The Republican Party Has to Reform Itself
Ed Morrissey published a good post over at Captain’s Quarters. He is one of the Conservative bloggers, who is not afraid to speak out against the Republican party when he does not agree with its policies.
The Republicans have indeed left reform in the dust, with notable and honorable exceptions like Tom Coburn and a handful of other highly active Republican officeholders. The explosion of earmarks over the last three sessions of Congress have stripped them of the mantle of fiscal responsibility — really one of the keys to Republican identity — and the pursuit of lobbyists has left a bad taste in the mouths of voters. It led to the Jack Abramoff scandal, an “unforced error”, as Glenn Reynolds put it, but one completely predictable when politicians mix earmarks with lobbyist power.No doubt Iraq played a significant part of the decision by Americans last night. However, one has to wonder if Americans would have lost confidence in Republican leadership in the war if they had not lost confidence in their ability to keep a clean Congress first. As I write in the NRO piece, I don’t recall the last time America has switched control of Congress during wartime, and I think that’s pretty significant.
Republicans have to go back to the basics — and I don’t mean the base. They need to settle on some First Principles before they calculate how to convince voters to trust them with governance again. Republicans have traditionally stood for fiscal discipline and a strong defense above all other issues. The GOP needs to return to those values first and keep them foremost when creating their strategies for 2008. They need to elect clean leadership, and Tom Coburn’s phone should be ringing off the hook this morning if Republicans want to get serious about rehabilitation.
They have two years to atone for whatever mistakes led to their defeat last night. They’ll need every single day to rebuild the trust lost from the 1994 revolution.
I have said the same thing well before the elections. The Republican Party has to reform itself. I am not sure what to think of today’s Republican Party but I know one thing and that it is not ruled by conservatives, well by social conservatives perhaps but that is about it.
As I see it, the Republican Party has to re-focus. To my conservative brethren in the U.S. I would say never forget that conservatism is about small government in all areas: not just economically, but also about what one does in one’s own bedroom / how one chooses to live (and die – remember Schiavo – for that matter).
Lastly, above all else, stop discouraging debate. Instead, encourage it. Both between parties and ideologies and within the, in this, Republican Party itself. As a friend reminded me earlier today, debate is healthy and necessary to keep oneself honest.
33 Responses to “The Republican Party Has to Reform Itself”
To entrust the running of the government to people who hate the government will always be a mistake. When you get to see or read what Republicans say on their “home turf”, speaking solely to a group of their own it almost always comes down to bashing government and whining about taxes. Any taxes. That’s no way to run a government of a modern nation. It’s all the Republicans know.
I gotta ask
do you even believe half of the things you say Jim?
Jim. Conservatives don’t ‘hate’ the government. we simply think that big government is wrong. we believe that the government should provide people with the freedom to live like they want to live, to be the best they want and can be.
lol interested that was almost what i wanted to say. seriously, it looks like some kind of new slogan for ‘liberals’. it’s unbelievably intellectually dishonest.
Michael, great piece. I’ve been saying the same thing about the Republicans for years now actually. I’ve had real trouble voting for any Republican recently not because I’m a lockstep Democrat but because the good traits I once saw in the Republicans have disappeared in all but a few. Fiscal responsibility, which would include not introducing defecit raising tax cuts when already running a substantial defecit but largely is based on earmarks, is out the window. Keeping government out of private lives is even farther out than fiscal responsibility.
These are issues that I used to side with the Republicans on. They are issues that I now find more connection with Democrats than Republicans on. If the Republicans want to be in the running for my vote again, they need to get back to these core beliefs. I highly doubt my vote is the only one they could win back by remembering what they used to stand for.
I think Captain Ed has it right. Its the middle, stupid. The far left and right will always vote with the party, their extremism leaves them with little choice. Its moderates and independents who will decide elections and Pelosi and Reed are well aware of this. They understand what the voters want- serious people tackling the serious issues the country faces. Oversight, yes, revenge no.
They get it. The republicans never did
I haven’t seen a full analysis yet, but from what I’m hearing, I’m not sure that the majority of Americans are wanting to back off on the social issues though. I know there were a lot of ballot initiatives where voters came down on the side of the social conservative position. Of course, it might be more nuanced than making a conclusion that most Americans really want social legislation: for example, with gay marriage initiatives, I think the majority probably favor civil unions but want marriage to be defined as the traditional heterosexual union.
But if I’m correct in that the voters turned out in support of socially conservative issues, one thing that this does show is that the national votes were against the GOP, not for the Democrats, and that the voters weren’t necessarily against the GOP due to excessive social legislation. I’m not trying to make the case that this is how it should be, but just saying that what you guys believe is correct might not really reflect the views of the majority of Americans.
In the long run, the Democratic Party will become the dominate party in the US much like it is the overwhlemingly dominate party in places like Mass., DC, and California. If you want to see the future, look up the results from the District of Columbia or from Manhatten.
As long as 90% of blacks, 75% of Hispanics, and 75% of Asians vote Democratic no matter who is running, the Republicans stand very little chance of winning. This is even more important since those demographic groups are getting larger while the demographic group of white middle class church goers (an overwhelmingly Republican group) keeps getting smaller.
What can the Republicans do when the Democrats won a majority of both the Jewish vote and the Muslim vote.
There is no position that the Republicans can take that will help them win in places like California, Maryland, Rhode Island, etc. How does talk of fiscal responsbility going to play in Maryland or California?
Also, all the talk of divide government from the left will be forgotten in 2008 when Hillary Clinton is running for President with the support of Speak Pelosi and Majority Lead Reid.
The Democrats are unlikey to become the long-term dominant party, simply becuase they are too fractous. Even this election was much more an anti-Republican movement than a pro-Democratic movement, as they posts on this site certainly supported.
And the exact reasons you list for claiming a Democratic juggernaught are the actual reasons it won’t happen. As long as the Democtratic party is the party of the Liberal coastal enclaves, and continues to look down their noses at middle America, they will struggle with being anything other than the opposition party.
IMHO.
C Stanley, I think you’re right. As the dems offered no new ideas on the two big issues- the Iraq war and the War on Terror, the vote was a protest and not against values, against a do nothing congress unable to check an out of control president.
While the big issues for value voters remain, gay marriage, stem cell and abortion, they no longer fire up even a majority of those voters, and will remain of secondary importance until something changes in Iraq.
Reed and Pelosi will work with the Iraq Study Group, as will the president, who is out of options. Enough social conservatives are prepared to admit that at this stage a united nation is more important than a Christian one.
This will be a good period for the country.
As usual, I think AustinRoth has nailed it. I’m also curious: does anyone know what percentage of the black vote was garnered by Steele? Even though he didn’t win, he came awfully close, and I’m guessing that he must have fractured the Dem’s lock on the black vote (which of course was due to some MD blacks feeling that the party of LBJ has been taking them for granted lately).
I agree with that completely.
Well said.
The sad thing is, due to them controling all branches, they did not feel the need to constantly be true to their own principles. This should work as a wake-up call and a (constant) reminder that they will lose once they abandon conservatism.
Some liberals say that it shows that conservatism has lost. It has not, for such a view would mean that Bush et al, form a conservative administration and that US Senate and House were led conservative as well.
That is simply not true. The Bush administraiton is not conservative and Senate and House supported Bush in everything he did, at least in the far majority of cases.
Stanley,
If you look at the Baltimoresun.com, Steele received 20% of the vote in both Prince Georges county and Balitmore City. My guess is that Steele received less than 20% of the black vote in Maryland.
I also wonder if the lack of issues during the election was a function of McCain-Feingold. In the past, the NRA, NAACP, NARAL, etc would have been running adds aimed at single issue voters. Yet, when the ads and issue setting was left to the party organizations under McCain-Feingold in came down to personanlity based attack ads.
If a Pelosi-led Congress passes some sort of McCain-Feingold II along with public campaign financing, then the US will more of a one party nation than Cuba.
As a besides; C.S. I love it how people address you by your family name. “Milady…”
LOL, well, I suppose some people just do that as a matter of course but there have been some commenters who’ve assumed that I’m male. Apparently some people think that ‘conservative woman’ is an oxymoron, because women couldn’t possibly accept the political philosophy of the neanderthals who want to subjugate us
Excellent post Michael. Thank you.
This is an odd comment so shortly after demonstrating just how divided the GOP is. I assume you mean fractious:
Hmmmmmmm. I don’t think either party has a monopoly on that quality.
We will see how the new congress shakes out, if the Democrats show fiscal responsibility the Republicans need to follow suit. Tax cuts with massive deficit spending don’t cut it. Fiscal responsibility is one reform they can work on. Doing away with earmarks, is another reform.
The Democrats have talked about tougher ethics rules, that also is a reform the Republicans should go after. We will see, I have seen a lot of press that Republicans do realize that it was their actions that got them into trouble, but they have to show that they have learned.
“Milady” Stanley? Oh wow, royalty in our midst! I will have to learn to watch my language;)
Michael: This is an excellent post!!!
Unlike Greendreams’ fantasies, conservatives aren’t fractious. We don’t engage in circular firing squads as do liberals.
Much of the GOP base voted reluctantly yesterday, I imagine.
The sense of disconnect between the Congressional leadership and many conservatives is palpable.
Personally, I don’t care about gay marriage. How does what consenting adults want to do in their homes affect me?
The economy affects me! Spending beyond our means affects me! Terrorism affects me (as it does all of us…tho liberals want to deny it c.f. Michael Moore: “There is no terrorist threat.”)
The leadership lost faith with the base, and was punished. And rightly so.
Michael’s post is dead-on: This vote represents a call for reform.
GreenDreams – hang around a while and you will quickly be able to tell which posts I ran through a spellchecker, and which I didn’t.
LOL
Marlowecan thank you very much and good comment. Indeed, it is a call for reform and it seems that Bush, quite surprisingly I must say, seems to understand that as well.
I don’t have time to write a lot but google the phrase ‘Reagan “government is the problem”. Reagan’s speech where he used that phrase was somewhat more nuanced but many took the concept and ran with it a bit too far. Especially pay attention to the Hoover Institute piece by Dsouza that shows up in that search.
In addition check out what comes up with leninist cato and consider it in light of the current Republican strategy on Social Security.
My guess is that Steele received less than 20% of the black vote in Maryland.
Cardin received 74% of the black vote. And that was after Steele and Ehrlich hired 6 busloads of homeless people from Philly to hand out inaccurate “voter guides” with a sample ballot portraying them as Democrats in the two largest black areas— Prince George’s county and Baltimore City! Looks like not too many people were fooled, as Ehrlich lost as well. Some of the exurbs had low turnout, which also may have led to their mutual loss.
I don’t know anything about Tom Coburn, the elected official Captain Ed considers a good template for modern Republicans.
Does anyone more knowledgible have any thoughts about this?
BYG:
Coburn is controversial and not popular in many circles for his stance on social issues, but I’m sure from the context of Ed Morrissey’s article that he’s praising his fiscal conservatism, as described in this wiki article:
C Stanley is right about Coburn. Morrissey is praising his fiscal conservatism and not addressing his very hardcore social conservatism.
Hehe…Another reason that today is a historic day, Jim S and I agree on something
The Republicans are toast, they will retrench and go more to the MIDDLE after the wins of Sestak, Shuler, Webb and Tester. If the Republicans go to the Center I predict an independent run by the Buchanan crowd with somebody like Brownback. The RR cannot except a Maverick McCain or Guliani, a Brownback would be like a Perot. CSPAN had Brent Bozell and other delusional Rightwingers speaking today in Washington. I don’t see this wing of the Republican going for bipartisanship.
MvdG:
The problem, though, is that all those people were calling themselves conservatives throughout. And many who call themselves conservatives now, in a position to know what those people were doing, voted for them anyway.
Besides fiscal responsibility, is there anything more basic to the fundamental conservative philosophy than a belief in checks and balances? But that didn’t happen either.
I’m no fan of GWB, but I think it’s rather disingenuous for “true” conservatives now to be blaming him for all these failures as a result of his alleged failure to be conservative. I’ll grant there were conservatives criticizing him fairly early in the game, but there were a lot of other self-identified conservatives who were abetting then and want to disown him now.
Politics can be a bitch.
C Stanley–
Thanks fo rthe tip–I’ll look him up in the Wikipedia.
For the last several years conservatism in the Republican party was hijacked by a cult of personality. Insecurity about really having the majority of the population with them resulted in a massive game of Follow The Leader.
There’s lots of talk of moving to the middle — is a third, middle party possible to come on the scene? Something like Canada’s dominant Liberal party (though not at the moment, due to scandal), and Britain’s Labour party?
Frankly, I think the best overall thing for this country would be a Congress with no majority whatsoever, but rather a coalition of parties having to hammer out compromise legislation. How refreshing that would be.
I think you have a point, jjc, but still, what should an ideologue do when the party that generally aligns with his/her beliefs shifts away from that philosophy? In our two party system, if the opposing party is even farther away from one’s philosophical leanings, a voter is really caught between a rock and a hard place. Where I think your criticism applies most is toward people like Rush Limbaugh, who now admits that he’s been “carrying water” for elected officials who don’t deserve his support. That is highly disingenuous, but I have a harder time blaming people like myself who didn’t believe in the candidates that we voted for but chose them as the lesser of two evils.