What’s Wrong With The GOP
By Doug Mataconis | Related entries in 2008 Election, Republicans
Steve Schmidt, who was John McCain’s chief strategist during the campaign, points out the problems facing the GOP in the years beyond 2008:
What can the Republican Party learn from what happened this cycle?
There are many lessons for the Republican Party out [of] this election, and the party having been roundly defeated is going to go through a period of debate, and finger-pointing, and recrimination, and blame-gaming, as it seeks to rebuild and become competitive again on the national stage.
If you look at the returns from the southwestern and mountain west states, with rising Latino populations, it’s clear that Latinos are repudiating the party, their anger about the tone of the immigration debate, and the party has to figure out a way to communicate that wanting to have a secure and sovereign southern border and respect for Latinos are not mutually exclusive. But if the party does not figure out a way to appeal to Latino voters, it will become increasingly difficult, and maybe impossible, to ever again win a national election.
The party in the Northeast is all but extinct; the party on the West Coast is all but extinct; the party has lost the mid-South states—Virginia, North Carolina—and the party is in deep trouble in the Rocky Mountain West, and 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.
The Republican Party was long known as the party that competently managed government. We’ve lost our claim to that. The Republican Party was known as the party that was serious on national security issues. The mismanagement of the war has stripped that away. So there is much to do in rebuilding the brand of the party, what it stands for, and what it’s about in a way that Americans find appealing. The country has just elected a—the country has just vested power—in a Democratic Party, across the board. And you will see a sharp left turn. 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.
Schmidt is, I think, absolutely correct.
Barack Obama won this election because he won the center, not because he made overt appeals to the left. John McCain, the Republican who was once the very definition of center-right politics, lost because lost the center and, while his running mate may have had great appeal among party loyalists, the evidence is rather apparent that she was not well-received by the great American center:
The key for the 44-year-old Palin will be whether she can broaden her base of support. An Election Day survey found that 81% of Democrats and, more importantly, 57% of unaffiliated voters had an unfavorable view of her.
Moving further to the right while ignoring the moderate center, especially on divisive social issues like abortion and stem-cell research, seems to be the advice that many conservative pundits are giving the GOP in the days after the election. It’s the same advice they always give when the GOP loses, and it never works.
Originally posted at Below The Beltway
This entry was posted on Sunday, November 9th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, 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 9th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
The GOP will have a hard time moving to the center as long as the hierarchy is controlled by people of the most extreme far right tendencies. Palin is an example– she’s not a mainstream evangelical, she’s associated with Dominionism, a group whose stated aims include the overthrow of the government, and the Constitution, and its replacement by a “christian” theocracy. Palin frightens the center, with good reason.
The next few years are going to be a battle to the death within the GOP. Either the moderates will win, casting out the ultra-far right into the fringe parties, or the GOP will morph into something truly ugly. The worst case analysis is something almost unthinkable: a theocratic fascist party with a paramilitary backup derived from co-opted U.S. forces and Blackhawk mercenaries. It can’t be allowed to happen.
November 9th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
So wait, he’s admitting that the Republicans suck at everything that they try? … Isn’t that way we’ve been saying for years? The republican party tries to govern based on their ideology. That should have no place in the governing of a nation. The fact is they’re wrong about so many things that their house of cards came crumbling down around their ears.
-Chris
November 9th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Obama didn’t win the election because he was center. Anyone who has studied the man, his voting record, and his stated policies understands that he’s anything but a centrist at heart. Obama got elected because America can’t stand George Bush and anything associated with him.
Over the next two years, Obama has to prove that he can moderate his stance on his more left-leaning views and get America back on its feet financially. If that doesn’t happen, nothing else is really going to matter. He’s going to be the guy who promised to be the anti-Bush and to change America. If he hasn’t delivered on that promise, or at least laid believable groundwork for it, the Dems are going to start losing Congressional seats.
November 9th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Yeah, sure. Schmidt, McCain’s campaign manager is going to tell us what’s wrong with the GOP. The GOP might as well heed advice from the Democrats themselves.
Firstly, McCain-Feingold. After that fine piece of legislation, it would no longer be possible to finance a campaign as Ronald Reagan’s was financed. You either have to be independently wealthy like a John McCain, or have help from those like George Soros, et al.
Then, there are 3 basic problems. Firstly, the GOP fails to articulate free-standing platforms. They actually have many, yet fail to articulate a single clear vision. The GOP has fallen back into fabricating reactionary platforms, basing them on what it’s against. It hasn’t articulated a clear vision of what it is for, since Ronald Reagan; And, before that, perhaps Abraham Lincoln. The ‘crats have had no such problem in this last election. Ask any pre-schooler what Obama stood for, and he would say “Change.” The 2nd problem and 3rd problems are the campaigns and the candidates the GOP runs: Like selecting followers, instead of leaders. Like, running maverick Republican-in-name-onlys, like “maverick” candidates like John McCain, who wind up at the final hours, spending way too much time trying cement his own party base. John McCain is no “full flavored” conservative. Last week, conservatives had to drag themselves into the polls, and hold their noses as they voted for McCain. The remote glimmer of hope with the ticket was Sarah. Those that made it to the polls, rationalized it by voting for Sarah. Perhaps if Sarah Palin had the top billing, a true conservative, facing off against Hillary, their would have been a contest. The problem is, that in “playing for the center” that the GOP doesn’t stand for anything anymore. They’re getting hard to distinguish from Democrats. They appear. to Joe America: To be just in it for the power. . As the Democrats moved further left from socialism to fascist Marxism, the GOP has had this odd problem of “following,” leaning leftward to fill in the space. “Reaching across the aisle” far too much. From “A kindler, gentler nation..” To “Read my lips, no new taxes.” To: McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy. Did McCain co-sponsor any legislation with a fellow Republican? When the Republicans controlled congress, they spent money like Democrats. Played golf with them, etc. Ran cover for them, etc. See Fannie and Freddie.
George Bush Sr was elected only because of Ronald Reagan and his vision. Reagan selected Bush only to appear “more centrist.” Bush Sr. was bureaucrat. A Republican in name only, setting the stage for the next 20 years, of disassembling the party that Ronaldus Magnus built. The lowest, low point, was the Republican latest Medicaid entitlement. Or, was it the Wall Streel bail out fiasco? Perhaps, this time, we can agree with the ‘crats and say: Yep, It’s Bush’s fault.
Ponder this: If it weren’t for the founder of the Republican party, and these Democrats had their way back at that time; Knowing that Democrats have always been very consistent, hence their party symbol; And Geo. Washington’s observation of a profest Democrat: There would have been no way for this nation to have a president-elect Obama today.
November 10th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
I think Obama won the election because he never attacked the Republicans or even the GOP. He did not even attack Pres. Bush or Sen. McCain as people, but targeted their policies, which were there for all to see.
Thus his appeal was beyond one’s party affiliation. He focused on the issues and that made sense to voters, who could see in black and white this time.
He was also more in touch with the reality of the demographics. Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin were targeting a narrow, and rapidly shrinking base. They also never got their issues right.
November 14th, 2008 at 2:41 am
[...] post-mortems and navel gazing are the order of the day. It’s a good thing. Nick, Justin, Doug and Alan have already weighed in. I’ll add my thoughts in a future post, but first need to [...]