Republican party responds
 

Here is what I just dont get about the Republican party.

After their crushing electoral defeat, they wisely recognized the value of a net based grass roots program.

So they unveiled theirs today:

RNC: Republican For A Reason

The highlight....a video featuring Ronald Reagan, GHW Bush and GW Bush...two presidents who governed when most net viewers werent born or too young to vote and certainly dont remember...and the current president with the lowest approval ratings in history.

What are they thinking? Where are the new faces (even Palin)...where are the new ideas?

If they had any brains about them, they'd utilize names like Lincoln not Bush.

The Republican party has an opportunity to return to real conservatism, but the fact of the matter is that the neoconservatives and evangelicals still run the show. My hope is that Obama takes out the next GOP empty suit in 2012 and then 2016 becomes the opportunity for the return to conservatism. I've never been privy to a debate between a true progressive and a true conservative. I look forward to that possibility.

Seriously, reagan, bush and gwbush? that's the hope of the republican party? they are a reason to be republican? Seriously?

sooo many names, so many MUCH better presidents (reagan is possibly up there, depends on what you're looking for) and they pick the 3 most recent? wow.

i'm with will, here's to 2016 being the year of a return to 'conservatism' and not 'right wing agenda, fark anyone not in church and voting to ban everything"

and party of ideas..wow. hasn't been that in at least 10-12 yrs..

Okay, let me get this straight...the Republicans are trying to grow grassroots using such inspiring tidbits as: war, war, war, and...oh...tax cuts.

"Building Our Future"

"Republican for a Reason"

Indeed. :expressionless:

"And I'm confident.... That our best days.... Are behind us."
--GOP

it's quite sad when Karl Rove of all people is actually the lonely voice of reason that I hear on the GOP side.

I don't mean this disrespectfully, but you don't get it because you are not the target audience.

Republican's won 5 of the last 7 Presidential elections prior to this one for a reason. They need to revisit the foundational strength of the party. New ideas and new party leaders grow from a strong foundation. That is the massage.

The concern about the Republican Party from Democrats is somewhat intriguing. Why do you care? Why not focus on the Democratic Party agenda? Why are people talking about 2012, when there is so much to be done today?

it's also a reflection of the conflict within the republicans concerning relative power.
this litany of floating heads speaks to different factions in different ways---the party is clearly saddled with them, like it or not, even as the mythologies which enframe various of them are continually being revised--away from the sycophantic national review hagiography of reagan for example, now that the economic ideology for which he stood--not that it or anything else was his idea--has het the wall.

i don't think the way forward for the republicans is straightforward--there is always the option of refusing to take seriously what has happened to their political and ideological position thanks in significant measure to the last 8 years---and personally i rather hope that they opt for denial, because it will grind them faster and harder into irrelevance, leaving them with only the hope of some catastrophic fuck up to save them.
it'd be a messianic way to go.
it'd also be ridiculous.

ace...I know I'm not the target audience.

My interest is in political advocacy as a spectator sport...and I just dont get it.

Creating a new grassroots initiative makes sense. It was a large part of Obama's success.

But presumably a web based initiative is to attract the 18-35 demograhpic that both parties need as the foundation for the future.

And to focus it on a guy who left office when the oldest among this demographic were maybe 15 yrs old or to focus on the president they know and has the lowest approval ratings in history just seems like strange way to attrack younger voters.

But its your party!

I have seen or heard this type of comment frequently since the election, and I wonder if people think this is a unique phenomenon? Personally I have never been in an organization that did not have internal conflict, especially after a butt whipp'n

Clearly different factions of the party got different messages from the McCain defeat. McCain supporters may blame Palin, the economic crisis, or campaign finance issue and then see solutions in terms of those issues. I see the problem, and I think the base will as well, as a problem of failing to act on core principles and selecting candidates with consistent records grounded in those core principles.
-----Added 13/11/2008 at 12 : 31 : 20-----
I am happy that the party is not taking a condescending approach to the 18-35 year-old demographic. If the party says - this is who we are, and this is why you should join our cause - that is good enough for me. If others think you have to - sort of hide your message in what people think is popular to 18 year-olds, I think they underestimate the electorate and young voters. But that is me, I have never been a populist nor do I think like one.

well, ace, in the main on this one we're talking about the same strategic situation, but you assume there is a unified set of principles that unite economic conservative, neo-cons (foreign policy oriented types), social conservatives, evangelical protestants, etc. and i don't. i see a language that enabled the various factions to talk about the same general ideas, and that this language is now a Real Problem for the right. i think it's more generative as a way to think about this analytically---but i'm also looking at this as a chess game that other people are playing. and i admit up front to being interested in watching the game itself collapse--but also in how that collapse is avoided.

it's an interesting time to watch the republicans, particularly if there is no deus-ex-machina handed them as they try to figure out how to move next.

the democrats would not have the same problems---they never opted for the illusion of unity and identity--that's why the republicans are hoisted by their own petard (nice phrase, eh?) in a special way...

ace...I would suggest that it is not condescending to look forward and focus on new ideas and fresh faces rather than an old Cold War icon that may of that age (18-35) have little or no connection to.

Its not hiding your message...its making it relevant to a new generation of voters.

A friend of mine from our MPM days at GW Univ....a conservative republican who is a party activist ...is pulling her hair out these days in trying to get the party to look beyond Reagan and be more forward thinking in their outreach.

It sounds to me, if you are representative of the base, that such an approach has little appeal.

Maybe I can finally pull her away from the darkside..if for no other reason than out of frustration with the base's myopia!

this video (and ace's defense of it) are among the primary reasons I'll never be a Republican. This constant idea that the past was better than the present and "going back to the old ways" rings so hollow to me. I think there is ALWAYS a better way to do something, and I'll always side with the candidate who is interested in making changes rather than reverting to the status quo

I'm not a Democrat, but... a strong opposition is healthy for a democracy. And I like it when the USA has a healthy democracy, as a matter of personal taste.

See, my problem with this video (not that the video is the nuts & bolts of the program, yet it does represent the most inspiring and sensational aspects of it) is the intertwining of war (and victory) and tax cuts as the focus.

I mentioned this in my earlier post.

Does the party actually want to go back to Regan and the Bushes? I think if the Republicans have an opportunity to reinvent itself and to get a stronger, younger base, they should be forthright with going back to the basics.

Does this not include fiscal conservatism?

Tax cuts and war at the focus. Really?

How is that federal debt doing?

How is that military budget these days?

The Republicans need a strong base of politicians who actually know what they're doing financially.

How is the Republican track record financially since Regan?

In my opinion, the GOP in late 2008 reminds me most of the Labour Party in England in the early 1980s. The Labour Party at that time found itself out of touch with the rest of England in part because it was wholly captive to its strongest constituencies - especially unions. In 1983, they put forward the Labour Party election manifesto (which actually matters in the U.K., as opposed to the utterly ignored party platforms here in the U.S.) which clearly reflected their far-left, out-of-touch views. In a perfect example of dry British humor, the manifesto has been known ever since as "the longest suicide note in history."

As you probably know, Thatcher thereafter entrenched her position in Parliament and stayed there for many more years. Labour didn't recover until a new generation of leaders (i.e. Blair and Brown), no longer utterly beholden to the traditional Labour constituencies and willing to embrace new ideas, emerged.

As I see it, the GOP is Labour in '83. The party has become regional - strong in much of the deep south, but weakening everywhere else - and hasn't come to grips with changing times, changing demographics, and the out-of-touch failures of conservative governing over the last decade. As moderate GOP representatives are picked off all over the map, the remaining elected members are all hard-core ideologues who truly believe that their real problem is not being right-wing enough.

Obviously, these situations aren't exactly alike, and I have no idea what the future holds. But if Labour's history serves as an example, the GOP is going to have to take a long look at itself during an extended time out of power and emerge with new leadership and innovative ideas.

It would be foolish to underestimate the Republicans' ability to win future elections. They will wrap themselves up in the flag and paint the opposition as unpatriotic and godless socialists, marxists or commies. Their base will be fiscal and social conservatives along with the religious right.

National elections are more of a personality contest than anyhing to do with issues anyway. Young people got fired up this election but I don't think that will always be the case in the future. The party in power is blamed for any economic or national defense failures. If this economic collapse continues to get worse by 2012 then the Democrats may have problems holding on to the white house.

Does anyone really think that Bill Clinton is responsible for the dot com boom in the 90's or George Bush for the current Wall Street meltdown? Elections are sometimes won or lost based on things that are mostly out of their control. Our polititians currently seem to be advocating more bailouts for people and industries suffering from the economic collapse. I wonder how far they can go or if it is even possible to avoid another deep recession or depression?

There is and there isn't. At the risk of being overly simplistic and stating the obvious - at a base level every normal law abiding loyal American has some common principles, those principles that make us Americans. There are base level principles that make people Republicans or Democrats. Within the the "universal set" that defines a group, there are subsets that separates those within a group. the question is can those subsets focus on what is most important. And actually, isn't that the question Obama is asking of all Americans at this time, to set aside differences and focus on commonality?


I actually thought Ross Perrot and his Presidential runs was a greater threat to the Republican party than the McCain defeat. In 1992 Perrot won about 20% of the vote and in my view was the reason Clinton got elected and in 1996 Perrot got 8% hurting Dole's bid. The party recovered from the Perrot third party threat in part with the contract with America, in 1994. The McCain defeat is nothing in comparison to the 90's.
-----Added 14/11/2008 at 10 : 26 : 47-----
Marketing. I get it. Package your message real pretty so it sells. I clearly don't have the mentality to run a political party.

I don't think we should ever look beyond those leaders from our past who made this country great. there are a few Presidents that are worthy to be singled-out as role models for this country and future leaders. FDR and Kennedy are two Democrats that I think are worthy and don't think we should look beyond.
-----Added 14/11/2008 at 10 : 32 : 58-----
Are you suggesting that there are no lessons to be learned from history? I don't think the past was better, but I do think there are reasons that we continually get better. If we occasionally forget those reasons, we need to be reminded.

What do you do to look for inspiration? When you lack confidence or are uncertain about the future, feeling weak what do you do? Even if you don't admit it, subconsciously you know you look to the past for inspiration.

I remember in the aftermath of the 2004, a certain conservative member who used to post here (not ustwo) told me in no uncertain terms that liberalism was dead, and that Americans had solidly rejected my obsolete philosophy. I told him that politics were cyclical.

Booyah.

The republicans will be back. I hope they come back as actual fiscal conservatives and not social conservatives (or some mixture of the two).

Yeah, despite my hopes, I know the GOP will be back in some form. Sticking to the God Guns Gays platform won't help them though. Even Jeb Bush is saying that.

o i don't think this is the end of either the republicans or conservatism at all.
i think this is a Problem for the particular version of conservatism that's come together gradually since the reagan period, and especially for the language that coalition has used to talk to/amongst/about itself.
it's not obvious at this point the extent to which the coalition was held together by this language--it is evident that it staged a particular balance of symbolic power within it---so the groups whose interests were symmetrical with it (evangelicals, populist conservatives, southeastern us populism, the far right) will probably see themselves as losing out as the language mutates. other groups will replace them, the mosaic will rearrange itself and a different version of conservatism will take shape in the process.

it may not be that different, but the way it presents itself etc. kinda has to be.

i don't think this has much of anything to do with shared values per se---the way values are talked through and about is very different from what any set of values might be---because a coalition language has to generalize them---and who controls or benefits from those terms ends up with a degree of symbolic power.

this does not need to coincide with actual power within the party organization either. this discourse which has hit the wall did not spin out of the republican party itself--it was fashioned across a considerable network of centers...

It may be most accurate to say Reaganism is at its end. He was a popular president, the party loved him so much they married him and made little reagans who have ruled the government for most of the past 16 years.