2016

Looking Back

The right way to read this election is in proper historical context and not against the relativistic markers that are being set-up by superficial, media driven analysis.  Indeed, the most remarkable thing about this presidential election is the utter unremarkability of its result despite the apparent uniqueness of the circumstances that surrounded it.

Despite Senator Obama’s race, name, and fundraising, Senator McCain’s age, Governor Palin’s sex, and the existence of Joe the plumber, Senator Obama won almost precisely as many votes as most professional forecasting models predicted he would at the start of the summer.  Among these, Alan Abramowitz's "time for change" forecasting model predicts over 90% of the observed variance in post-WWII presidential election results (two party popular vote) ont the basis of only three variables:  the length of time an incumbent party has held office, economic growth, and incumbent presidential popularity.

Each of these three key variables were working against Senator McCain’s campaign, and I discuss them in turn below.

 1. Incumbency

There are definite cycles and swing in American public opinion, at least since World War II, which translate into swings in the electoral fortunes of Republicans and Democrats as the country’s mood changes over time.  In particular, the ideological tenor of public opinion tends to move against the party in power.  Explanations for this range from impressionistic “time for change” approaches to more precise “thermostatic models.”  Whatever the reason, though, the electoral result at the presidential level is clear, two-term partisan presidential cycles are the norm and have been since President Eisenhower replaced President Truman.  The only exceptions to this rule of thumb are associated with Ronald Reagan: i.e. President Carter’s defeat in 1980 and Vice President Bush’s victory in 1988. 

Senator McCain could not help the timing of his campaign in this cycle.  Senator Obama’s campaign maximized the electoral benefit of this dynamic by emphasizing “change” as a campaign theme.  However, claims to “do something different” were principally effective because of their employment in relative to cyclical dynamics which were pushing the country towards the Democratic Party in any event.

2. Economic Growth

Milton Friedman wrote that government efforts to influence real economic growth are unpredictable and, at best, work with “long and variable lags.”  Nevertheless, voters are apt to hold presidents and presidential candidates of the incumbent party accountable for the state of the macro economy.  Moreover, most voters have short memories when it comes to judging presidents in terms of the economy.  Thus, a fresh recession along with reasonable prospects for a lengthy contraction is the worst possible recipe for an incumbent party presidential candidate.  Senator McCain’s campaign faced both.

 In the long-run, developing a reasonable conservative public prescription to limit the extent and duration of the current economic downturn is obviously important.  Yet, policy proposals were largely irrelevant to the election in the short run.  The “punish” incumbents dynamic of aggregate voter behavior in an economic downturn is largely immune to distinctions between left and right economic policies.  Thus, the election results should not be viewed as either a rejection of conservative, pro-growth economic policies or an endorsement of redistributive populism.  Instead, they are an irrational assignment of blame.

3. President Bush

The lack of support for President Bush is the final important structural element of Senator McCain’s defeat and, perhaps, the problem which raises the greatest prospective challenge to the Republican Party.  While scholars will spend years dissecting the Bush presidency, there is convincing preliminary evidence that the public’s rejection of the administration stems principally from its ownership of the war in Iraq and the growth of antipathy towards the war.  Despite the objective merits of the war and its many military and political successes, the failure to produce evidence of the Iraqi weapons program which justified the war a priori and the inadequacy of early counter-insurgency efforts—which were ultimately remedied by the surge—doomed the war in the public’s mind, particularly as the human and financial costs of the war accumulated over time.  Together, these elements created an impression of managerial ineptitude, which was almost certainly compounded by the handling of Hurricane Katrina, the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, and the US Attorney firing scandal, among others. 

Importantly, though, there is little evidence that the country rejected the ideological elements of President Bush’s domestic policy programs above and beyond the sort of “time for change” fatigue that is typically observed at the end of any president’s second term.  Politically important opposition to President Bush—i.e. opposition from malleable moderate elements of the electorate—is largely a function of perceived incompetence.  All else equal (i.e. given the war), there is a high probability that President Bush would have been just as (un)popular had he pursued other domestic policies that were more conservative or oriented towards reducing the size and scope of government, etc., but he would have been no less popular.

Looking Forward

This analysis suggests that the election results should not be read for ideological content.  President Bush is not unpopular because he is conservative, nor did Senator McCain lose because he is too conservative.  Instead, the country predictably signaled for a change in party control of government.

Taking the view that presidential election results are typically exogenous to party platforms, campaigns, and other acts of individual agency indicates a certain level of realism in preparing for the future.  There is no silver bullet, and Republicans are unlikely to regain control of the White House in 2012.  Barring a “sticky” Carter-like period of economic decline (a possible but unlikely outcome), the economy will be in recovery during the 2012 election cycle—which will benefit President Obama’s reelection bid—while “time for change” dynamics will not yet be ripe.

In any event, the best way forward for the Republican Party is to set itself up to take advantage of the historical cycles of American electoral behavior to maximize its cyclical advantages and produce important conservative policy changes that cannot easily be undone.  In other words, election victories will come and go independent of most of our efforts.  The object to win elections contra larger political cycles is counterproductive.  A more important and meaningful approach follows from leveraging victories, when they come, into strategic conservative policy changes that will accumulate over time moving America back to a more traditional, small government course.

Short Term: 2010

The first opportunity to leverage these cyclical advantages will come in the 2010 midterm elections.  Despite some recent exceptions, the party of the president usually suffers a net decline of seats in Congress during off-year elections.  This provides a realistic opportunity for the Republican Party to regain control of the House and reduce the Democratic majority in the Senate in the very near term.

This national cyclical advantage should be supplemented in four ways: 

1. Aggressive candidate recruitment: The pool of quality potential congressional candidates for the GOP should be quite large.  In particular, the drawdown of the American military presence in Iraq will make a pool of new veterans—largely inclined to conservative politics—available.
2. Web-based fundraising through bundling PACs:  Traditional bundling PACs accept and forward paper checks to listed candidates.  A smart web-based bundling PAC could allow donors to initiate a single transaction on the PAC’s  website that would be forwarded electronically to list candidates per the donors' instructions.
3. A young ground game:  Colleges and universities are enormous pools of high quality, low cost, and eager political talent.  Creative efforts to transport, house, and support college students as canvassers and phone-bank workers for targeted congressional races could help overcome the chronic lack of labor that make sophisticated GOTV efforts difficult for many congressional campaigns.
4. A new “Contract with America”: The evidence suggests that issues play a limited role in campaign outcomes.  But, the perception of the role of issues in an election outcome can be very important for developing claims of a mandate to enact policy changes after the election.  Within some limits, a strong policy platform is unlikely to either help or hurt a national campaign for Congress.  But, it can help provide a launching pad to actually enact conservative policies, particularly over the objections of a sitting President Obama.  Some potential items might include:
   
   1. A balanced budget amendment that includes requirements for reasonable debt payment timetables
   2. Income tax simplification to make one-page filing a reality and increase transparency
   3. Income tax reduction on the first $10,000 of income from interest and dividends to encourage savings and investment
   4. Healthcare reforms to allow doctors to charge on a sliding scale without risking reduced payments from insurance companies.
   5. Strong web use privacy laws limiting the type of information that websites can collect and store about users
      

Intermediate Term: 2012

Conditions for a Republican presidential victory in 2012 are unlikely to materialize.  However, evidence of slow economic growth or continued recession and, perhaps, important foreign policy or military errors (akin to the Iranian hostage taking during the Carter administration) combined with a Republican candidate with substantial objective managerial competence will have a nontrivial chance at success.

A number of plausible candidates meet these conditions including Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee, and General David Petraeus (should he have political aspirations in civilian life).  Since there is little historical data to adjudicate among these choices, I will refrain from speculating on their respective merits except to note that each of these candidates has a background as a governor or high-ranking military officer and that these executive backgrounds are probably most aptly symbolic of the competence that a 2012 victory would demand.

In any event, 2012 is likely to be most consequential as part of an ongoing effort to re-establish Republic parity with Democratic fundraising and voter mobilization.  These efforts deserve high priority in any long-term planning.

Long term: 2016

Though it seems far-off, the historical data suggests that 2016 will be the Republican Party’s most favorable point for returning to the presidency.  The long time horizon prohibits meaningful speculation about specific personalities or issues that will be ripe for the effort.  However, it is important that the cyclical advantage that Republicans will enjoy should be reinforced at the margins by a strong, national infrastructure of web-based fundraising and network-driven GOTV efforts. 

Also, Republicans should come to the 2016 election with a clear “Contract with America” style platform of specific policy proposals that link presidential leadership with a congressional commitment to act.  This target is unlikely to be helpful in winning the election beyond the cyclical trends that will advantage Republicans.  Rather, the document will provide a credible claim of an electoral mandate for the changes endorsed by the platform.

     A simple phrase that was pounded into my head in business school is “Hope is not a Strategy.”  With a week left in the 2008 Presidential Election I find myself wondering how the Republican Party comes to find itself on the verge of losing significant amounts of national power.  Regardless of your political views you can’t evade the realization that Republicans have been demonized to a level not seen since the early 1970s when the country was in the grips of the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal.  This demonization has resulted in significant political momentum for the Democrats and has motivated many normally absent from our political process to become involved.  Regardless of the outcome of the election next week one thing should be abundantly clear to all conservatives.  We need a new strategy for 2012, 2016 and 2020.  It may sound a bit crazy to some to plan that far in advance but to not do so makes hope our strategy and that is a scary proposition.

     Above and beyond everything else we need a new breed of conservative leadership.  Our party must change or we will be doomed to fail as the world changes around us.  To ignore this change makes about as much sense as pretending that the world is flat despite all evidence to the contrary.  Gone are the days where lack of military service, lack of legislative experience, extensive drug use, multiple divorces or protesting against a war precludes a man or woman from becoming the President of the United States.  Gone are the days where a conservative candidate can be ignorant of the concepts of information technology, the use of the internet, macroeconomics, social justice and the perception of inequality in the distribution of wealth in this country.  America tires of wealthy old men who fought heroically in a forgotten war who are seen as doing the bidding of other wealthy old men.

     We need a batch of fresh conservative leaders who not only espouse traditional values like strong defense, belief in God, limited government, punishment of criminals and the responsibility of citizens to help themselves but also clearly understand the basic needs of the majority of Americans regardless of their political affiliation.  Unfortunately you can’t manufacture leaders so you have to identify them early and mentor them until they are ready for candidacy on a national basis.  These leaders need to be chosen based on their leadership qualities, conservative viewpoint and ability to connect with people in that order.

     Our party needs to create a short-list of potential leaders for the 2012, 2016 and 2020 elections to ensure that we have at least two viable candidates for the primary.  We then need to assess the current state of the economy (inflation, unemployment and position in the cyclical performance cycle), the state of world affairs (wars, unrest, threats), the current attitude of the people (happy, worried, disenfranchised) and current social issues (education, entitlement programs, crime).  Once these issues are analyzed we need to present the candidate that best speaks to the people on the issues that are likely to be prevalent during the two years of campaigning prior to the election.  Once the campaign is underway the candidate needs to maximize his or her use of the latest technology in order to get a repeatable and cohesive message comprised of multiple value propositions out to the public.  Think of it this way, in 2004 YouTube didn’t exist but only one candidate in 2008 has embraced the use of this and other IT tools completely while the other simple tried to jump a train that had already left the station.  Of course creating a strategy is much easier than executing it which requires strong GOP leadership at the national level.

The Republican Party faces three primary threats that need to be addressed: 

1. A lack of fresh leadership that Americans can connect with
2.  A lack of a long-term candidate development program that thinks three elections ahead and learns from the past three elections (call it the 24 year cycle)
3. A lack of a macro-level national strategy that embraces changes in our culture, current issues, regardless if we like them or not, that connect with people on issues that impact them directly and are not seen as abstract possibilities

If we fail to do these things we will be failing our country and dooming it to a trajectory that will take us dangerously close to socialism.

With Sarah Palin now on the ticket the GOP hasn’t just landed an excellent VP nominee, we’ve added one more contender to our already deep bench of potential ‘12/’16 presidential candidates.  Bobby Jindal tops my personal list along with Tim Pawlenty and now Sarah Palin but a lot of people would add Mitt Romney and Mark Sanford as well.

Who’ve the Democrats got?  Joe Biden (::chortle::), Kathleen Sebelius (female but underwhelming speaker), Janet Napolitano (ditto), Evan Bayh (as if the D’s will nominate a moderate), Bill Richardson (what was that people said about Al Gore, oh right, grew a beard and got fat) and Mark Warner (let’s just say there’s a reason he dropped out this time around).  

I’d take our bench in a second. 

Matthew Miller at Race42008:

Waiting for 2012 for a REAL Conservative?

Not if you’re smart. Since the beginning of the 19th century, incumbent Presidents have sought re-election 21 times. They’ve won 16 times; a success ratio of 76%.

Matthew then runs through all the instances of incumbents losing. In all 5 cases, we were in the middle of a recession, or strongly perceived as being in such. He continues,

What are the chances that we’ll be in a recession in 2012 if Barack Obama is elected President? Recessions are, as a rule, relatively infrequent occurrences. I believe the general rule of thumb assumes that a recession will occur something like every 10 years. Now, we’re currently approaching a recession, so in the ordinary course of things we wouldn’t expect the country to be in one in 2012. To be sure, we’re speaking of electing Barack Obama, a man who’s policies are decidedly anti-growth and anti-free markets. It’s quite likely that he’ll negatively impact the economy. Unfortunately, even relatively optimistic predictions expect this current recession to last well into 2009. In order for the country to be in another recession by 2012, it would need to follow no more then 2-3 years on all the heels of this one. It’s not at all clear that even Obama can manage that. And the other possibility is equally unlikely; that we stay in this recession UNTIL 2012. There are really only two precedents for that sort of sustained economic malaise over the last hundred years; the Great Depressions and the late 1970’s.

In short, if Barack Obama is elected in 2008′, he’s quite likely to get a second term.

So, a quick rebound in 2012 following a McCain loss isn't really an option here, folks. Unless we manage to make up serious ground in the House and hold our losses to 3-4 in the Senate, 2010 could be out of play in terms of taking one or both chambers to keep President Obama in check, though we may well be mired in a recession then. And don't forget the awful redistricting cycle we're headed for.

Anyone making the calculation to leave anything on the field in '08 needs to fully factor in that it will be 2016 at the earliest before we take back the White House if we don't succeed in '08. Don't harbor any illusions of a quick bounceback. There is going to be a long sorting out process if we lose.