On November 5 John Kasich wrote: “We must figure out how to reorganize and restructure ourselves so that we can once again command the confidence and respect of not only the members of our own party, but voters of all stripes.”I certainly agree that conservatism must be redefined, and I will offer my suggestions in a moment.But I submit that none of us is ready for the task just yet.
In her 1969 groundbreaker On Death and Dying, Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, M.D., introduced a model known as the Five Stages of Grief: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance.While not every process entails all five stages, the good doctor stated categorically that everyone experiences at least two.But it appears that virtually every conservative commentator has tossed the model out and substituted his own single-phase paradigm: Submission.No sooner had Senator McCain delivered his concession speech than some of my favorite radio talk show hosts – who had been breathing fire just hours earlier – blandly appealed to my optimism as though the proponents of capitalism and self-determination had merely lost a preseason football game.Perhaps they don’t want to appear sore losers.Perhaps they want to come across as “high-roaders.”But in whose eyes?I guarantee you the liberals are so drunk with victory that they don’t care whether we lost sportingly or otherwise.Besides, it is a bit late for conservatives to worry about image.We have been drubbed.We have been bulldozed, hoodwinked, ground into the muck.We fought fair while they pulled every dirty trick in the playbook, and they clobbered us silly.
Where is the outrage, ladies and gentlemen?Do liberals hold a patent on passion?Did someone outlaw indignation while I wasn’t looking?The liberals seem to wield it freely enough.History instructs that we can not move forward until we fully appreciate where we are.Permit me to remind all of those blasé “we’ll-gettum-next-timers” a few facts I can recall off the top of my head about the man who just gave conservatism a bloody nose.Barack Hussein Obama: (1) exhibited blatant sexism during the primaries, then thumbed his nose at feminism by snubbing Senator Clinton in favor of “Conehead” Biden; (2) showed the “common man” his true elitist colors when he rejected public campaign financing and outspent Senator McCain by a factor of 7 to 1; (3) would turn our courts into tools for “redistributive justice”; (4) used government computers and databases to find dirt that would discredit Joe the Plumber; (5) has bragged about the fact that he wants to increase the tax burden on the producers of this country so that he can guarantee a better living for the 30-40% who are freeloaders; (6) was endorsed by both Hugo Chavez and Iran’s parliament; and (7) has little patience for the notion of individual rights.
And another thing. Let us not forget that, despite his silken demeanor, the man is an empty suit when it comes to concrete solutions.I know attorneys because I am one.The first lesson they teach in law school is how to use as many of the biggest words available to say as little as possible.Our new chief executive took that lesson to heart.People are weeping and screaming and dancing in the streets because “we” made history on November 4 by electing the first African American in U.S. history.Unfortunately, a majority of the voters got so caught up in making history that they forgot to ask what kind of person lay beneath the fashionable skin they were about to vote for.Let’s face it.Obama didn’t have to make sense.He needed no substance.And he didn’t need to curry favor with moderates.All he needed was to be a good looking, well-spoken black man who hung out with “cool” people like Madonna and Bruce Springsteen. And he knew it from day one.When I was a boy I was taught that the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s would someday stamp out racism.I’m sorry to report that racism is still with us; it has merely switched sides.
This is the America our complacency has nurtured.So spare me the silver-lining pablum.I want to hear some emotionally healthy yelling and desk-pounding out there.I’m not talking about rioting or bullying.Those of you with an established forum in the media know exactly what to do.I only hope you’ll find the motivation to do it.As for the rest of you, try this as an example.When I moved to a college town some years back, I confess that I allowed my vitriolic liberal brother-in-law to temper my philosophies.Whenever he would rant about the evils he perceived Bush to have perpetrated, I was quick to remind him that the common enemy wasn’t Bush – it was career politicians and elitists in general.When he simmered down I patted myself on the back for "remaining above the fray."But one evening my 9-year-old nephew bragged to me that he had browbeaten a schoolmate of his into “voting” for a liberal in an important race.With the glassy-eyed exuberance of a Hitler youth, he recited the mantra he had heard night after night from his father. I decided I had placated the brother-in-law for the last time.Though I don’t hang out as much with my sister’s family as a result, I can rest assured that my nephew now knows his father’s way of thinking is not the only way.
So conservatism as we know it has been pulverized.It lies dead in the gutter.How do we resurrect it?The first thing we do is reintroduce ourselves to some fundamental principles many of us have forgotten: lower taxes; limited government intervention; disciplined government spending; individualism.All variations of the concepts of tradition and convention must be eliminated from our lexicon.Who do we attract?On the count of three, let’s all scratch our heads.One … two … three … and there is our answer: Real People.But just what is a real person?As a rule of thumb, real people don’t toe the party line or wear the homogenous blue blazer.Take me, for instance.I’m into The Who, Pearl Jam and the Black Keys, but I refuse to buy a suit that is anything but double-breasted.I have tattoos, but I believe shoelaces should be tied, belt loops should be belted and undershorts should be covered in public.I am licensed to carry a concealed weapon, and I will not hesitate to go for the kill shot if someone breaks into my home.On the other hand, I have never understood, and will never understand, the attraction of game hunting.I am an agnostic.I detest abortion, but I think an outright ban ignores reality.Though I am a heterosexual, I don’t understand how letting gays get married diminishes the institution for straights. By the same token, I don’t understand why gays feel the need to impose an archaic religious ritual on an otherwise fulfilling relationship.I don’t indulge in illegal recreational drugs; just the same, I don’t see the harm in legalizing marijuana or cocaine – people bent on destroying themselves will do it one way or another, so there’s no reason to spoil the party for responsible users.Blah, blah, enough about me.
The point is that today’s conservative is not as easy to peg as was the little twerp Michael J. Fox played on prime time television in the 1980s.That is why there were so many so-called Independents out there for Obama and his string-pullers to swoop up this time around.The key to redefining conservatism is to refrain from overdefining it.Agree on a very limited number of core principles, leave the rest of the slate clean and welcome the deluge of fresh new faces with bold ideas who will inevitably flock to your doorstep.
The timeless line of "the economy, stupid" seems to hold true today more than ever. John McCain is on the fast track to the presidency if he can assure voters he is their man when it comes to the economy.
John McCain has recently switched to a very populist message on economic matters, supporting an increasing amount of government intervention in the economy. This is one thing that is really helping middle America level with his message.
Recent trends seem to suggest that Americans prefer Democrats to Republicans on the economy when there are relatively small problems. When the problem becomes very large, as we see now, more people tend to support Republican policies.
The theory behind this, is when the economy is in trouble, people support tax cuts and other Republican policies, to stimulate the eoconomy. McCain can drill Obama on his economic plan the next 46 days, and really make an impact in support.
McCain needs to get economist after economist on TV, telling voters what Obama's economic plan means for them. He must stress Obama's increases in Capital Gains and Payroll taxes, if he really wants to lock this thing up.
The so called independend Tax Research Center is really a liberal think tank, and it's claim that 4/5 homes will see a tax decrease is absurd. 1/3 of Americans are in the stock market, meaning at least 100 million people would see a tax increase if the Capital Gains tax goes up. Also, anyone who works would feel an increase in the Payroll tax.
With the economy being the number one issue this election, it will come down to who voters think has the best economic plan. McCain does not need to go far to convince voters he is the one to trust when it comes to the economy. All he needs to do is change gears.
This is a generally solid ad with one major flaw. The opening line "Barack Obama knows a lot about housing problems" and the closing line "that's a housing problem" are complete inside baseball. No one who hasn't been paying neurotically close attention this race (ok, like me and probably everyone reading this blog) knows what the heck the spot means by this. It's a comeback to the Obama ad that just went up on rotation, sure, but that's way too obscure for a normal person who's isn't a political junkie.
Those two lines may not seem like much to pick on, but they make up 1/3rd of the ad's total run time (not counting the disclaimer). That's a lot of air to waste. Just stick with the corruption message next time guys.
The Russian government’s incompetent attack against John McCain has handed him a great weapon against Obama.The attack makes clear that the Kremlin wants Obama to win the election but the open support of a nation busy doing this is hardly going help a candidate who’s already fighting a reputation for dictator-coddling.John McCain’s statement on the crisis was excellent, but there’s a lot more his campaign can do.
The McCain campaign and the RNC should directly tie Obama to the Russians. The message: “Russia wants Obama to win because they know he’ll be a weak President.”
McCain couldn’t have said this without the Russian attacks against him, but their on the record implicit endorsement of Obama gives him full license to seize the message. The McCain campaign has been starting to tiptoe around this already, but they should hit Obama at full force for standing by while an American ally is invaded.
Patrick is right, web ads have frequently been a lot more memorable than presidential TV ads this cycle and there are a couple of good reasons for it. The campaigns have been much more willing to take risks in web videos and fundamentally, television ads as a tactic are better suited to races further down the ballot.
TV ads also have to accomplish different tasks than a web ad.A web ad’s two key goals are to draw eyeballs (“go viral”) and influence the press, while TV ads are primarily about defining a candidate in the absence of other information. A voter who has met a candidate in person, heard about them from a trusted friend or read about them frequently in the news isn’t going to be nearly as influenced by a TV spot unless it includes radically new information.
This cycle we’ve seen great web videos and atrocious ones – but the successful ones have all been irreverent, “too long,” hokey or generally different from traditional spots. In other words, they take risks. It’s relatively easy to justify a risky web video because if no one watches you’re only out the cost of production.Screw up a TV ad though and you’ve flushed the entire cost of the ad buy. Even worse, if the ad really flops you’ve just paid money to drive your own numbers down.
Since the McCain campaign released their Celebrityspot yesterday and taken a more aggressive tone overall there’s been a huge amount of second guessing from the pundit class and politicos like John Weaver and Mike Murphy. The gist of their critique has been that McCain is diminishing his own image by going too negative too early to the exclusion of his own message.
How to attack the opponent without looking “mean” is a classic campaign problem and there’s a classic answer – when possible, use surrogates. The RNC could easily have run the Celebrity spot instead of the McCain campaign itself and it would have shielded McCain personally from some criticism.
The points still would have gone on TV, the RNC press shop would have still pushed the message and McCain personally would have had more distance.That tactic wouldn’t have deflected criticism completely but it would have helped a lot, especially in the press.
The major downside to this strategy is that an ad coming out of the RNC has less earned media pizzazz, but the spot itself is sensational enough that they still should have been able to gin up nearly as much coverage as the McCain campaign themselves.
Overall, even though I share a lot of Murphy’s concerns (and the one Marc Ambinder’s anonymous strategist outlines) I’ve been heartened by the new strategy. The campaign’s recent moves have shown a willingness to take some risks and have successfully injected the campaign’s message back into the press. That’s a critical change from the last few months and if they start taking some risky plays to build up McCain himself we’ll have a real chance to win this thing.
The Republican National Committee’s new energy ad “Balance” is the party’s first real paid media attack on Obama.Running in Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania the spot is strategically fine, if risk averse, but by trying to push too many messages at once the ad loses focus.
Poll after poll shows energy and the economy as voters’ top concern.So what is this ad (mostly) about?Energy.There’s nothing wrong with that decision, but it’s definitely the safe play.The RNC could have made a number of strategically riskier moves with larger earned media multipliers (Rezok, Clinton style 3:00am, a straight hit piece on energy instead of a contrast, etc) and the fact that they didn’t is noteworthy.
The main problem with this ad is that it tries to accomplish too much and blunts the effectiveness of all of its messages in the process.In sequential order it claims:
1) (Intro) Climate Change and energy prices are both huge problems
2) John McCain wants to solve both these problems
3) Which, on global warming, is a fight against his party and makes him a maverick
4) Obama doesn't want to solve the energy crisis
5) Which makes Obama a straight party line politician
The typical rule of thumb for a :30 spot – and most other political communications – is that voters will only absorb one or two steps in a message.For example, “John McCain wants to solve the energy crisis” is one a one step message while “Obama doesn’t want to solve the energy crisis because he just follows the party line” is two step message.“Balance” tries to say too much all at once and as a result, doesn’t get much of anything across.
Gary Hart, former presidential candidate and Democrat senator from Colorado, penned a thought-provoking op-ed in the NYT today on the subject of the political pendulum swinging and a shift towards a "cycle of reform." He observes that "the character of the next Republican Party will result from an intraparty debate that has yet to begin and might occupy a decade or more." Fortunately, this blog is starting that debate, and I'm hopeful it won't be a decade before we execute a vision.
He also correctly observes that the Democrats "have yet to produce a coherent ideological framework." He tells Barack Obama to include three things within a new framework:
"National security requires a new, expanded, post-cold-war definition. America must transition from a consumer economy to a producing one. And the moral obligations of our stewardship of the planet must become paramount."
Guess what? John McCain, the new standard-bearer of the Republican Party, not only embodies those principles. He has a history of fighting for these principles. Unlike Obama, McCain understands that we are in a war where borders don't exist and our enemies don't carry the flag of a country. Unlike Obama's onerous tax increase proposals and protectionist policies, McCain's economic policies increase productivity and opportunity at home while opening our country to the world. Unlike Obama, McCain has a long history of fighting for environmental protection and conservation, balanced with responsible development.
BOTTOM LINE: Hart ends by saying that "the next cycle of American history is as yet unframed." The Democrats' lack of a new framework gives Republicans a great opportunity to have John McCain execute a "cycle of reform" in the right direction. Will we get it together in the next four months? Thoughts?
As we have all seen over the past two decade, the Republican Party has failed us in its major responsibility to put forth conservative candidates for the presidency on the ballot. Now we can get into the specifics of why that has happened and even perhaps come up with a viable plan of reform, but the bottom line is, it is irrelevant if John McCain wins the upcoming election. You simply don't reform a winning political party.
So the real choice before politically experienced conservatives in this election is to further support the liberalization of the Republican Party by supporting the candidacy of John McCain, or not, and focus our electoral efforts in supporting our own Congressional, state and local conservatives candidates.
In this election, given these choices, not voting for McCain will be a vote for change in the Republican Party, back to its conservative base. Voting for John McCain will only serve to prolong the inevitable change the party must undergo when the general public realizes its made a mistake and starts looking around for the right answers.
Now I can tell you that I, as a conservative, don't like this choice any more than any other conservative, but those are the choices before us. We can either vote to prolong the conservative comeback by voting for Mccain, or we can hasten it's return by simply not voting on the presidential choices given to us.
Again, the ideological life of our party lies in our own hands. All we have to do to bring our conservative values back into the mainstream of public support and thus, the party back to its conservative roots, is to responsible not use it on election day for the office of the presidency.
"Look at what happened in the last two years since Senator Obama visited and declared the war lost," the GOP presidential nominee-in-waiting told The Associated Press in an interview, noting that the Illinois senator's last trip to Iraq came before the military buildup that is credited with curbing violence.
"He really has no experience or knowledge or judgment about the issue of Iraq and he has wanted to surrender for a long time," the Arizona senator added. "If there was any other issue before the American people, and you hadn't had anything to do with it in a couple of years, I think the American people would judge that very harshly."
It started on Sunday, when Senator Lindsey Graham noted Obama's long absence from Iraq and floated the idea that Obama and McCain should go to Iraq together to be briefed by Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
Asked whether he'd be willing to take such a trip, McCain told the AP: "Sure. It would be fine."
Obama's initial reaction was derisive. He called the proposed fact-finding trip "nothing more than a political stunt."
Feeling the heat over the criticism that he is not open to considering the facts which may not support his view, Obama announced yesterday that he is now considering a trip to Iraq.
McCain reacted positively to Obama's changed position, saying he is “confident” a trip to Iraq will convince Obama that victory is possible:
“I certainly was…glad to hear that Senator Obama is now quote ‘considering’ a trip to Iraq. It’s long overdue. It’s been 871 days since he was there,” McCain said at a nearly 30 minute media availability Wednesday afternoon, after slamming Obama on the issue at an earlier town hall in Nevada. “I’m confident that when he goes he will then change his position on the conflict in Iraq because he will see the success that has been achieved on the ground…Presidents have to listen and learn. Presidents have to make judgments no matter how unpopular or popular they may be. So the success in Iraq is undeniable.”
[. . .]
“The facts on the ground, I’m sure would convince any objective observer. That’s why I say that I’m encouraged that he’s going because the facts on the ground are very, very clear. The statistics are there. Facts are facts,” McCain told reporters. “And I’m confident that he would certainly…recognize that this strategy is succeeding, and we have drawn down troops to the pre-surge level and we will come home with honor and victory and there will be stability in the region and that will make for a long term benefit to the United States and our national security interests.”
