Oh, what I would do to not hear that phrase anymore!
First, the Republicans lost one election. They're 0-for-1 in the last one, but 2-for-the-last-3, 5-for-8, 7-for-11, and 9-for-15. In a two-team sport, that ain't bad.
Second, they weren't going to win this one no matter what they did. America arbitrarily decided in early 2006 that they were tired of the war, which cost them the 2006 elections. Epic presidential incompetence and an also-epic financial collapse doomed the GOP in 2008.
But liberals beware. When Republicans say that America is still a center-right nation, they're right. The only thing they need to do any differently is make sure they have an intelligent-sounding candidate at the wheel.
In easy times, it's not difficult to turn gay marriage into an end-of-the-world issue, because everything else is going OK. With somebody like Mitt Romney in charge the last four years (to erase the competency problem) and particularly the last four months (for the sake of the economy) Democrats would not have waltzed to the White House. They didn't win because people suddenly demand an end to the death penalty or harsher CAFE standards. They won largely as a referendum on the current government.
So the Republicans' return is a two-step program. (1) Choose somebody smart, like people who aren't named W. or Palin. (2) Dust off the 2004 playbook. John McCain didn't really talk about gay marriage or abortion. He didn't make us believe that electing Barack Obama meant we'd get hit by terrorists again. Those things wouldn't have won him the election, but they would have helped. And if the Republicans want to come back in 2010, or 2012, or 2016, they better have the right game plan.
(And they're not bad strategists, so for God's sake don't count them out.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
This is an excellent analysis. I'm so sick of hearing that every single election in which power changes hands between the parties is "a referendum" or "the death of the (insert losing party here) party as we know it."
ReplyDeleteCouple of questions:
What exactly do you take "this is a center-right nation" to mean? In that TDS clip that I (okay, you) posted, Bill O'Reilly talks about it in the context of "traditionalism." But then Jon points out that the real American tradition is progress, gradually expanding freedoms, etc. That's not to say that the "center-right" statement isn't true, it just seems so vague...
Now that you've given us the Republican strategy to return to power, what do you think Democrats need to do to hold onto it?
With regards to your second question, Katie, I thin that Nate Silver makes a strong argument for simply making sure that Barack gets his face into as many households as possible as often as possible. Granted, this strategy assumes a decent four years (really only two or at most three years until the campaign starts up again) under Obama, but the assumption that he would give me a better four years is why I supported Barack in the first place.
ReplyDeleteI'll probably address each issue with a different comment.
ReplyDeleteOn the first issue (center-right nation) with regard to it being vague, I say fair enough. It is a pretty vague term.
What I mean when I say it is that, were it left to the people to vote on in the ballot box, they would probably choose to:
ban gay marriage (but not civil unions),
restrict abortions (but not ban them),
make English the official language,
put more restrictions on immigration,
increase defense spending,
cut taxes,
generally accept a stronger relationship between religion and government,
vote for harsher penalties on crimes, especially drug-related,
implement more drilling, etc.
That said, the American people do have some leftist inclinations. Generally they want to take action on the environment (until they see specifics, anyway), promote universal health care, restrict trade and promote protectionism (especially if the word "jobs" is involved), and leave social security untouched.
All in all, when voters voted in 2000, it was largely a referendum on the Clinton administration and specifically the Lewinsky scandal, and they brought in a guy who made family values a headlining issue on the trail. In 2004, Bush continued to use family values issues (gay marriage, etc.) but also make national security a major issue.
In 2008, what issues made people choose Obama over McCain? Hardly any. Health care probably helped and the war was a factor, though not nearly to the degree it was in the 2006 elections. But largely, if you asked independents and moderates why they supported Obama (thankfully, I had an abundance of such anecdotal evidence available to me in suburban Missouri), they nearly all said something that boiled down to "I want these guys out." So I'm not sure that the Democratic position on the issues is fully resonating yet, and while Obama may change this, I think what the nation said in this election was that, even if they think Republicans have the better stances on issues, their execution has been so astoundingly poor that, to an extent, they're ready to give someone else a chance to do a better job at executing a worse agenda, if you know what I mean.
(And of course the economy was an issue, but I think it still falls under the "get new guys in there please" argument as opposed to saying "the Democrats' economic policies are surely more likely to bring about growth in the economy.")
The second issue is much harder to address because it is much more dependent on what goes down in the next four years. If Iran nuked Israel tomorrow (they won't - maybe a post for another time should be about how Iran is dangerous, but still far less dangerous than they'd like to make us think) then anything I write here would be meaningless.
ReplyDeleteThat said, Obama has a rare tool - he's super-popular. I think I read that he's got the highest approval rating for an incoming president in, well, a long time. And I'll put it this way: I don't think I'm alone when I say that if he posted an mp3 of himself reading from the dictionary over at change.gov, I'd download it. Or as someone else put it: for the first time, if I saw naked pictures of the president and first lady, I wouldn't need a trash can in the first five seconds.
I guess what my espresso-driven rant is trying to say is that Obama can use his popularity to spin things to his advantage in a way few other presidents could, and that people are eager to hear him to it (for better or for worse). In both of these ways Bill Clinton was phenomenal, and Barack Obama, at least for now, is better.
The underrated comparison between WJC and Obama shouldn't end there, either. With a Congress like he's got (and which will apparently grow in 2010 if conditions stay the same) he can push through just about anything he wants. The temptation to drift leftward will be hard to resist, but like his Democratic predecessor, he must continue his emphasis on governing from the center.
Nowhere will this dilemma be stronger than in the nomination of Supreme Court justices. Barack Obama has full control over who gets appointed to that bench, and he's pledged to appoint pro-Roe justices. This will probably be the most controversial issue he faces in the first two years. "Those guys like to legislate from the bench" will become the new Republican slogan. Obama's image will be hit; his job will be to contain the damage. (And though I haven't looked into it, I'm pretty sure he can't compromise by appointing even one anti-Roe justice because there's just not enough wiggle room there. And that would have been his best move. I suppose he could still appoint a pro-Roe justice who is otherwise rather centrist).
But to get back to the question, really the Democrats need to do two things: govern from the center, first of all. And second, they must control the message. If the economy improves, they have to find a way to take credit. If it doesn't, they have to find a way to tie it back to Bush policies. Rinse and repeat for other issues.
Finally, and maybe I'll post something later about this, but I'm curious as I'm thinking about it, whether Obama's 2012 bid could survive a terrorist attack during his first term. Certainly the odds would be against him, (1) because terrorism is a Republican issue and (2) he would seem weak on terror, but that doesn't mean he'd have no chance. But that's for later.
(Oh, and going back to what the Democrats need to do: Shut Nancy Pelosi up. Like her or hate her, everytime she opens her mouth, a donkey eats a peanut. Sorry for the terrible metaphor.)
I know this post is ancient history, but let me also add that the Democrats need to stoke this dissent in the Republican ranks. Because if their differences fade then the 41 or so Republicans in the Senate will learn to act as a team pretty quickly.
ReplyDelete