Ed at Captain’s Quarters ruminates on a new direction for the GOP.
We need to have our ideas and our ideals prevail, and stop thinking in Beltway terms about how to gain power. Tom DeLay and his K Street Project should have taught us that lesson; power is a means, not an end, and sublimating the ideals of limited and clean government in order to gain more power means you never get back to them. I understand that one has to achieve power in order to create change, but if we ever hope to significantly reduce the size of the federal government and its intrusive reach into the lives of Americans, K Street lobbyists will not be our natural allies.
So I wrote this comment (with a couple of corrections):
The Republicans can take back the White House in 2008, but it will involve mixing ‘purity with pragmatism’.
Originally, I thought that if we beat the Dems, there’d be a big shake-up in the GOP afterward, with the majority moving to the center/libertarian middle, and the social conservatives being left on the margin. No one was happy at the direction it was taking.
You have to understand what a lot of support you got from hawk Liberals in the last Presidential election. They’re now coalescing with Left and Libertarian hawks to form a new center. This will grow as more Democrats realize the danger represented by terrorism. So, a new contract with America which includes socially conservative policies will not work if you want to win. The survival of the entire nation is the chief concern whether you agree with it morally or not.
The GOP can only best the Dems by being better centrists than they are: small government, free market, ethical, big-tent centrists who are strong on security and want to protect the US from terror. If you do that you win.
Being a centrist is what Nancy Pelosi is going to try to do, but it won’t work because of the lunatic Left fringe which is even now starting to break away from her. Fewer moderate Democrats were elected on Tuesday than are commonly perceived. This doesn’t give her enough of a majority unless most people in the US are socialists. And they aren’t.
Easy win.
Update:
Tony Blankley see it rather differently.
If there are two, three or four credible challengers, congressional Republicans will tend to group around each and echo their themes and messages  thus further dividing the unity and diffusing the clarity of the Republican message coming out of Washington. If Sen. John McCain (or anyone else) emerges early as the likely 2008 presidential nominee, he will become, de facto, the titular head of the Washington branch of the Republican Party
Hmmm.
Frankly I think this analysis is way off.
The Republicans lost because the conservative base lost confidence in the GOP and because the GOP has spent the last 6 years telling conservatives to go fuck themselves.
Most conservatives I know didn’t even bother to vote yesterday. And those that did didn’t vote Republican.
The saving grace in today’s American politics is the fact that the conservative base is smart enough to know that if we continue to abort our offspring those remaining will end up dhimmitude by de facto.
Mark Steyn has a point about demographics and the end of the world as we know it.
I was sorry to see Republicans embrace federally funded stem-cell research, why pile on more Big Brother, especially during a time of war?
ed – I concur….Everyone I see writing on this topic is treating this election as a national reforendum, to the exclusion of the local issues that drove a fair amount of the races. In fact is was closer to a “half and half” situation. Half local, and half frustration with a ball-less Rep Congress. Yes Iraq is numero uno, but border control is almost even with it, since to anyone with a working brain it’s part of the exact same issue. Basically a high percentage of crossover voters, such as myself and a number off my friends are simply not going to accept Bush’s “no immigent left behind” guest worker program IS the issue bullshit any longer, and we’ve all let BuahCo know that in no uncertain terms.
– On a national basis, if the Reps simply get back to their base principles, and stop emulating the tax and spend hard left, the waay they thought they could cement their cushy jobs, and, run a truly popular capable candidate like Guiliani that everyone likes, they can win out. Short of that, if the Dems do what I believe they will, none of the total idiotic bullshit all the talking heads say they will, they have a good, if shaky shot, in ‘08.
– It all comes down to whichever side decides to handle the Iraq mess as a win, and stops pandering to their precious Hispanic voting block. First side that does those two things wins. everything else is nonsense.
I could be wrong. I’m not a social conservative, so that element of the platform means little to me.
– Big winners – Independents/classic Liberals/Libertarians/moderate Conservatives…
– Big losers – SecProggs/Fundie Conservatives/anything greater than +/- 35% from the middle.
– Mainstream America has had it. The message is cut out the crap, and take care of business.
– The ‘08 winners will be the group that doesn’t bullshit itself on what this vote “means”, and gets the message of the electorate.
Deal-breaker.
There’s no position more distant from the political center. Maybe ten thousand of us on the entire planet actually favor itâ€â€and that number strains plausiblility.
There hasn’t been one politician who’s honestly taken that position, anywhere, ever. It’s definitional. Politics is the disordering of the marketâ€â€society, if you preferâ€â€by violence. And politicians, they’re all, uh, for politics.
You want them to lie? More? That helps?
Since when?
Lieberman and Webb roughly occupy the boundaries of the American center, which hasn’t moved since the 1800s. And the sum of their shared positions is…well, it’s a kind of socialism, certainly.
The purest truth comes from the most craven liars. When Hillary and McCain talk “centrist,” where do they go? As far as Godwin’s law allows from the “smaller government, free market, [etc.]”â€â€on every question.
They know where the votes are.
You can get people to say they favor “smaller government,” like they’re for “children” and against “corruption,” but when you ask them where to put the axe, they cower and cry “Away!”
For Pelosi. 1994 is as grossly misread by libertarian-tinged Republicansâ€â€who are all outside or banished from the Party establishment, noteâ€â€as it was by the contemporary left-reactionary media.
Noise. No message.
Actually, you’d be surprised at the support there is for smaller government. BoZ, I think you have an extremely pessimistic view of this whole thing.
ahem, I would think that, differing from your analysis, that the libertarian vs. social conservative split is become more even, rather than social conservatives being sidelined.
Keep in mind, that there are big-govt and small-govt social conservatives. If you consider only the big-govt social conservatives then your analysis may be accurate. You’re also assuming that because I’m against gay marriage, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, etc, I must want the government to stuff these things down people’s throats. Also, you’re assuming that I want the government to top-down declare school prayer legal again, etc.
No! I want a return to what the constitution says: federalism. Let us decide these things for ourselves, locally. If there is a locality or state that thinks abortion is ok, then let them be. I think it is wrong, but it is more wrong to hobble the federal government by forcing them to enforce my ideas on the rest of the country. In the end all it does is bloat the government, cause strife, create additional partisanship etc. Its a social-progressive idea and it needs to die NOW. No more top-down bullshit. Let the states decide Roe-V-Wade– let the states decide civil unions. HELL, let the counties decide if the states wont. If the counties won’t? Then the cities and municapilities. And pass a law that says, we will accept the legality of your ‘marriage’ but we will not ever be forced to marry you. In other words, it will be like a driver’s liscence. Leave the fed out of this shit.
One of the big problems there is right now, is people somehow think that they can top-down force people’s hands by getting something in one place, and moving to another and declaring it unfair that it can’t be so there, because you know, interstate commerce clause or whatever. Bullshit, I say. Marriage liscences need to be state-wise if marriage is going to be legal/illegal statewise. States can then say what liscences they accept.
Can I get a concealed permit in Texas, then go to Massachusetts and expect that I can carry a concealed pistol legally? Why would it make sense that I could get married to a man in Massachusetts and then go to Texas and have it be a legal marriage? It doesn’t make any sense at all.
Its not the federal government’s job to do many of these things, and it will be weakened and eventually destroyed if it is forced to continue doing them.
The federal government needs to liberated from this excess, that forces senators to be professional politicians and paid, and law books to be as tall as the Empire State, and creates a corrupt capitol hill culture. Congressmen should consider it not a reduction in power, but a freeing from responsibility.
To do this, people must make clear that every power they have has a responsibility. Lets uproot everything we can to make it clear, make it sting– so that they will be very conscious that it is not in their advantage to amass power.
Progressives probably won’t ever get behind this, because it is at its fundamental level Liberal. which they are not.
And I’m a very devout (you could say) Christian. I’m just young, and tired of the B.S, and a reader and understander of the Bible.
We might disagree on whether abortion is choice, whether sodomy is morally ok, or any other set of issues, but we can agree that large government is a detriment to all.
– Bingo River. Every student in America should be made to memorize the IX, and X ammendments, the “forgotten” paragraphs. The SecProggs have used, and shamelessly abused, the fact that todays average citizen has no idea what, and too who, their first alliegence is. They’ve used that problem to wedge every looney social issue they could into the Fed perview. It’s a total manipulative canard.
– Interesting, that after 200 years plus, our country is still struggling with the same big three the founders absolutely ear-marked as the most dangerous to the Republic. Run-away Federal power, discarded Liberties, and the ever popular “special interests”.
– The more things change, the more they stay the same.
– One possibility I’ve discussed with a few others in the Blogosphere would go a long way to keeping the basis for our very existance as a country fresh in everyones minds, and cut some of this enviegling off at the knee’s even before it got started. We made our documents, went back a few uears later and punched them up to cover those area’s we had great concern about, and then we’ve set back ever since then, resting on our laurels. It would be a wonderful reminder, and a chance to review and adjust to the majority views as they evolve, if we conveined a “Contenental Constitutional Review”, every 25 years, pulling together all the greatest minds of our country, and issuing a “State of the Federation”, as a citizens counter voice to the Presidents SOTU.
– Too often would be over-done, and too seldom leads to what we see today, and have seen at times in the past, losing our bearings as a nation, under the constant onslaught of hungrey, agenda driven voices.
– It’s simply a mystery to me, why this wasn’t thought of, and thought fundementally necessary, all the way back at the beginning. I would guess that, as usual, things that just make sense are often lost in the shuffle.
Great post RiverCocytus. Man, you captured my thoughts on this matter perfectly.
Just today I was having a conversation with one of my co-workers (I work for a large urban county as a social services admininstrator) and they asked me how “blue” I was feeling today after the elections. Of course they were as erect as a good dem apparatchik could be and because I am not a fellow democrat I am THE ENEMY! The Repubs got KILLED in the state of Ohio. I explained to the shallow man that I consider myself a libertarian, but also a federalist. The poor soul didn’t know what either of these “labels” were and just nodded along, most likely singing “happy days are here again” in his head. The point is that although I believe in limited federal government, if a state, county or municipality wants certain laws on its books, it should have that right. The federal government has limits. People don’t understand that and since they “feel” (most operative word for the dems) otherwise, the constitution doesn’t matter.
ahem,
With all due respect, you might want to look closely at the kos-Hamsher-Barnes analysis. There is very little in the way of substantive analysis of individuals, except kos saying “he or she is a liberal”—and even he is leading with items like the RI Senate race, where the change from Chafee is going to be marginal anyway.
In addition to the commonly-cited three or four examples, there are another dozen in this article alone.
Moreover, to say that the Dems won by running more moderate and conservative candidates is not the same as saying the were all DINOs. It is to say that they had to be conservative enough to win their races. For example, the Reps. that went down in AZ lost to Dems who were at or to the right of McCain’s position on immigration. The IN Dems had to be very conservative to knock off guys like Chocola. And so on.
As for regrouping, it will happen the way it always does. There will be leadership fights in the House (and maybe the Senate). Prospective Prez candidates will compete in the marketplace of ideas, and so on.
I’m not sold on the idea of libertarian Hawks having gone over to the Dems, either. Libertarian candidates tipped a few of the House races in places like AZ—and a vote for a Libertarian candidate is not a vote for a Dem. If anything the Dems will drive them further into the GOP camp if the Dems start acting wacky. I think this cycle was voters getting tired of Iraq—as they do of all long wars—and perceiving that they could get away with voting for a Dem in the midterms. It’s an audition for the Dems in 30 seats Bush won in ‘04, an opportunity they can seize or squander.
I don’t care what you say. PAT BOONE IS STILL MY MASTER!
– I still blame it all on FLOCKHART!
TW: cut13 …and run is so “yesterday” turing twit.
Well, fuck me. I seem to be striking out all over the place today…
Maybe I’m in shock.
ahem – Look at the bright side. Now it’s the Dems turn to really feel the heat. That, and have another shooter.
I laughed when I read tpolishN. We live in the same world as I had the mirror experience all day yesterday and found no one that understood federalism and Libratarian concepts.
I guess they are not real enough for the Starbucks educated crowd. adn they didn’t have any kos sound bites! I am behind pushing the party messaging away from the compassion/evangelacal concepts. It is so easy for people to write ideas off if they are about religion when most don’t have it or are confussed about how it forms thier values and acts in life.
The message that will be closest to the core of Conservatives while diffreneating from the Democrats is the small government federalist Bank and protect than get out of my way government. Heck the Seattle/NoCal crowd will even follow that!
We all have those days, ahem. For me, its every day. haha!
Anyway, I like the idea of the Continental Constitutional Review– though it may never happen– I think the internet can be a great tool for good if it is used that way. As more people realise how dynamic and powerful it is, the more who come and use it. And the people who use it now are not limited to elitist-geek types who will corral you out because they think you’re a ‘n00b’.
There needs to be a lot of maturing in the nation– people raised in public school are at a huge disadvantage on this, considering how we’ve messed up our system to service the ‘self esteem’. Your freind PolishNazi, is not so much shallow, possibly, as he is immature. He still sees things in the middle-school clique fashion– hardly realising how many ideologies it takes working together to make a national party. (At least in the USA.)
It is my desire that Christians as a whole would grow up on this– and allow the federal process to work. No FMA, please. Let each state decide, since it is clear that there are enough people who want to define it in different ways. Fine for them. I just won’t live there. Isn’t that the way it has always been?
This is part of how gridlock arises, when the Federal gov’t has to make sweeping decisions for the whole nation, which the nation does not agree on. Sometimes, if it is such a deep culturally rooted thing, like slavery, it takes a war and 80 years of state-by-state work to get rid of it. No solution exists wherein something like slavery could just be instantly poofed out, when some arbitrary person thought it ill.
Federalism says, “We trust the people”. So I guess that means, many people don’t. With some of the people you meet, its clear as to why– how could we trust these people? Part of it is a result of NOT trusting people (stay with me here) resulting in the government making decisions for them, which allows them to live without making hard decisions.
So not all of them are caused by that. Some are just eccentric. Others just a bit crude. Some are a bit elitist… I mean, everyone has their peculiarities.
My father is very classist, and would never hold conversations with the workmen who would do things (if he EVER hired them, which was rare.) I myself try to talk to them at all times. Most, since they are working for you, and have found that you are a regular person, will treat you fairly (I’ve met perhaps one who still did not trust me out of all the years—which is not too many, I suppose)
Its odd how we somehow assume that the Muslims will treat us based on how we treat them, but that people we meet here in the USA won’t. It’s totally backwards. No non-muslim I meet has a religious obligation to eventually make me submit or kill me. (I suppose.) Yet many people treat each person as though they are trying to steal from them. Sure, we don’t necessarily know the motivations of strangers. But a guy who MIGHT be a theif won’t feel bad if he steals from an asshole, if you get my drift.
So Federalism is not a naive trust in man, because of checks and balances on all levels– but instead a general trust that over time he will come to the right conclusions. Too strong a federal government is just laziness– unwillingness to sell ones ideas– so why not just impose them?
This is one reason I loathe the environmental lobby and its horder of scientoniks; first they have an idea, and people aren’t buying it (I recall an article on recycling– they DIDN’T want to talk to the public about it, because the public wasn’t interested. Very telling.) So they try to impose it from the top. Well, people still aren’t buying, so a lot of illegal stuff goes on… lawsuits, damages, money is lost, people get angry. So they get their scientist ‘experts’ to explain why their position is right. Except, they never tell us what’s in it for us. They just tell us, like the failed religious doomsayers, that we’ll be doomed, doomed, doomed if we don’t. Fear is only a stimulus, not a permenant motivator. So the environmentalists do all they can to sell their ideas to the people in power, to hell with the little guy.
Which to me, means that they are flat wrong. I like conservationism, and other practical forms of stewardship, but the environmental lobby is a special interest group that I would not mind seeing the destruction of.
I also would publicly disparage anyone who advocates multiparty systems. I’m serious. The bicameral (I think I’m correct?) system is designed to force compromise. It is designed to prevent factionism. Were Germany in the 20’s and 30’s a two-party system, the Nazi’s would have had a much more difficult road to power. But if all you need is a plurality, well.. that could be mighty easy.
This is also why federalism is important– if all of the ‘important’ decisions are made at the federal level (which is not good) then you have to convince over half of the country that your ideas are good or better than the other guy’s. That’s a lot! So what we end up with is mealy-mouthed nonsense that does not address the issues. Convincing half a state or county is much easier than half a nation. This is one of the dangers of the heavy federal government– no progress can be made on divisive or highly multi-faceted issues; getting a consensus across the nation is impossible, but the fed is the only one who can do it? It never gets done. Look at a lot of things, and this is REALLY, REALLY clear.
To end, f*ck progressives. All of ‘em. Thank you.
TW: How? Or is that a personal question…?
ahem,
I wouldn’t say you’re striking out. For example, you wrote:
What is stirring the reaction, imho, is that people may have differing perceptions of what is a “centrist,” a term that is inherently relative. BoZ and RiverCocytus both have a point, but have a difference of perspective. BoZ is starting from the tabula rasa, while RiverCocytus is looking at it relative to current US political dynamic (and probably also in comparison to other countries).
I read ahem’s post as more directed to the latter. In that regard let me add the following:
The youth angle doesn’t interest me (at least, not at the moment), as there’s no suggestion that Goeas actually did any analysis of the youth vote in the tight races. What interests me is that 22 of the 28 seats were decided by less than 2 percent of the vote. And we know it interests Rahm Emanuel.
young voters could have swayed a number of tight races on Tuesday<em>
Well, as soon as they figure out where to get <em>Rock the Vote for PlayStation, anyway.
*sigh* feel free to delete the above.
1) Not all that funny
2) Munged the tags
3) All of the above
TW: movement57
Bragging again, Turing?
Something that I hardly ever see discussed, but which means a great deal to me, is the character of the candidate. I will sometimes vote for someone I really don’t agree with much, just because they are honest, stand-up people. It matters to me that the person is going to do what they believe is right political winds be damned. I would have voted for Leiberman over any of the other candidates in 2000 for just that reason, he has proven himself time and again to be a man of principles and integrity. I haven’t paid much attention to most of the local races, but this could be an overlooked factor in some of them I think.
– Incidently for all you SecProggs, just to make your day, Conyers just released a press statement that “impeachment” is OFF the table. He aggrees totally with Pelosi.
– I can tick that off with a check mark on my list of predictions. The hard Left is toast.
– Now that WalMart has put the “Chris” back in Christmas, along with Macy’s, the whole world must be going crazy….What next… Men dancing with thier wives?
This is great stuff. They should every week remind people that they arent impeaching bush.