Steve Schmidt: Republicans Have To Fundamentally Change
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Conservatism, History, McCain, Republicans
Some frank talk about the future of the party from the man who some say ran McCain’s campaign into the ground.
Looking forward, Schmidt sees the need for a wholesale reinvention of the party: “The party in the Northeast is all but extinct; the party on the West Coast is all but extinct…there has to be a message and a vision that is compelling to people in order for them to come back and to give consideration to the Republican Party again.”Toward the end of this election cycle, it seemed to many that Schmidt and the McCain campaign were reverting to themes that seemed almost antique: red-baiting taunts of “socialism,” as well as appeals to the “real America.” But today, Schmidt rejected those tactics as blueprints for the future: “The Republican Party wants to, needs to, be able to represent, you know, not only conservatives, but centrists as well. And the party that controls the center is the party that controls the American electorate.” As to what form Republican centrism might take, Schmidt’s response to an email follow-up question suggests it will be anything but the kind of base-friendly social conservatism of Palin.
From: Ana Marie Cox
To: Steve Schmidt
Sent: Fri Nov 07 08:50:28 2008
Subject: Re: Calling you in 30the passing of prop 8… any comment?
From: Steve Schmidt
To: Ana Marie Cox
Received: Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 7:03 AM
Subject: Re: Calling you in 30I was disappointed with the result
Pretty telling, no?
And you can bet that once the Republican base (i.e. the blogosphere) gets ahold of this, they’ll tear him a new one.
Still, more conservative thinkers are echoing Schmidt’s sentiments about abandoning the politics of social division, like former Bush speechwriter David Frum…
A generation ago, Republicans dominated among college graduates. In 1984 and 1988, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush won states like California, Pennsylvania and Connecticut – states that have been “blue” for a generation. (America’s least educated state, West Virginia, went for Michael Dukakis in 1988.)Those days are long gone. Since 1988, Democrats have become more conservative on economics – and Republicans have become more conservative on social issues.
College-educated Americans have come to believe that their money is safe with Democrats – but that their values are under threat from Republicans. And there are more and more of these college-educated Americans all the time.
So the question for the GOP is: Will it pursue them? To do so will involve painful change, on issues ranging from the environment to abortion. And it will involve potentially even more painful changes of style and tone: toward a future that is less overtly religious, less negligent with policy, and less polarizing on social issues. That’s a future that leaves little room for Sarah Palin – but the only hope for a Republican recovery.
Frankly, this is pretty remarkable stuff, but it echoes a sentiment I’ve been sharing with friends that we could actually see the Republican party begin to completely unravel. Because many of the fiscally conservatives folks don’t hold the social values that a majority of the base has, and vice versa given Bush’s quasi-big government “compassionate conservative” agenda that made those fiscal conservatives abandon the Republican candidate this year.
Sure, Bush and company still believe in the free market, but the days of deregulation as the greatest good are all but over and the moderate majority that swings elections no longer believe that Democrats are the socialistic boogeymen that Republicans try to frame them as.
So then…can the Republicans fundamentally change? Or will their party start to fray at the seams due to the unholy alliance that Reagan made with the religious right nearly thirty years ago?
My guess? It’s going to take a long time for this to get figured out, and in the meantime you could see the type of Presidential dominance the Republicans have displayed over the past 28 years (20 of which they ruled) get transferred to the Democrats.
We shall see…
This entry was posted on Saturday, November 8th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Conservatism, History, McCain, Republicans. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 8th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Two problems here.
First, I’ve corrected you on this before, but I see I will have to keep doing it every time you bring it up. I don’t know what they “believe”, but what “Bush and company” did has little or nothing to do with free markets. Corporate welfare, cozy big business k-street bribery/contracts and favoritism, protectionism, and cronyism - which are the hallmarks of the Bush administration, have nothing to do with free markets. Nothing. Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, by definiton, have nothing in common with a free market.
In fact, I’ll suggest a new slogan:
Second, that is an awful big sweeping conclusion about moderates based on exactly one data point, when it looks far more likely that they were not so much voting for Obama, as they were voting to reject Bush Republicanism, and against the McCain/Paiin ticket. I suggest you at least wait to look at another election before you leap to that conclusion.
November 8th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Prop 8 passed, as did all other “defense of marraige” ballot questions. There are millions of social conservatives who want to be represented.
MW is right. Blaming “deregulation” is burning the Reichstag. It gives people who advocated the failed social engineering policies of our government which caused this mess an excuse to pass the blame, and they can call for more government intrusion to “fix” it. Justin is a great example of this. There was no regulation that was preventing the mortgage crisis, which was then removed by the Bush administration. Name it if you think otherwise.
Obama won because he was in the right place at the right time. Bush is not liked because of the Iraq war, the fact that he is presiding over a bad economy, and that he is a boob of a personality. Obama “represnts “change.” Thats it. That’s why he will govern from the center, because this is a center right country and he will never win re-election if he does all of the things he said he would do during the campaign.
November 9th, 2008 at 7:01 am
Although the fundamental make-up of the electorate does not prevent Republican victories, it is moving in that direction. Latinos are voting for Democrats and they are an increasing part of the population. There has to be some change in message or elections will become increasing hard to win. At a minimum there has to be a real “compassionate conservative” piece to the Republicans or they will not be able to sway enough middle class white voter to be effective at the national level.
November 9th, 2008 at 10:57 am
I’ve been a Republican all my life. I’m 64 now. I’m a Christian. I’m also a realist, educated, and pro-science. I’m proud to say that I have never voted for a Democrat in my life, but I sat out Bush41, second term, and Bush43, both times, but I’ve never, ever voted for a Democrat. That is, until I voted for Obama in 2008. It broke my heart, but it had to be done.
The religious right is the problem and Sarah Palin is the devil incarnate in that representation. Bush43’s “faith based initiatives” were bad enough, unconstitutional on their face and immoral beyond hope of reason. The GOP, my party, actively solicited the support of Hagee, Dobson, Robertson, and the like. All of the them self righteous, sanctimonious, superstitious, delusional, intolerant, hate mongers out to change these United States, my country, into a theocracy based on their brand of religion. Intolerable. Some of those religious zealots appear to have conditioned their support on having an uneducated, mean spirited, religious zealot on the ticket: Palin. It’s just wrong. Wrong in so many ways.
Let me tell you this. If the GOP, my party, stick to the the religious right’s agenda, I’ll vote Democrat again. Maybe next time I won’t feel so bad about it.
November 9th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
WE should rename the party something that will reflect the fact we are conservatives. Perhaps we should call ourselves The Conservative Party and then be true to the name.
November 9th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
As far as I could tell, on the cultural angle the GOP evidently figured that given the choice between the religious right and the hard secular Left, moderate voters would err on the side of the right. But given how the course of the campaign shifted so dramatically so late in the game, it’s hard to say whether this was a gross miscalculation on the GOP’s part from the beginning, or whether it was, again, simply a case of unlucky timing. For the same reason, I also question whether the GOP can really draw any meaningful lessons from this particular campaign, which struck me as a once-in-a-blue-moon(-or-two) affair. What are the odds against such a huge, game-changing crisis emerging in the middle of the general campaign?
November 9th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Rex,
I understand not liking social conservatives or at the very least the angry Religious Right but if after siting out elections why would you vote for someone that is expanding on something you think is unconstitutional and immoral?
“The Illinois senator praised Bush’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives but said that it “never fulfilled its promise” because the administration “consistently underfunded” social service programs for the poor. Obama said he’d replace the Bush program with a Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. “The new name will reflect a new commitment,” he said.”