Ah, those Republicans! Having had their rears so elegantly kicked in the 2012 election — a race they were sure they were going to win — they’re now performing a great deal of soul searching, while trying to find a soft place to sit. Yet just a few years ago life was great for them. What happened?
In the early 2000s — controlling all three branches of the U.S. government and grappling with a stunning attack against America by al-Qaeda — the Republican leadership devised an ambitious program of vastly increased Federal power that would project conservatism at home and abroad. They tossed aside the tattered, old-fashioned GOP idea of limited government, while favoring increased entitlements to the elderly (whom they expected to vote for them in gratitude), along with a greatly expanded military presence around the world. This “Neoconservatism” — an aggressive, muscular right-wing approach to governance — would help lead America toward what GOP political strategist Karl Rove called a “permanent Republican majority.”
By 2008 their foreign policy lay in ruins and their overspending and erratic Wall Street policies had plunged the country into the worst recession in decades. Disgusted voters kicked them to the curb and replaced them with Obama and the Democrats. Worse, much of the Republican base — repelled by Neoconservatism’s disregard for many traditional values — broke away to form the Tea Party, which managed to upend several of the GOP’s pet candidates in the 2010 Congressional elections.
Straining to retain the White House, a confused Republican party stumbled along, nominating two weak candidates in a row (McCain, then Romney), men with muddled viewpoints. The Democrats beat them with a cross-cultural, cross-racial candidate who promised more goodies for the poor and more penalties for the rich. To a conservative, it can hardly get worse.
So much for the “permanent Republican majority.” Nice going, dudes.
The media have piled it on, castigating the GOP for being past its prime or irrelevant. They lambaste Republicans as the party of old white men; they attack them for ignoring demographic trends. The Los Angeles Times intoned, “Advice to California’s GOP: Leave — or better yet, change”; another paper gloated, “It’s time for Karl Rove to float away in a balloon”. And so forth. (This isn’t to say the media are left-wing. You’ll have to decide that for yourself.) There is the distinct odor of death around the party; jackals and hyenas and crocodiles are closing in.
Is there anything the GOP can do to save itself from obsolescence — from becoming a mere third party?
Allow me to suggest a possibility. Republicans, by tradition, represent strict ethics: they prize God, country, family, and community. It’s a party that lauds hard work and personal responsibility, a party that disdains wild excesses, such as designer drugs and teen pregnancies and easy divorce and, well, chronic payouts to malingerers. It’s a compelling viewpoint that tugs at the heartstrings of tens of millions of Americans. The mistake the GOP has made, in recent years, is to confuse people of bad moral character with people of color or people of foreign origin. Yet it is precisely those people who can form the core of the new Republican party.
How can this be? First, there is a huge conservative moral streak among churchgoing African Americans: they don’t like moral laxity any more than do Republicans, and they struggle mightily with its effects within their communities. Second, there is a huge conservative moral streak among churchgoing immigrants, especially those from Catholic Latin America. Third, there is a huge conservative moral streak among Asian immigrants, who tend to show great respect for their ancestors and cultural traditions. Only a few newcomers scheme to take us for our free handouts; instead, most immigrants — having gone to the extreme effort of leaving their old homes to come here — are self-selected for hard work and ambition, and most of them support strong family values.
Hard work? Family values? Sound familiar, GOP? These folks are your natural allies! All you have to do is get over your suspicion of their strange skin tones and accents and religions and music. Set those aside, and you have millions upon millions of conservatives-in-the-making.
Okay, Republicans, let’s review:
1. Dump Neoconservatism. It was a stupid idea to begin with — how many hearts and minds did you change overseas with all those invasions? For that matter, how many did you change here in America? — and it vastly increased the size of Federal power, a power you promptly handed to … the Democrats! That was bone-headed.
2. Return to your roots. You’re the party of small government, of hard work and reduced handouts, of family values and sober living. Emphasize those qualities — stand up for your own beliefs! At least be a loyal opposition with something coherent to say — and you’ll grow your constituency.
3. Welcome anyone who shares your values. Stop being squeamish about Hispanics and Blacks and immigrants. Vast numbers of them wish somebody would represent their core values — values you share with them — without belittling or opposing them. Stop believing that the only right-thinking people in America are named Buffy and Biff.
And there you have it, my prescription for a renewed Republican party. The GOP can boast strong values without alienating the very people whose votes it needs. Rather than giving lip service to inclusiveness, it can be the party that really does include all — regardless of culture or color — who share its core human values. It’ll take away that central advantage from the Democrats, whose only remaining distinction will be to offer … what, free contraceptives?
Go ahead, GOP, don’t be shy! Use my approach and win the next election.
…Not that any Republicans are listening to this. Uh … hello? Hello? (*tap tap*) Is this thing on?
.
Author and lecturer Jim Hull welcomes you to a conversation about ... well, everything!
Bryll
2012 November 16
Exactly right! The leadership have erred gravely in that they do not wish to stand
on the foundation of the party. Their rhetoric is that the GOP is the RIGHT PARTY, then they have tried to show that they support what the Democratic Party has, too. You cannot sail away on the ship, if you try to keep one foot on the dock.
The GOP should understand its basic platform, and then simply explain it. There
are actually more elected officials in the Republican party who are minorities than those who were elected on the Democratic ticket! They should point that out, not cower with fear when they are accused of racism. The GOP should not get ensnared with trying to offer the same programs and government goodies that the Left have offered. They need to point out that self reliance offers more freedom than Government Give Aways.
The leadership of the GOP will always lead to disaster, IF they continue to try to copy the other party! They will continue to be 2nd rate, if they try to be perceived as a cheap copy of the Democratic Party. They need the courage to stand on their own feet.
Jim Hull
2012 November 16
Bryll: Republicans, bastions of caution, are always being dragged forward by the Democrats — it’s the GOP’s job to question the Left’s overly enthusiastic embrace of everything new at the expense of the carefully cultivated old — but in the process what falls from their pockets isn’t cultural conservatism but political rectitude. They give up, not their biases, but their principles. They become fuss-budget Lefties instead of culturally modern conservatives. The main principle they’ve abandoned is individual freedom. The result is that there’s no longer any significant conversation about liberty from either major party. *Sigh*
Rob Schwartz AIA
2012 November 16
Since 1968 the genius of the Republican Party has been to continually repackage the same old snake oil in new bottles with new labels and then to sell it to an increasingly stupid and made-fearful electorate. Well, that recycling process has now finally ended.
Many in the Republican core leadership are as yet unwilling to accept that their recent electoral loss is not just a personal repudiation of unpalatable individual candidates, but instead reflects a sea change in the general consciousness of the American electorate based upon undeniable demographic shifts; the passage of the “Baby Boomers”, the rise of hispanic, asian and black populations, the decline of blue color manufacturing jobs, the economic advancement of women, the social acceptance of gays, etc.
No major American political party can long survive if it goes out of its way to reject every segment of the population which is not predominantly white, male, heterosexual, moralistic, anti-science, anti-education, gun-loving and in favor of major corporate domination, particularly where protection of existing fossil-fuel interests are concerned and the suffering global environment be damned.
The majority now has commonly recognized that Republicanism, as a basic set of governing principles, really has nothing positive to offer – it is an empty shell of angry rhetoric that masquerades as political philosophy.
A safe prediction is that it will take at least two more losing electoral cycles for whatever then remains of the Republican party leadership to grasp that a fundamental re-think of their philosophy will be required, if they are to survive as a political force in the long term. What that reconstruction will eventually look like is as yet undeterminable.
Putting aside the pernicious influence of the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Carl Rove and Grover Norquist who all irreconcilably scream at the wind; I have very little faith that the Republican Party of today is capable of self-reflection or internal reform on a large scale. If so, then within 20 years the Republican Party will fall into such a minority that it will become an electoral irrelevancy. At that point it won’t count for much and become the modern equivalent of the Whig Party. At that juncture the political conflicts of that future date will result in a splitting-apart of the the then-existing Democratic Party, whose tent will by then become too large to hold everybody. Maybe we will still be alive then to watch it happen from our rocking chairs and our “Nixon’s The One” campaign buttons will be worth something as antiques.
Jim Hull
2012 November 16
Rob: You could very well be right about the GOP becoming the Whigs (whom, as you know, Republicans replaced under similar circumstances a long time ago). The Republicans hang on to a smaller and smaller demographic, and they’ve abandoned so many of their core principles that all that remains is a kind of shrill moralism. But they may survive a long time, since the system has been carefully configured to favor the two main parties against all comers. In that way, they may continue to lose races (pardon the pun) for some time to come.
Dara Goldstein
2012 November 17
Remember Tuesday night when when we were discussing our opinions on matters of this type, and you said “don’t get me started”? I think you have came close to finishing. It’s just too important ( and too much fun ) to let go of. On the run as always…..:3>D
Dara Goldstein
2012 November 17
I’d love to give the Pubs a rip but gotta go now. We’ll talk later. 3> Dara
Jim Hull
2012 November 18
Dara: I assure you, this essay is just the tip of the iceberg. When you get a chance, wander through the “Politics” section of the Blog Topics, above. Then if you really want to enter the Mind of Jimbo, click on the “Religion and Philosophy” section. But a warning: “There be dragons!”
DYNAMOpolitics
2012 November 26
My God, this is spot on! I’m curious, though. Above you outlined 3 key points the GOP needs to take into account to stay viable. How could we get those changes adopted? Right now there’s a big internal debate going on within the party but I’m wondering what the average Joe like me can do to – well, save the party.
If you have any thoughts I’m all ears.
Jim Hull
2012 November 26
DYNAMOpolitics: The Tea Party is one such effort to change the GOP: they’ve gained influence by tabling their evangelical concerns and focusing on limited government. Libertarians also scored better than usual this year. When conservative-leaning third parties command more votes than the margin between the big-party candidates, both sides must listen. So that’s an opportunity to “trim-tab”, i.e., to guide a large ship with a small rudder.
But with any such scenario there’s still a numbers problem. Americans suffer from a persistent optical illusion — fostered perhaps by TV — that this country of over 300 million is really a small village of 300, and that we can change things simply by standing up to speak at the village meeting. When we think about how big the country really is (roughly six orders of magnitude greater than the size we evolved genetically to cope with), we’re tempted to collapse in despair. So we ignore our doubts and plunge in, trying to change people’s minds, in the desperate hope that somehow our efforts will snowball into nationwide upheaval. Again, optical illusion.
Even if you reached the heights of political power and could influence the GOP’s inner circle as well as the news cycle, you’d still have vast forces arrayed against you, especially those who clawed their way to the top during the Bush/Cheney Neo-Conservative years, who would rather die than lose their clout. They’re not interested in any change that leaves them out in the cold, and they didn’t get where they are by being nice or statesmanlike: they got there by ruthlessly outmaneuvering others. So you should expect the same from them if you challenged their control of the party.
When we debate the merits of political platforms, symbolically we’re discussing our own moral stances, working out how we want to treat people and, in turn, be treated. (Of course, we also discuss politics the way sports fans argue for their teams.) The practical value of this conversation, for each of us, is how it shapes our personal responses to life’s social situations.
There is more power for individuals from networking with like-minded people — building consensus and community and business — than in trying to convince opponents to agree with us. Politics is a zero-sum game that, while fascinating (like watching a bull navigate a China shop), ultimately adds little or nothing constructive to society — it’s about who gets to decide and who has to obey, and those outcomes tend to be arbitrary — while its ever-increasing scope, in the form of expanding government, makes it harder and harder for people to find room to pursue their own dreams.
But there’s always an alternative at the individual level. As Harry Browne said, there are free nations in an unfree world, and free states in unfree nations, and free people in unfree states. When WE, as individuals, can learn to live and let live, when WE can open our eyes to innovation while nurturing the tried-and-true, when WE can accept outsiders without feeling threatened by them (and those are my three ideas about the GOP), then we have opportunities for effective change within our OWN lives. And our example will then inspire others.
George DeMarse
2013 January 11
Your “return to the core” values for the GOP is partly right.
However, what we see more and more of is a Tea Party faction that “sounds hateful” to most Americans– that refuses to help people through government–something American governance has trumpeted since the Mayflower Compact.
Conservative values are fine–but they are distasteful to most when government can and does create a better society through programs the help the down and out–even the middle class.
Capitalism is failing more and more people–conservative values in this climate do not help anybody except the well off. Conservative values are unable or unwilling to improve inequality or help those in need. That is the continuing problem for the GOP.
We once heard about “compassionate conservatism,” but we don’t anymore.
The Sage of Wake Forest
Jim Hull
2013 January 11
George: You’re opening a gigantic conversation about whether government can make things better. Liberals for 100 years have tried to use government to right the wrongs and improve the lives of the citizens, while conservatives have been pushed back one step at a time, until today we have a fully mixed economy. The Tea Party saw that the GOP was abandoning traditional conservatism for big-government authoritarianism, and they rebelled. Their argument — and mine — is that force doesn’t work, that people and their communities do a better job of helping the less-well-off than does government. Tea Partiers are angry, but their position isn’t inherently hateful.
If we trust others to help, we don’t need government. If we DON’T trust others, we CAN’T trust government! (It’s made up of people; if they can’t be trusted, then assuredly you don’t want to hand your power over to them.) Either way, trying to fix big social problems with a central authority tends to make the problems worse. We’ve been fighting poverty with government money since 1965, and there are more poor people than ever. We’ve been fighting corporate cronyism since 1913, and there are more out-of-control rich people than ever. We’ve doubled the monies spent on education, and test results are stagnant, while other countries race past us, leaving us in the dust somewhere around 22nd position instead of near the top, where we were in the past. We’ve invaded numerous countries in the Middle East, radicalizing and empowering angry militants there. We’ve increased security here while running roughshod over civil liberties. We’ve tightened the border to the point where we can’t find help to bring in the apple crop, even at $22 an hour. We’ve fought a “War on Drugs” that has made us the most imprisoned population in the world, and drugs flow here more freely than ever.
So how’s that been working out for us?
If you still have doubts, simply imagine a Bush/Cheney-type administration running ObamaCare and invading more countries and enforcing big-government rules that control your personal moral behavior, and you’ll see one of the main reasons force doesn’t work: it gets handed over, eventually, to your political opponents to use against you.
Better, then, to do grass-roots organizing and outreach and charity — crowd-sourcing community improvements — than depend on a giant, distant bureaucracy that inevitably hands out money to legislators with the most influence — i.e., those with the biggest war chests provided by corporations and/or unions — rather than to the places where it could do the most good.
Conservatives aren’t hateful; they’re simply in conflict with you about how to allocate resources. (I talk to conservatives, and they all feel the same way about liberals as liberals feel about them. Both sides assume they have the moral high ground. Hard to imagine conservatives believing themselves the good guys. But it’s true, I assure you.)
If we regard each other as morally sub-human, nothing gets done that doesn’t increase polarization and resentment and plans for a counter-attack. Much of what each side tries to achieve in Washington is undone by the next administration or Congress, as the political battle rages endlessly.
It’s VERY hard to respect our political opponents these days — brain studies show that the pre-frontal lobes (the logical areas) go to asleep during political discussions — and when we become angry with the other side, we can only utter angry or contemptuous things, using a library of what I call “rehearsed battle words” that don’t allow any room at all for the ideas of the other side. Our anger makes us feel righteous and correct, whereas in fact it removes the very intellectual faculties we need to solve the problem! Anger is for the occasional fistfight, where thinking is unimportant; it’s not for continuous use.
We evolved in quiet, tribal communities of about 300 people who shared our language, culture, skin color, religion, etc. Now we must navigate through gigantic cities in a nation that’s a million times more crowded, where most people we encounter are strangers with weird accents and beliefs and cuisines and music … “and they’re all doing it WRONG! Especially the rich folks!” Once we get mad, the blinders go on. And then we find ourselves in the ironic situation where half of our fellow citizens — the ones who disagree with politically — we regard with utter contempt. “How on Earth did they get the vote? They should be put in concentration camps.” And so it goes.
If we want all people to be loved and respected, can we extend that to our political enemies? Or must we try to force them to be good? And is that even possible? The world’s problems get sifted through political systems, but that doesn’t mean they are thereby improved. Both conservatives and liberals passionately believe that their programs should be enforced on everyone. And “Where the titans battle, the people die.”
eric
2013 January 31
Purge the party of “centrist” or “tradtional” republicans in name only. Beg for teaparty support and swear to uphold Constitution and nation state soverignty from UN globalist influence. Promise to actually live within budget and then actually do so.
Actually to late to save the country the iceberg has been struck as are all ships of mans pride, history shows a shelf life which only ignorance arrogance and desperation denies.
Jim Hull
2013 January 31
Eric: The GOP can’t win if it becomes too extreme, and it has lately failed to win when it becomes too centrist. The momentum of the past century has been with the Progressives, while the GOP has simply backed up, giving ground. Yet to make a stand for the Constitution, as it was written, will sound, to most Americans — who learn about civics from pro-government schools — like extremism. So I agree, the iceberg has struck.
What tune shall we play on deck as the ship goes down?
eric
2013 February 1
I do not know Jim, I remember the Daddy Bush “new world order” speech when saving Iraq. Seems to me that when the owners of the worlds wealth own the worlds governments debt and control food oil media education and politicians then your and my solutions are only an illusion and we are not in control. Funny thing is even those who are in control are only assigned a short time by the One who is immortal and does control all things. This does not go over well with the mighty but the meek will inherit the earth in the end I believe.
Jim Hull
2013 February 1
Eric: Your lips to God’s ear.