The Republican party will have to change some of its positions on traditional conservative “hot button” issues — or it’s not going to win national elections for a long time, warns a Republican associated with a conservative think tank.
It’s yet one more voice in the re-thinking of what the Republican party must do to recover from the drubbing the party and its presidential candidate Sen. John McCain received at the polls on Tuesday when Democrat Barack Obama was elected to the White House. GOPers now seem split between those who insist the party must be more conservative, or it won’t win future elections — and those who say its unyielding positions on some key issues won’t work in a 21st century America more diverse with a younger population increasingly unimpressed by political polarization techniques.
Australia’s Sydney Morning Herald reports:
THE Republican Party must abandon its “stringently right wing” positions on gay marriage, abortion and immigration or it could be banished to the political wilderness by the American people for decades, says the deputy director of a conservative think tank.
As the recriminations over the Republicans’ defeat in last week’s elections continued, the deputy director of the Hoover Institution, David Brady, said the party had moved too far to the right, leaving behind a significant proportion of its supporter base, and that more would leave unless the party returned to the centre.
If you followed the GOPers jumping ship during the McCain campaign, it’s clear that some of the Republican segments that left their party — for now at least — included some ideological descendants of Barry Goldwater and former President Ronald Reagan, moderate Republicans, some Republicans associated with the first President George Bush, and even some libertarians. More from the article:
“In order for the Republicans to win again they have to drop the anti-gay, anti-immigrant, strict pro-life, no-abortion social positions they have taken,” said Professor Brady, who is in Australia as a visiting fellow at the United States Studies Centre at Sydney University.
“They have to drop those things and move to the centre where the American voters are. Look at gay marriage – support for gay marriage in America is going up; it’s not going down. It’s a similar situation if you’re pro-life. The majority in America has been pro-choice for a while, and it’s not moving anywhere.”
Brady bases part of his conclusions on a survey:
Using a series of internet surveys to determine voter preferences, the Hoover Institution found that 8 per cent of the Republican base had shifted towards the Democratic Party since 2004.
“America used to be roughly divided along the lines of a third Republican, a third independent, and a third Democrat,” Professor Brady said. “Now it’s 35 per cent Democrat, 28 per cent Republican and the rest independent.This meant that the “base strategy” used in George Bush’s campaigns – mobilising the traditional Republican supporter base rather than winning over undecideds – was no longer a winning plan.
Similar comments have come from another prominent source: California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who argued in May for a “rebranding” of the Republican party.
The problem for those who argue for such changes: they themselves are branded RINOs (Republican In Name Only) by some staunchly partisan Republicans — but it’s admittedly a label hard to try and glue to anyone associated with the Hoover Institution.
Some Republicans in newspaper columns, on the Internet and talk radio now confidently predict that by 2010 the political pendulum will swing in the other direction due to traditional historic political see-saw shifts, political toe stubbing by Obama, and the likelihood that a lopsidedly Democratic Congress will invariably overreach and cause backlash.
But The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder makes a solid argument that 2010 won’t be the same as 1994. It’s worth to look at Ambinder’s reasoning:
Consider: Bill Clinton had no experience working with the House and Senate; he had to learn on the job and made some early mistakes in this regard. Obama, on the other hand, has a working knowledge of the legislative process, and has a whole host of allies within the Democratic caucus.
His political style also differs from Clinton’s in that he’s far less dramatic and not as caffeinated. That may play well with the American people and extend the “honeymoon” he will likely have with the bulk of the American people (excluding talk show hosts). AND:
In 1994, the realignment of the Southern states, which had happened on the presidential level in 1980, finally broke through on the Congressional level. The trends now are moving the other direction, with moderate Republicans in blue states being replaced by Democrats. (See: Shays, Christopher).
The Clinton White House lost the PR battle against Newt’s army and “Harry and Louise”. It’s hard (though not by any means impossible) to imagine the Obama communications department being similarly outmaneuvered, considering what we’ve seen from both sides in the current cycle.
That also ties in with Obama’s experience at the national level the past few years. He was based in Washington and has an understanding of the news media. Many of his responses, in media terms, were “cool” and low key versus the “hotter” ones coming from the Republican side. So what does this mean during a crunch issue?
More likely, if and when President Obama attempts to pass big-ticket items, the PR offensive coming from the White House on will be on the “shock and awe” side of overwhelming, if the recent campaign is any guide.
Bill Clinton was elected with 43% of the vote. Obama’s share of the popular vote is 53%, a clear majority. Psychologically, this matters a great deal to both sides and to the media.
Clinton squeaked through in 1992 due to Ross Perot making a big national splash. This year, Obama managed a solid win, stunned pundits with his use of the new media, and came out of the campaign as undamaged goods.
On the other hand, expectations for Obama remain high.
But, even so, if Obama’s past behavior is any indication, look for him and his associates to continually fine tune their operation while he’s in office.
If the Republicans don’t fine tune theirs — as Brady warns and Ambinder’s analysis suggests — the Democrats could be winning national elections for a while…
Cartoon by Pat Bagley, Salt Lake Tribune
UPDATE I: Look at this map that shows you at a glance America’s new political panorama.
UPDATE II: GOPer David Frum has some advice for the Republican party which is the antithesis of Brady’s. Former Democratic strategist Bob Shrum looks at Frum’s advice and writes:
Frum does pay lip service to the idea that Republicans need “new policies and a new tone.” But he would marry these to base appeals that would again lead the Republicans down the dirt road to defeat.
When I heard McCain’s graceful concession speech last Tuesday, I thought: Where has that guy been for the past few months? The McCain of election night would have been better for America—and he would have had a better chance to win American votes, indigenous or otherwise. Something like that is what a lot of Republicans are thinking and saying now. But are there enough of them to pull the party back from the brink? Instead, the party very well may follow Frum’s advice. If I were to put politics—and not country—first, my reaction would be this: Go ahead. Make my decade.
Read Shrum’s piece in its entirety.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.