Active Users:1212 Time:22/11/2024 08:34:16 PM
Good points all. Somehow I don't really think they'll take them to heart any time soon, though... Legolas Send a noteboard - 07/11/2012 08:00:56 PM
I believe, and I have repeated this point, that Obama was pushed forward too far, too fast. The Democratic Party was enthralled by a man who was, as Vice President Joe Biden put it, “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy”. He certainly didn’t have the experience to be President, though. He had been a one-term Illinois state senator, then a one-term United States Senator from Illinois, having conveniently skipped the other elected offices that one usually is expected to serve before aspiring to the US Senate. His record was scarce, with lots of absenteeism. His Administration, since he became President, has reflected this amateur status. I firmly attribute foreign policy successes to former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In the domestic sphere, Obama’s actions have undermined one another. How, for example, can you help encourage an increase in employment when you’ve just saddled employers with higher health care costs? How can you encourage manufacturers to return to the United States while pushing for rules that make it easier to unionize and keeping the corporate tax levels where they are?

I totally agree with your first point in particular - those meteoric careers rarely work out well for anyone in politics, whether it's a party in a parliamentary system that sees its seats quintuple in one election, or a politician who becomes president with so little experience. Bandwagons have a way of leaving those jumping on them with a hangover.
For good or for ill, however, Obama has won another four years. I sincerely hope that the Republican Party has learned some important lessons, because if they haven’t, they are doomed to repeated defeat and, ultimately, collapse as a political party. This would be a catastrophe for America because a new credible opposition (and/or split in the Democratic Party) would take time to form, and in that time there would be no voice to question the DNC’s platform and goals. Regardless of political leanings, the idea of a one-party system for any length of time should be disturbing to anyone who values the democratic process and representative government.

I think the talk about the demise of the Republican Party is a little premature... only eight years ago people were saying much the same about the Democratic Party. And it could be just me, but I don't exactly have the impression the Democratic Party is particularly strong, or that such a split as you mention is so far-fetched. On issues like gay marriage, the social conservatives are on the losing side of history, but more generally speaking, the Blue Dogs and conservative Dems are the ones who won the Senate majority and the presidency now, just like in 2006 and 2008. Whenever the Democrats get too cocky, they risk losing those votes.
So what, then, are the lessons for the Republican Party as I see them? I’ll tell you:

1. Being anti-immigrant is a losing strategy. Unless you’re the sort of person Elizabeth Warren lied about being, most of your ancestors were born somewhere other than the Americas. Some came on the Mayflower, others through Ellis Island, still others on slave ships. Almost all of us are the descendants of immigrants. Furthermore, we now have millions of illegal immigrants who have largely crossed our southern border, and it’s been going on for several generations so many of their children and grandchildren are citizens (read: voters). Our southern neighbors are Hispanic nations, and many of our citizens are Hispanic. Any strategy for dealing with the problem of illegal immigration (because it is a problem; undocumented workers put burdens on communities, law enforcement, health care providers, and strain the domestic labor market in some industries) must recognize that you have to deal with non-criminal illegals with a sense of humanity and decency. Hell, even Newt Gingrich recognized that. And yet, all Romney did to try to influence the Hispanic vote was rant about Cuba (which might have helped him with a very narrow demographic among Cuban exiles in Florida, but doesn’t seem to have been enough for him to have carried the state) and then point out that Barack Obama failed. Well, okay, but Mitt, what the Hell were you going to do differently? Romney never said anything. He was ominously silent. For all we know, he was going to solve the problem of illegal immigration by lighting immigrants on fire with flamethrowers. He made the first part of a winning argument (Obama lied to you and used you) but then he didn’t follow it up with anything of his own. This was more indicative of his largely negative strategy, but it’s a losing one. Many Hispanics should, by rights, be Republican voters. Many are religious, they by and large have a strong work ethic and they usually side with Republicans on economic issues. I fervently hoped that Romney would pick Rubio, and that Rubio would force the Republicans to address the immigration issues directly, openly and honestly, and come up with a decent solution that didn’t involve mass deportations or other harsh measures. He didn’t, perhaps because he didn’t know how to sell immigration reform to his own party or the country, but it was a mistake. Republicans need to recognize that if they treat illegals like human beings with the same hopes and dreams that brought their own ancestors to America, they need not cede the Hispanic vote to the Democrats. In fact, had Romney done that, I think we would have seen both Nevada and Florida turn red last night.

And Colorado, and perhaps even New Mexico. Hell, even California isn't the liberal powerhouse it seems if the Republicans ever start getting the minority votes that, based on those voters' actual political views, one might expect them to get.
3. Inflexible positions may play to the base, but they breed defeat. Grover Norquist and his tax pledges have done more harm than good, as have any attempts at “loyalty oaths” that require Republicans to adhere to certain positions. The only political party that ever enforced that level of discipline was the Communist Party, and I doubt the Republicans want to be compared to the communists. To say that Republicans would not permit any tax raises on anyone even if there were $0.10 of tax increases for every $0.90 of spending cuts is not just bad politics, it’s stupid. Politics by nature is about compromise. Each grandiose statement, each Grover Norquist loyalty pledge, each unequivocal promise, erodes the ability of the Party to maneuver in these instances. Romney essentially admitted as much when he refused to go into specifics about which deductions he would eliminate in the Tax Code. Of course, that by itself was a tactical error because it essentially allowed people to worry about the most popular deductions being removed before they knew how a rate reduction would affect their tax liability.

It's interesting how the Republican primaries seem to hinder the Republicans more in the general election than the Democratic ones do... part of that is what I said above, how so many of the Democratic votes and their only way to victory lies in the centre, so even in the Democratic primaries, trying to move to the left will probably lose you more votes than it gains you. And of course Democrats don't have the same near-religious adherence to certain principles that many conservatives have, nor a saint like Reagan to personify those principles. Joel likes to say herding liberals is much like herding cats, but looked at this way, that might actually have its advantages.

Well, that’s really about all I have to say.

I've one thing to add: Snowe vs. Rodham Clinton (yes, I'm stubborn on that point, if it was up to me I'd drop the Clinton entirely) in 2016. It would be so nice to have an election with two candidates to get excited about, instead of zero, for once.
Reply to message
My own thoughts on the election results - 07/11/2012 06:12:26 PM 1160 Views
I feel bad - 07/11/2012 06:51:03 PM 746 Views
Well said. - 07/11/2012 06:56:36 PM 852 Views
Romney might have been a good president - 07/11/2012 07:10:14 PM 769 Views
Good points all. Somehow I don't really think they'll take them to heart any time soon, though... - 07/11/2012 08:00:56 PM 812 Views
Re: Hillary. - 07/11/2012 08:13:25 PM 719 Views
A lot of people seem to think she will. - 07/11/2012 08:26:57 PM 792 Views
Um - 07/11/2012 09:50:08 PM 726 Views
Oh. I must've missed that. - 07/11/2012 10:03:28 PM 709 Views
Snowe? Seriously? Chris Christie is far more likely. - 07/11/2012 09:52:25 PM 714 Views
Chris Christie *was* far more likely. I expect his party to eat him alive after Sandy. - 07/11/2012 09:59:17 PM 880 Views
Yes, but Christie gained the respect of a lot of moderates for that. - 07/11/2012 10:20:08 PM 719 Views
Moderates don't vote in the primaries *NM* - 07/11/2012 10:21:50 PM 403 Views
Enough of them vote to ensure a Christie victory in a GOP primary. - 08/11/2012 05:09:24 AM 698 Views
It should help him - 07/11/2012 10:22:34 PM 667 Views
I doubt it. - 08/11/2012 03:20:54 PM 700 Views
did you see jon stewart's take on the rove meltdown? - 08/11/2012 05:51:53 PM 716 Views
Re: I doubt it. - 09/11/2012 03:22:23 AM 759 Views
Re: Hillary. - 08/11/2012 02:46:57 AM 1154 Views
Very interesting post, Tom. - 08/11/2012 06:13:24 PM 819 Views

Reply to Message