Republican Party

[Disclosure: I worked with the Doug Hoffman campaign. However, the views here are my own. I have not discussed this at all with the Hoffman campaign.]

The bottom line on NY-23:

• Doug Hoffman just won the Republican Primary. The general election is next year.

• There are two broken, corrupt, arrogant political parties we need to defeat.  We beat the Republican establishment in 2009.  We'll beat the Democratic Party in 2010.

• NY-23 is not really about Conservatives VS Moderates.  It is about the Establishment VS the Movement.

What happened in NY-23:

For years, the conventional wisdom has been that blue state Republicans had to nominate a "not too hot, not too cold" candidate - what my friend Max Borders called a Keynesian political strategy of tweaking the policy variables until you get a candidate whose positions seem most appealing to the most people.  Like Keynesian economic tinkering, it all works very well....until some fundamental shift reveals the underlying artificiality, and it all falls apart.

Political parties gain power by standing for something appealing.  But when a party gains power, it loses definition.  Rather than standing for something appealing and well-defined, they try to stand for anything appealing enough to win.  But you can only tinker so much before you destroy the brand that people had elected, and then you become the minority again.

The minority is where Parties and movements go to be reborn.  There, they have to figure out who they are, and what their mission is.  You can't storm the castle until you're all facing the same direction and focused on the same goals.  Sometimes - as in NY-23 - that involves telling the establishment "Thank you, but our mission is in another castle" (If I might borrow political wisdom from Super Mario Bros).

The establishment GOP - the NY GOP, the NRCC, the RNC and a few prominent Republicans - got behind another establishment GOP type in Dede Scozzafava. In any other recent year, she would have sailed through.  Not in 2009.

The public - including moderates, libertarians and alienated Republicans - has grown much more nervous about Democratic governance.  The Tea Party movement is just one manifestation of the sparks that are flying, but it goes far deeper than that, and the establishment GOP has been oblivious to, or dismissive of, these sparks. With Dede Scozzafava, the establishment Republican Party threw gasoline on top of the sparks and a brushfire erupted.  The result was the quintessential "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" campaign of Doug Hoffman.

What NY-23 Is About

The story of NY-23 is not "conservatives beat moderates" or "conservative loses to Democrat".

The story of NY-23 is "the Right starts dismantling the Republican establishment."  This is about how the Republican Party is defined and who defines it.

Right now, the movement wants the Republican Party to be defined by opposition to big government. Gradually, as new leaders arise, we will demand that the Republican Party be defined by its own solutions, as well, but rebuilding is an incremental process. We can hammer out the policy agenda and the boundaries of the coalition later.

For now, our job is to disrupt the establishment GOP.  If we beat Democrats while we're at it, great. But the first priority is to fix the Drunk Party - the Living Dead establishment Republicans. They're history. They just don't know it yet.

NY-23 was the first shot in that war.  It was a direct hit.  Next year, we start storming the castle.

 This weekend's German election has some lessons for our political context. Der Speigel sees a new German political pattern emerging from this:

After Sunday's election, Germany's political landscape has been shaken up, perhaps for ever. Angela Merkel's conservatives will be able to form a coalition government with the business-friendly FDP, but the balance of power between the two parties has fundamentally shifted. And the once-powerful Social Democrats may never recover from their defeat.

Chancellor Angela Merkel has probably saved her chancellorship -- but the price that her conservatives will have to pay for it is high. The election result for the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and its Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union (CSU), is lower than in 2005. Nevertheless, she can form a coalition government with the business-friendly Free Democratic Party because support for the FDP has increased in a way that until recently pollsters would scarcely have thought possible.

Just as in the European elections, we are seeing a splinter of the political scene. On the left, the far left gained, the Greens gain, the centrist-left collapsed, the center-right shrunk slightly, and the liberal party gained massively. The right (center-right + liberals) has grown, but not hugely.

Several things to take away from this in the time of an economic downturn:

First, the appeal of libertarian positions has grown. Even in Europe and Germany there has been an anti-government, anti-entitlement, pro-reform movement that is growing massively. We see this here in the tea party movement.

The response to the economic crisis has been more freedom and less government. Somehow government is getting the blame, at the ballot box, for the downturn.

Second, the center-left has lost credibility, but the numbers on the left are still large if you include the far-left. It is hard to imagine a victory of the German left without the Left Party, but it is also questionable whether this turns off swing voters between the center-right and center-left. Some on the American left will try to learn the lesson that they need to move to the left -- isn't that always the lesson? -- but one wonders if, like the SPD, the Democrats would suffer from highlighting their relationship with the far-left.

All in all, we are in a situation in which right-leaning parties are sweeping elections or performing at historic highs. These things happen in response to global events. It will be interesting to see if this pattern continues into the next year. 

This GOP Senior Health Care Bill of Rights is a depressing example of the kind of Keynesian Political Strategy of that now defines the Republican Party.

• Protect medicare and not cut it in the name of health care reform
• Prohibit government from getting between seniors and their doctors
• Prohibit efforts to ration health care based on age
• Prevent government from interfering with end-of-life care discussions
• Ensure seniors can keep their current coverage
• Protect veterans by preserving tricare and other benefit programs for military families

What exactly is the message here? That Republicans think Medicare is peachy? Republicans are now the Party of the Entitlement Status Quo?

The Democrats tried to address Iraq like this in 2004.  Their proposals amounted to "The same, but....better! And less expensive! No hard choices for America! Please like us."

The GOP is doing the same thing on health care.  This is not a policy vision; it is a campaign vision.  The message is: We want to pick off some senior citizen votes in 2010.

On the off chance that the Republican leadership is listening to anybody but their campaign operatives these days: The horse is supposed to go in front of the cart.  Policy should not be made by polling.  Campaign committees and operatives should be selling policy, not making it.

 Cato's Chris Edwards is correct.  Republicans are playing small-ball.  They have no real vision, so they've ended up with policy paralysis.  - Jon Henke

As I note in a recent New York Post op-ed Republicans are fond of implying that President Obama is a big-spending socialist. But the House GOP recently offered a spending cut plan that was able to find savings worth less than one percent of Obama’s budget.

As Tad DeHaven and Brian Riedl have also pointed out, the GOP spending reform effort is rather pathetic. It proposed specific annual budget cuts of about $14 billion per year.

Consider that the center-left budget wonks at the Brookings Institution put their heads together a few years ago and came up with a “smaller government plan” that proposed about $342 billion in annual spending cuts (by 2014). The Brookings authors note:  

These cuts are achieved by reducing government subsidies to commercial activities ($138 billion); by returning responsibility for education, housing, training, environmental, and law enforcement programs to the states ($123 billion) . . . by cutting entitlements such as Medicaid, Social Security, and Medicare ($74 billion); and by eliminating some wasteful spending in these entitlement programs ($7 billion).

Thus, the Brookings scholars found cuts more than twenty times larger than the House GOP leadership cuts, and Brookings proposed its plan back when the deficit was about one-fifth of the size it is today. (Note that both the Brookings and GOP plans would also put a cap on overall nondefense discretionary spending, in addition to these specific cuts).

My point in the New York Post piece is that the GOP needs to challenge Obama’s big spending agenda at a more fundamental level. They need to do some careful research, pick out some big spending targets, and go on the offense. Why not propose to eliminate the Departments of Education and Housing and Urban Development? Why not sell off federal assets, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, in order to help pay down the federal debt? Why not open up the U.S. Postal Service to competition?

Obama won’t agree to these reforms at this point, but they would hopefully open a serious national debate about reforming our massive and sprawling federal government. Ronald Reagan in 1980 and the congressional Republicans in 1994 didn’t win by splitting hairs with the Democrats over 1% of spending. They offered a more fundamental critique.

At least, GOP leaders need to offer up spending reforms as bold as those of the Brookings Institution.

Chris Edwards is the director of tax policy studies at The Cato Institute

For Republicans, the words "Ronald Reagan" have become code for "policies and election results I like" (whether or not Reagan-era policies and election results match those of the speaker).  Republicans remember Reagan so fondly because his ideals were powerful, poignant, and his rhetoric was red meat for limited government/national defense Republicans.  Indeed, I suspect we often remember him more for his soaring rhetoric than for the specific details of his governance.

John Harwood's New York Times story, Republicans Rethinking the Reagan Mystique, contains some interesting points.

That’s not to say Republicans disavow Mr. Reagan’s achievements, which include cutting tax rates, presiding over the successful conclusion of the cold war and, as Mr. Obama noted, boosting morale after a period of national self-doubt. [...]

What’s needed instead, said Reihan Salam, co-author of “Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream,” is “something new — the anti-Obama, anti-Reagan.” [...] Mr. Salam said he favored a new prototype of Republican leadership that projected humility rather than grandeur, understated competence rather than soaring rhetoric and vision. [...]  

There is also the arrival of a new slate of pressing issues. It has been 20 years since Mr. Reagan’s plea to “tear down that wall” was answered by the fall of Communism. The 70 percent top income tax rate Mr. Reagan called confiscatory now stands at half that level. And the cultural appeals he made to blue-collar voters and evangelicals have lost their immediacy, displaced by economic concerns. Many remember that Mr. Reagan identified government as “the problem.” But today an increasing number of voters look to the government for security and stability.

The problem with the Republican fixation on Ronald Reagan - and Republicans say "Reagan" like Smurfs say smurf - isn't with the ideals of limited government that Reagan espoused in 1980.  The problem is that Republicans never evolved past the 1980's.  The conservative movement that arose in the 60's and 70's reached maturity in the 1980's.  That period became the conservative movement's frame of reference; the experiences, lessons and skills learned up to that point became the Republican Party's hammer, and when all you have is a hammer...

The result is two problems...

• Republicans are still trying to fight the same fights, even though the situation has changed.  It's one thing to mobilize people around tax cuts when you're cutting the top rates from 70% to 28%.  It's a lot harder to persuade people to vote on the difference between 39.6% and 35%.  Republicans are still trying to run against the vulgar great society liberalism of 1979, but (for a variety of reasons) that's just not as relevant to voters.

 

• Republicans are still offering the same solutions.  But over the last few decades, the viable Republican solutions have generally been passed.  Republicans are left advocating "limited government", but they either (a) have no idea how to actually accomplish it (thus, all the kvetching about "spending cuts", yet Republicans can only manage to find a few billion dollars per year), or (b) they're too beholden to interest groups (business money, elderly voters, etc) to stake out a position that would accomplish their goals (lest it endanger campaign funding, a seat in Florida or the mid-terms).

Republicans don't have to abandon Reagan.  Republicans just have to evolve beyond the 1980's.  Unfortunately, the culture, infrastructure and people that reached maturity in the 1980's may now be a barrier to evolution - not because their intentions are malign, but because they are adapted to a strategic and tactical era that has passed.

Has the Right been approaching politics wrong all along?  The Right has not figured out good policy means to accomplish its limited government & individual freedom ends.  The Right has been good at being anti-Left, but unsure what to do once it gains power. So what has been the problem?

Friedrich Hayek's essay, Why I am Not a Conservative, contains a few points the Right should consider carefully.

Let me now state what seems to me the decisive objection to any conservatism which deserves to be called such. It is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving. It may succeed by its resistance to current tendencies in slowing down undesirable developments, but, since it does not indicate another direction, it cannot prevent their continuance. It has, for this reason, invariably been the fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing. The tug of war between conservatives and progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of contemporary developments. [...]

Personally, I find that the most objectionable feature of the conservative attitude is its propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge because it dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from it - or, to put it bluntly, its obscurantism. [...] By refusing to face the facts, the conservative only weakens his own position.

The implication of Hayek's position is that conservatism can never achieve the vision of genuine individual freedom - it can only oppose the Left.  If that is the case, then who can achieve limited government?  The Compassionate Conservative approach has been tried, miserably (though some, like Douthat and others advocate variations on it).  The religious right seems inclined towards a Christian Democrats approach (Huckabee, et al).  There is the "energetic" and "ambitious" "national greatness" approach advocated by those like David Brooks, Bill Kristol & John McCain.  LIbertarians and many independents/moderates are inclined toward a, you know, libertarian approach.  And there is also a more moderate libertarian parternalism approach that recognizes a role for government in addressing economic issues and market failures, but focuses on optimizing defaults and preserving choices.

So, a question: If conservatism is more of a social and cultural tendency, rather than an effective political philosophy, then what should be the driving political philosophy for the Republican Party?   (NOTE: This does not imply that the Republican Party becomes inimical to conservatives; only that the "movement" be driven by a political vision, not a social/cultural tendency)

I can't leave this Lindsey Graham story alone.  It's not just that the free market, limited government, social tolerance voters (a swing vote that accounts for up to 20% of the electorate) deserves more respect from the Republican Party - it does - but that Lindsey Graham and many other Republicans don't seem to realize the position of weakness they are in.  Consider...

Lindsey Graham, while announcing that "We are not going to build a party around libertarian ideas", said...

“I’m a winner, pal,” Graham [said] ... “Winning matters to me. If it doesn’t matter to you, there’s the exit sign.” [...] “I’m not going to give this party over to people who can’t win,” Graham responded.

But the Republican Party is already controlled by people who can't win.

The decline in Republican Party affiliation among Americans in recent years is well documented, but a Gallup analysis now shows that this movement away from the GOP has occurred among nearly every major demographic subgroup. [...] By the end of 2008, the party had its worst positioning against the Democrats in nearly two decades.

While it is important to be flexible enough to win elections in more States, the solution to the Republican Party problem is not "be more vague, so that you don't alienate people".

As for Lindsey Graham: It's hard to see any coherent vision from Sen. Graham beyond 'power and perks'.  Republicans need to find out exactly what it is Sen. Graham is trying to "win".  He may have won his own election, but that only makes him a leader in the downward spiral of the Republican Party.

Over at FutureMajority.com, a left-of-center blog that "covers the involvement of young voters in progressive politics," Michael Connery brings attention to this:

Want to be a member of the Democratic National Committee? The DNC Youth Council is now accepting resumes from young people interested in becoming At-Large members.

What exactly is an at-large member of the DNC? At-large members are full-scale, policy-shaping members of the Democratic National Committee who are appointed by the DNC Chairman and approved by the DNC.

Also take note of the fact that the Youth Council is a separate entity from Young Democrats — it is an official arm of the Democratic National Committee charged with winning over the youth vote for the Democratic Party. The Youth Council’s mission reads as follows (emphasis added):

The Democratic National Committee’s Youth Coordinating Council (Youth Council) was formally constituted as a council of the DNC in December 2005. The goal of the Youth Council is to increase opportunities and improve participation by young people, under age 36, in the activities and structure at all levels of the Democratic Party. Among the purpose and goals of the Youth Council is to ensure that the Democratic Party maintains a majority of the youth vote which it currently holds with a wide margin.

Reading all of this forces me to ask two critical questions. First, where is the Republican National Committee’s version of the Youth Council? I’ve previously written that the RNC must establish some sort of “Young Voter Outreach arm,” but to this day nothing of the sort seems to exist (or even be in the works). Indeed, when I did some Googling, the closest thing I could find was an outdated page that still has talking points related to President Bush’s accomplishments.

Second, why isn’t the RNC offering these same sort of full-scale voting positions to young voters? If the GOP wants to win over millennials, then the RNC must be willing to not only listen to young voters but also to give them a substantial role in shaping the future of the party. Putting highly qualified young Republicans in the position to have a real say in the decisions regarding the future of the Republican Party would demonstrate that the GOP actually cares about winning the youth vote and is not just comprised of older generations.

Earlier, Jon Henke wrote a blog post that concluded that:

Republicans had better become more appealing to young people, because patterns established in youth persist for life.

The Democratic National Committee is taking serious strides to woo the youngest bracket of voters by empowering them to make real decisions in the Democratic Party. Without the RNC doing the same, young voters will continue to flock to the Democratic Party — a dangerous trend that could establish a generation of lifelong Democrats. Michael Steele was installed to reform the Republican National Committee and right a rapidly sinking ship. So Mr. Steele, are you listening?

Crossposted at NextGenGOP.com.

Armed Liberal has comments that those on the Right (and Republicans) need to read and understand.  I'll quote it at length, because it (particularly the bolded parts) is basically correct...and very important.  (Via Andrew Sullivan)

The GOP's problem is twofold. First, we just concluded a period of history in which the GOP ran everything. And they did it really badly. They were corrupt and incompetent. They led us into an unnecessary and costly war; they got themselves embroiled in an endless string of scandals; and they presided over an epic economic collapse. People remember all those things very vividly and it has badly damaged the Republican brand.

But that's only half of the GOP's problem. The reason the Republican Party continues to bleed members has much more to do with the general attitude of the party's political and intellectual leaders than anything else. Rather than admit to any mistakes or take even the slightest bit of responsibility for the state of the country, they insist on blaming everyone but themselves. [...] They watch TV and they see a very intelligent, charismatic President who says a lot of very reasonable sounding things and exudes competence. And then they see a bunch of angry conservatives and Republicans who insist that that same man is some sort of evil communist who's going to destroy the country. In other words, the problem is not the ideas, but the attitude. Republicans are coming across as a bunch of obnoxious, unreasonable a-holes. When you've just been voted out of power for manifest incompetence and your opponents are led by a very popular and reasonable-sounding person, you don't have the luxury of acting smug and uncompromising all the time. You have to acknowledge error and show some humility. You have to act civilly. You have to at least try to appear pragmatic and reasonable. But the GOP is not interested in doing any of these things. Those who are left in the party are ultra-partisan and utterly convinced of their own infallibility and moral righteousness. Until they lose that attitude and general combativeness, it won't matter what their ideas are. They'll just keep turning people off.

I keep making this point, and I'm not seeing much evidence that Republicans are really taking this seriously: The first priority for the Right cannot be defeating the Democrats.  The first priority for the Right must be reforming the Republican Party. 

That requires some very serious, substantive contrition for the mistakes they've made. 

• It requires Republican politicians to unilaterally embrace reforms within the GOP, without regard to how Democrats behave. 
• It requires Republicans to plant a flag on ethics, transparency, honesty and tone - to define higher standards and consequences, and to call out other Republicans who do not live up to appropriate standards.
• It requires the Right to do some serious re-evaluation of the entrenched movement, infrastructure and interest groups we have accumulated.  The leaders of the movement have to accept some responsibility for the condition we are in.

The Republican brand does not merely need a little tinkering.  The Republican brand is not the victim of Democratic rhetoric and framing.  The Republican brand is so bad because people accurately perceive the state of the Republican Party.  

Rhetorical contrition and promises are insufficient.  Fixing that problem requires actual, painful, reform.

Arlen Specter's departure has triggered the predictable media outcry attacking the Republican Party as an increasingly insular conservative rump, a regional party at best with no foothold in the Northeast.

That is one narrative. But there's a different story being told by the likely Republican lineup of Senate candidates in 2010. It's a story of our best pickup opportunities coming in blue states from more moderate Republicans, not from easy layups in red states represented by Democrats (of which there are many). And by and large, these candidacies are being embraced by conservatives, chief among them Mike Castle (DE), Mark Kirk (IL), and Rob Simmons (CT) (disclosure, I work on the last race).

Arlen Specter's erratic behavior in the last week is proof he needed to go. But this doesn't change the fact that there needs to be a functional relationship between the conservative and moderate wings of the party, and that any situation where a blue state Republican is ipso facto disparaged as a RINO is a dysfunctional one not conducive to building a majority led by the right.

I wasn't happy with Collins and Snowe's votes on the stimulus, but it is useful to make this distinction between the Maine Senators and Specter. For them, one gets the sense that it's not about ego or entitlement. They are genuinely moderate-to-liberal Republicans (moreso Snowe) representing a deep blue state that just legalized gay marriage through the legislative process.

If it's a choice between Lindsey Graham, a headline-grabbing conservative-hating conservative, or an honest, workmanlike moderate like Collins who will not go out of their way to rip the party to pieces in the press, sign me up for the moderate. Both parties will have their moderates. And if we keep ours in line and grab some of theirs, that's the surest sign we're winning (see: card check). If we ever find ourselves in the position where moderates can't vouch for a center-right governing agenda, we are in trouble.

There is a categorical difference between egomaniacs or iconoclasts like Specter, Chafee, and frankly Lieberman who fancy themselves Senators-for-life and think of themselves as entirely above party, and those who understand that parties and ideological blocs are vital to shifting the political center of gravity. Yes, they won't be with us on stuff like earmarks, and yes, we'll razz them about that. But you know what? No intellectually honest person could ever call them a Specter. We need to take back seats in places like North Dakota and Arkansas to allow the natural Republican small state majority in the Senate to reassert itself. But I wouldn't mind planting a flag in the blue states either. And that is going to take a certain type of candidate.