pragmatists, who will demand modernization. The media, always culturally alien to intra-Republican struggles, will badly mislabel this contest as one between “moderate” and “right-wing” Republicans. In fact, the epic battle we Republicans face now is a choice between two definitions of conservatism.
One offers steadfast opposition to emerging social trends like multiculturalism and secularization. The alternative is a more secular and modernizing conservatism that eschews most social issues to focus on creating a wide-open opportunity society that promises greater economic freedom and the reform of government institutions like schools that are vital to upward social mobility.
The battle lines are already drawn. While the electoral arithmetic is obvious, teaching basic math to a political party is no simple matter. The lesson usually requires the heavy hammer of multiple crushing and painful election defeats. Whether the GOP has learned its lesson yet is the big question. The party’s biggest funders, mostly hardheaded business types, are in shock and high dudgeon after providing a virtual blank check to a GOP apparatus that promised much and delivered very little. Among this group, there is much frustration with the party’s perceived focus on divisive social issues and even some dark talk of a donor strike.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
It seems, then, that the answer regarding social issues is to FIGHT BACK. Laying back and taking it isn’t working. We called a truce, but the other side didn’t honor it. Cease fire off.
cptacek on November 29, 2012 at 5:20 PM
We’re not trying to keep gay people from getting married? We’re not trying to make it harder for women to get contraception or abortions?
To me, that sounds a lot like legislating morality. But it doesn’t matter what you or I think, it matters what the voters think. And lots of women vote based on their belief that the GOP is waging a “war on women”. And the media uses comments by the most socially conservative candidates to paint ALL of our candidates as zealots.
hawksruleva on November 29, 2012 at 5:20 PM
In light of there being no difference with Romney’s, I can’t say it much matters.
The GOP needs to realize that as Stuart Stevens himself pointed out, they won those earning above $50k, but lost those earning below $50k — the very people for whom shrinking the size of government and focusing on tax cuts does absolutely nothing for. But what are these people? White working class and minorities as well — many of whom are social conservatives.
The GOP’s establishment is going to work themselves into extinction by spurning social issues, because no, social conservatives are not going to vote for the GOP by default.
Stoic Patriot on November 29, 2012 at 5:21 PM
That was my point about enforcing existing law. I think we could win support from a lot of people with a message of “live and let live”. People are tired of the speech police, don’t really approve of the ACLU’s war on Christmas, and a lot of them feel like whatever grownups do in their lives is their business. We’d be better off if we concentrated more on that part of our message.
hawksruleva on November 29, 2012 at 5:23 PM
to me romney never had principles that he would go to the wall for. obama was all for providing free contraception, making our country military weaker, redistributing wealth and gay rights.
romney never looked out for his base. no reason to go to the wall for him. simple.
renalin on November 29, 2012 at 5:24 PM
Saying to let grownups do whatever they want is inviting a mass defection from social conservatives like myself. I care about justice. Injustice, whether perpetrated by government or by the individual should be crushed.
Stoic Patriot on November 29, 2012 at 5:26 PM
let me remind you guys, that i voted for romney. encouraged many and volunteered to drive others to the polls. the womens issues killed the guy. women hated him. they didn’t want their utereses touched no way no how.
SP2016
renalin on November 29, 2012 at 5:27 PM
Exactly. I’d like an explanation as to why repeated failure is considered being “pragmatic.”
besser tot als rot on November 29, 2012 at 5:27 PM
Fify. Valid opinion though. I just use this as an example though because the whole “we got shafted by the establishment” meme gets a little tiring. Mitt Romney was the nominee because that’s who REPUBLICAN VOTERS voted for in the primaries. I think sometimes that hard non-libertarian style conservatives need to consider the true nature of not only the country but even their own party on occasion. You’ve been “the base” for a long time and the flawed republican parties biggest supporters for decades. And losing you on masse WOULD be a hit to the R’s elections for a good few cycles possibly. But you must consider at some point, if your candidates can’t even win in a Republican party primary, how do you expect them to win a general election with demographic political imbalances? How many of you are there REALLY even in the Republican party if you can’t even get a candidate through the primaries? Who is the larger source of republican voters? Mitt Romney type voters or the “whoever is dishing out the most red meat at the moment” candidate voters? I only think you have one shot at a candidate who could do it, but who will probably turn out more libertarian and non-traditional than you think as well, which leads me to:
Sarah Palin can and could have won the primary, pretty easy. I think she just didn’t want to have it on her head if she lost in the general and was smart enough to recognize the obstacles she was up against, meaning, “likelihood of winning in the end”.
Maybe next time. Hillary vs. Palin. I say let’s do it.
Genuine on November 29, 2012 at 5:31 PM
You do have a point. I was surprised we didn’t do more with the anger in many black churches at Obama’s stance on gay marriage. Particularly since Obama was clearly already pulling us into a culture war.
And I don’t think we should start passing laws to legalize and liberalize all sorts of actions. But I don’t think a small government party should be voting on a Defense of Marriage Act. And until we can counter the teaching of government education and Big Hollywood, our stances on many social issues will be easy to characterize as fringe stances. So highlighting those issues serves to marginalize us. Maybe if we could deliver socon messages in a different way, we could win with them. But as it stands now, they drive a lot of wedges.
hawksruleva on November 29, 2012 at 5:33 PM
This might be true if only Republicans could vote in the primaries/caucuses.
cptacek on November 29, 2012 at 5:35 PM
Other than abortions – no. You’ve bought into the statist strawmen. Too bad we didn’t have a candidate who was willing to put a torch to them.
besser tot als rot on November 29, 2012 at 5:37 PM
Jeffrey Lord identifies Steve Schmidt and Mike Murphy as quislings. They undermine conservative values and candidates and yet get paid handsomely for their weak consultants’ advice.
onlineanalyst on November 29, 2012 at 5:38 PM
1.)Ironically, DOMA only says that the Federal government won’t recognize gay marriage. It doesn’t bar or prohibit any state government from doing so. It also says that no state government may use its gay marriage law to impose on another state. I think we should go further and push for the full constitutional amendment banning it, but you should be mindful of what DOMA actually does.
2.)Agreed on Hollywood and the educational establishment, but I disagree about disengagement. It’s important that we do engage, because the more we shrink away, the more we marginalize ourselves and take ourselves out of the mainstream. If you cede an issue to the other side, they become the mainstream. If you want to be mainstream, you gotta make some noise.
Stoic Patriot on November 29, 2012 at 5:38 PM
He should take a lesson from the great Calvin Coolidge and be silent.
besser tot als rot on November 29, 2012 at 5:40 PM
The government isn’t really good at administering justice. It’s not even good at protecting people. Government is only good at punishment and destruction.
Churches and other private groups should definitely push their positions. And the GOP should fight to allow any group to voice their position. But we need to avoid being painted as wanting to take away rights from huge blocks of voters. Again, maybe that could be solved with a change in messaging.
hawksruleva on November 29, 2012 at 5:41 PM
The reporter won’t let him. From then on, “Candidate ___ won’t reveal if his position on abortion includes denying women who were raped an option.”
cptacek on November 29, 2012 at 5:45 PM
I’d disagree about the government’s skill at administering justice. I was hearing just yesterday that crime rates are starting to approach 1950-level lows as a result of the broken-window policies that the GOP pushed in the 80s and have now had time to be fully implemented. I’d also disagree about being able to protect people given the number of terror attacks that it has foiled (see for both a listing of dumb luck and good work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foiled_Islamic_terrorist_plots_in_the_post-9/11_United_States). I would also say that the criminal justice system revolves around punishment.
As for being painted to want to take away rights, I agree with you there. That’s why when we advertise we’re pro-life, I’d stress that we want to protect the life of the unborn child. I’d show images of children in-utero in campaign commercials to highlight that fact. Everything should be messaged from that standpoint, rather than a standpoint of choice.
Stoic Patriot on November 29, 2012 at 5:47 PM
I haven’t bought into those positions – but women and homosexuals, by and large, have. Just like blacks believe we’re somehow out to “put them back in chains”, even though we’re the party of Lincoln, and Democrats are the party of Bull Connor. Right now, Democrats and the media do an excellent job of portraying us in a negative light. We know they’re going to do that. So what can we do to avoid that?
Maybe Stoic has a point – if candidates pushed a conservative message, they wouldn’t end up getting caught unprepared to answer a date-rape question. But honestly, the media will twist whatever answer we give on socon questions. Rubio’s answer on “the age of the earth” essentially matched Obama’s, but it’s already being used to paint him as some religious kook. That’s why I think we should stick to small government, freedom and liberty.
hawksruleva on November 29, 2012 at 5:49 PM
That would be a much better message. And if I thought the GOP could talk about issues in that manner, I’d be fine with it. But experience says we’re awful in explaining our positions, even the simple onees.
Couldn’t a PAC run that message, and leave the candidate talking about shrinking the government? Democrats don’t go ’round talking about growing the size of unions. But unions know that Democrats support them. Why do we force our candidates to voice positions that could hurt their chances of passing the laws we want?
hawksruleva on November 29, 2012 at 5:52 PM
I think the candidate himself needs to be making the case as well. That’s what inspires your base and turns out your voters — because not only is there an ad about it, but you know that in his heart he agrees with you.
I absolutely agree with you that we seem to get people who speak incompetently. But I don’t think we do ourselves much good on the shrinking the size of government rhetoric. It’s too abstract and doesn’t make an immediate case as to how someone’s life improves. When the left goes around saying that we take a sensible position and they then start calling it crazy, our candidate needs to be confrontational and say, “Of course I believe that! Don’t you? It seems like the obvious thing given reasons A, B, and C!” We need to start treating the Democrats like they’re nuts, rather than just people we respectfully disagree with.
Stoic Patriot on November 29, 2012 at 5:57 PM
The Jeffery Lord link: http://spectator.org/archives/2012/11/29/the-quisling-consultants
onlineanalyst on November 29, 2012 at 6:00 PM
What was the point of this article? If I’m correctly reading it, the author suggests that Romney lost because the GOP listens too much to Jim Demint in selecting “far- right” candidates… even though Demint pointedly refused to nominate a “more conservative” candidate in the 2012 primary, and endorsed Romney over McCain last time around…
strange logic…
cs89 on November 29, 2012 at 6:07 PM
Well, Given that Conservatives and small L libertarians are the real RINOs now that the Republican Party has moved so far left, I propose a new acronym for the liberals and squishes that run the Party now… And they might as well adopt it for the Party Brand while they are at it.
Democrats In All But Label Only.
Or DIABLOs for short.
Oh, and trade in the Elephant for a new animal totem.
I suggest they adopt this:
LegendHasIt on November 29, 2012 at 6:22 PM
I’m not either. These are the words you use to convey to the people the right message.
No need for god. We as a people respect the right to life. All innocent life has value. Life is not something that we as a people should be willing to destroy for nothing more than the comfort of some woman.
No abortion shall be legal with the exception of abortions to save the life of the mother. The mother’s life must be in material jeopardy. The life of the child must be certain to not survive emergency delivery. In essence, unless both lives are at risk, then no abortion.
astonerii on November 29, 2012 at 6:58 PM
Every law is morality. So no laws?
astonerii on November 29, 2012 at 6:59 PM
Primarily from large donors. But the voters, they did not find him to be such a good candidate they were willing to put money on the line. Of course, if you have a donations numbers list for the presidential candidates from 2000 through 2012 that shows Romney got more donors than other people, you can prove me wrong.
astonerii on November 29, 2012 at 7:03 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2