OP-ED: “Darkness At Dusk: Republicans have lost, but they have not learned,” by David Brooks, New York Times, 11 November 2008.
Brooks posits a struggle between the Traditionalists (“cut government, cut taxes, restrict immigration,” etc.) and Reformers (moderates), and says the Traditionalists are convinced they did not lose over the issues, but because they presented themselves badly. This is basically Bill Bennett’s analysis on CNN.
Brooks says the Traditionalists are missing the realignment, an argument you see refuted in op-ed after op-ed in the WSJ.
Brooks thus opines:
In short, the Republican Party will probably veer right in the years ahead, and suffer more defeats. Then, finally, some new Reformist donors and organizers will emerge. They will build new institutions, new structures and new ideas, and the cycle of conservative ascendance will begin again.
This is why I predict Obama gets two terms.
| Permalink |
Comments (0)
When you have three out of ten candidates claim they dont accept evolution, and the party "base" (whatever that is nowadays?) hollers obsessively about homophobia, xenophobia, and any other form of fear of "the other" you know that the republicans lost their ground and their hold on the public.
i dont think even karl rove thinks that pushing those issues would have worked.
Posted by Doron | November 17, 2008 9:23 AM
We had a "reformer" or "moderate" run both this year in 1992 and then again in 1996 and they all lost.
On the other hand a group of Republicans run as traditionalists or conservatives or whatever you want to call it and win- for almost a decade. Bush runs on the same issues and wins-twice. Both the Republicans in Congress and Bush failed to govern as they campaigned (more and more spending) and loose the majority and the presidency. Obama runs as a conservative- cutting taxes for the middle class, less government spending and a stronger military (at least in Afghanistan). Clinton ran a similar campaign in 1996. They both win.
the GOP has two problems- One, no one really knows what being a conservative is about anymore. In other words we don’t have an overall message about what we want to do and why it is good for our country. Second, the Republican Party needs to become synonymous with good government. Principles are important but the first role of those in government needs to be to do what works. We do these two things and prove ourselves on state and local levels and we will start to win again nationally.
Posted by Seth
|
November 17, 2008 12:03 PM
I would hope that the first place the Republicans might look for answers would be the Governor's race in Indiana. How did a traditionally red state go blue yet the incumbent Republican governor won in a landslide? Balanced budget, numerous trips to Asia seeking investment (scored a new Honda plant), relatively lower unemployment than neighboring states. Actual results, not slogans, got my vote.
Posted by Jeff J | November 17, 2008 12:05 PM
So the Traditionalists are thinking a better shade of lipstick next time? I might have to agree with you, Mr. Barnett.
Posted by Joseph Nobles | November 17, 2008 1:00 PM
Well, if you depend on divisive tactics, you need to know your "numbers" beforehand. Don't push inflamatory issues that are supported by a minority and opposed by a majority. Seems simple enough but apparently logic and rational thought are not in vogue right now as some Repub strategists want to get out of the woods using the same map that got them lost in the first place. They even have me mixing my metaphors.
Posted by Ted O'Connor | November 17, 2008 1:36 PM
As a Republican, I might be tempted to believe this impetus to rush to the middle...if Democrats hadn't just nominated and elected the most far left-wing liberal president in the nation's history. Obama's win is definitive proof that it's not what you say, but how you say it and when.
Posted by kevin from minneapolis | November 17, 2008 9:46 PM
Oh I think Bush proved that already Kevin, with his talk in 2000 of a "humbler" American foreign policy and compassionate conservativism.
All Obama's careful record to date proves is that, in a hyper-partisan age, he was smart enough to vote with his party with great regularity in his quest to gain their nomination for president.
The rest just sounds like sour grapes.
Posted by Tom Barnett | November 18, 2008 11:17 AM