There’s a big VA republican gathering this weekend called the “Advance”. The republicans are to figure out at this meeting how to get back in the win column. There is much finger pointing – some believe Jeff Fredrick is responsible for our losses (he’s the party chair). I don’t know wether he is or not but I believe it has much more to do with how republicans approach the electorate and a lack of vision.
Allow me a brief tale to illustrate: I went to the VML conference in Norfolk about a month ago and saw both Warner and Gilmore speak. Warner spoke on Monday and Gilmore on Tuesday. Warner spoke in broad themes about where he wanted to help take our country and how things are tough but they will get better. He conveyed a leader’s vision. I wouldn’t say that the Obama speech writers had a hand in it but I would say that Warner has been paying attention. Gilmore, on the other hand, did two things: complain about Warner and told me who to be afraid of. It is obvious that these two men have different styles, etc, but the difference in their message was stark. I see this same type of approach in other state and federal races as well – it is among the reasons McCain lost.
The net effect, both at the state and federal level, is that we’ve stopped being the thought leaders and become defenders of the status quo and when you stop leading you do one of two things: become a follower or become an obstacle. Whatever you suspect we republicans have become there can be no denying that we are no longer leading (nor have we been for some time at the Federal level – surely republicans don’t run up $11 trillion in debt and expect to be counted as the party of fiscal responsibility).
At the state and local level it will be much easier for us to salvage our fortunes but I believe we must start with some practical solutions to our citizen’s problems. We currently have little in the way of new, practical ideas – as put forward by our most recent candidates that lost – and we need these practical solutions badly. Republicans need to again be defined by what we are going to do and not by what we won’t do. Taking that approach allows your opponent to define you!!!
It’s called vision and leadership and if you hear a statewide repubican candidate begin a speech in the near future saying that “democrat “X” wants to do whatever and that isn’t consistent with our conservative values and we won’t do it” then go to Vegas and bet on the dems to win because we republicans have no new ideas and have not yet reached bottom.
Just my .02
December 7, 2008 at 5:46 pm
It is fine for the GOP to talk about the differences between them and the Dems. The problems start when the GOP says they are the party of fiscal responsibility and ethics and turn around and spend money as if it grows on trees and engage in criminal behavior.
A common sense message combined with backing it up will do wonders for the GOP.
December 8, 2008 at 8:15 am
Good points made above by both Andy and COM.
Yes, it’s about having ideals and then taking actions that are consistent with those ideals. It can’t just be about what the Democrats are not. When it’s the latter, then it’s just a party of reaction (i.e. we’re not Dems) rather than a party of original leadership.
As to that leadership, the ideals can’t be too removed from the majority of the electorate. The social agenda comes to mind in particular. No doubt many Americans like the Republican social agenda. But many, especially those in the so-called independent middle who determine election winners, perceive that the party places too high a priority on the social agenda; that social agenda issues trump other issues when it comes to judicial and other appointments, or even in determining whether someone can run in a local election for a position that has no jurisdiction over social issues. Let’s face it: The social agenda has been and remains the sina qua non litmus test in the vast majority of all Republican primaries, including (especially) party committee chair selection. The social agenda should function as one part of the overall agenda, but right now it’s the main screen. Just try being a pro choice Republican; you will be driven away with pitchforks
Spending and taxes: COM and others have accurately characterized this. There is a major disconnect (cognitive dissonance comes to mind) between promising to cut taxes yet significantly increasing spending. At that point, the electorate feels that it is being misled (and rightly so, because they are). Also, there can be occasions when taxes need to be raised. Republican leaders cannot be afraid of this. Spending — when needed — is not the problem; irresponsible spending is.
Finally, calling liberals (whatever that term means these days) or moderates “idiots” or worse will drive good people further from the party. They may be liberal or moderate only on social issues but surprising close to Repulican ideals on nearly all other issues. Don’t alienate them. Disagreement does not require alienation. Alienating a significant portion of the electorate will never well serve the party. Build a larger tent.
At bottom, good people should be comfortably welcome to the party — to vote as Republicans and to run as Republicans — so long as they are with the party on most core issues. Don’t drive these people away. To do so will result in a party that achieves ideological purity but grows smaller.
December 8, 2008 at 8:26 am
Before defining solutions, the republicans first need to “define” the problems they want to solve. I see the GOP all over the map, some want social changes some want fiscal changes some who can tell wjat they want??? With the party as a whole confused about WHAT to solve, I don’t see how to figure out HOW to solve.
December 8, 2008 at 11:30 am
Some good solid ideas and visions are low crime, low taxes, a friendly business environment, good schools, a strong military. I don’t know many people who are against such things.
December 9, 2008 at 8:27 am
This is from the Washington Times. It does not provide poll specifics, but this can’t be good news for Bolling.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/09/metro-briefs/?page=5
December 9, 2008 at 9:20 pm
This is interesting and all but it seems to me that the dems will drive the agenda around these parts for the foreseable future….
December 10, 2008 at 1:04 pm
It’s likely that Ds and Rs would both claim the goals of “low crime, low taxes, a friendly business environment, good schools [and] a strong military.” COM is right that just about everyone is for those things.
Assuming this to be true, the successful R platform would have to appear to the electorate as more likely to achieve those goals.
Either that or Rs must argue that the Ds don’t really want those goals. But the latter is reactionary and, to the intellectually honest individual, not true.
Thus Rs must assert that they are more suited to achieving the goals. This can be a winner assuming Rs can successfully articulate real plans, but that will be arguably difficult to do in light of recent history.
Of course, if the goals are the same, and the methods for achieving the goals cannot be sufficiently differentiated, then we end up with a popularity contest primarily based on “party personality.” But is that so bad?
The social agenda is an essentlal part of R party personality. The challenge for Rs is to keep it a matter of “personality” without making it an essential litmus test. In this way Rs can be differentiated from Ds without alienating the middle folks that Rs need to win.
Speaking metaphorically, I prefer certain personalities over others, but I don’t make personality a litmus test for who may enter my home. There are lots of solid folks out there with personalities different than mine. They are my friends and I welcome them. This is how Rs should proceed, in my opinion.
December 10, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Some good advice. Though, I would say the Dems are much more softer on crime and criminals than the GOP is overall.
The other suggestion is to break down the successful GOP members who win race after race and see how they do it. It is obvious the Dems have done that in Virginia, and it is time to look at Wolf, Davis, Marshall, Miller, etc.
December 11, 2008 at 3:33 pm
“What is a Democrat? One who believes that the Republicans have
ruined the country. What is a Republican? One who believes the
Democrats will ruin the country.”
Ambrose Bierce, 1881