Home › Blogs › Patrick Ruffini's blog ›

Against Giving Up

Submitted by Patrick Ruffini on Fri, 05/30/2008 - 13:46
in

The first week of the The Next Right has brought its fair share of posts pointing toward a brighter future for the right, as well as stark reminders of the uphill climb we face.

But one thing is clear: we must not give up. Not in the next five months, and not ever.

Read on.

I don't like the way things have unfolded either. And when a majority of Republicans refuse to stand up to the moral outrage of earmarks or the recent Farm Bill, they're just inviting another 2006 by refusing to press the narrative Reset button and sending a clear sign to the electorate that they're willing to make a radical break with the pre-2006 Republican image.

But what makes me just as angry is the fact that we're standing by as massive psychological warfare is being waged against us. Candidates are being psyched out of even trying... in NY-13, where we would have been favored thanks to one of the few remaining urban Repbulican machines, we are nominating "some dude" (in MyDD's charitable words). I don't remember a run-for-the-hills mentality this pervasive in 1992 and 1996 when we faced double digit poll deficits and a deeply unfavorable media narrative. Good candidates still ran. And we were (mostly) fine: keeping those presidential races far closer than the media expected, while gaining 10 seats in 1992 and only losing 9 seats (and winning 2 Senate seats) in '96.

No matter what the polls may say, history strongly militates against the repeat wave some are now talking about. In 1976, the election after the '74 Watergate landslide, we lost one seat. In that election, Gerald Ford closed to within 2 points of Jimmy Carter after trailing by 30 at this point in the race. In the aforementioned '96 election, the Democrats gained seats in a rebound from '94.

Moreover, in actual Democratic primary elections -- and we've seen how elections can be different animals from polls this season -- we've seen intractable problems emerge for Barack Obama's coalition, problems which have only gotten worse with the passing of time. Obama amplifies Kerry's 2004 weaknesses in blue-collar, rural areas and in swing states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida. For the first time since 1988, we can be optimistic about carrying at least 3 of those 4 states. 

This is not to say we're not in trouble. But if we are, it's only because we've succumbed to the psywar campaign to define 2006 as another 2008 before it really begins, leading to lousy recruiting and leaders who are forced to humbly echo Democratic talking points, further entrenching the narrative.

The only way this will not be close is if we lose our nerve. Which we are perilously close to doing.

2.666665
Your rating: None Average: 2.7 (3 votes)

Comments

A Winnable Year

Submitted by kmorrison on Fri, 05/30/2008 - 14:08.

I agree.  While the party has some struggles to overcome, this is a winnable year.  The presidency is a real possibility.  All the polling shows the race as extremely close, even though the pundits and the media continue to sing them Dem's praises.  Democrats have chosen to run way to the left, and even if it is a year that should favor them, the U.S. is still a right of center nation leaving the door open for Republican successes.  This may be a painful spell for Republicans, but it doesn't have to consist of huge losses.  Staying positive and in the fight is key to making this a positive election year.

History is On Our Side

Submitted by Josh Kahn on Fri, 05/30/2008 - 14:38.

Great point about the history of waves not repeating.  And from an even longer term perspective, all political parties have "in" and "out" cycles.   The happy news is a good candidate can still win even in this environment and we can get back on our feet once we generate some new ideas and change our message. 

The upside losing because our the message isn't working is that once we change our message we'll be competitive again very quickly (note: this doesn't mean turning into Dem-lite,  it just means refocusing conservative thought on the problems we face today instead of the ones we faced in 1980).

The think tanks and party intellectuals need to gin up new ideas, which is starting to happen, the various political shops need to write a new playbook and get past old 1994 tactics, and a our electeds need to be willing to adopt those new ideas and strategies.  We’ve done all of this before and we can do it again.

I agree, we are a right of center nation.

Submitted by davidfarrar on Fri, 05/30/2008 - 20:05.

However, judging by their experience over the last eight years, nobody believes the Republican Party and its presumptive presidential nominee is going to represent their right of center interests over that of their corporate interests.

I am ashamed to say this, but in this right of center nation, the Republican Party is no longer the  Peoples' Party.  It has increasingly become the party of the moneyed interests, as has the Democratic Party.

We have the tool to become the true Peoples' Party again. All we need is the political leadership to take it back to its roots..the People.

ex animo

davidfarrar

Some solid observations.  The

Submitted by goldglove51 on Fri, 05/30/2008 - 15:46.

Some solid observations.  The problem Republicans have right now isn't candidates; it's those they've already got in Congress.  Save for small handsful in either house, the DeLay mentality still exists.  There is one solid reason voters are skeptical, and that began when the party elites abandoned Newt Gingrich in the aftermath of '96.  Neoconservatives...no, not the 'neocons' as defined by the left, but big government conservatives have taken over the party, and, to some extent, the intellectual heft as well (William Kristol, anyone?).  I don't know if anything other than an electoral disaster this November will spur the party to clean house, and get the Eric Cantors and Jim DeMints into the leadership. 

The political world has changed. Haven't you heard?

Submitted by davidfarrar on Fri, 05/30/2008 - 16:39.

Any time an obscure Illinois junior Congressman can defeat the party's prevailing political powerhouse, something has changed, something profound, something earth-shaking.

What you are seeing in Obama's rise to political prominence is nothing more than a half-effective web presence. But even in its infancy, the communicative power of the Internet is so great, few politicians and even fewer political parties can ill afford to ignore its potential after this election.

Of course, the political parties will try and have it both ways. They will try and run all sorts of Internet scams to try and convince their membership they are empowered by this new technology,  but in the end, they will fail.  Other Internet entities who understand the deliberative groupware game will also be playing for keeps and will be designing their web site to offer the people real "collection action", real political power. Not mob-rule, but a real winnowing process that effectively separates James Surowiecki's "Wisdom of the Crowd" from the far less desirable "Peter Piper" effect of instant mass one-on-one communication. Those website that do, will not be long in attracting members.

So the political ground rules have changed. All that is left is to see who understands those rules and moves to take advantage of them first.

ex animo

davidfarrar

 

A couple of thoughts

Submitted by David Hinz on Sat, 05/31/2008 - 12:07.

Any time an obscure Illinois junior Congressman can defeat the party's prevailing political powerhouse, something has changed, something profound, something earth-shaking.

There is nothing earth-shattering or profound about it.  Obama has ridden the perfect storm of "Clinton Fatigue" and political correctness.  While Clinton had the political machinery to nearly force her way onto the ticket as presidential candidate, most Democrats realized that the country, for all it's infatuation with the Clintons, is tired of them.

The Dem party really, REALLY didn't want to nominate her, and along came Obama as an alternative. They jumped at the chance.

Obama, on the other hand, can ride the political correctness that won't allow any substantive criticism of the man for fear of being labeled a "racist"  Look at the way Clinton supporters who dare to question him have been treated.

Of course, the political parties will try and have it both ways. They will try and run all sorts of Internet scams to try and convince their membership they are empowered by this new technology,  but in the end, they will fail.

I see all sorts of 'independent' sites, mostly attacking Obama, that all trace back to Clinton operatives.  They pass themselves off as grassroots site, but only the names have been changed to protect the guilty.  They deal mostly in inuendo and lies, using one another as credible sources.

Yes. Yes, perhaps you are right.

Submitted by davidfarrar on Sun, 06/01/2008 - 09:42.

Perhaps it wasn't the Internet after all. I may have spoken too soon. I'll tell you what, why don't you just forget about that post and I will see you at the next election.

ex animo

davidfarrar

when the opponent is overconfident....

Submitted by Ironman on Fri, 05/30/2008 - 19:23.

is when a well executed counter attack is usally the most devastasting.

Sadly, ala France 1940, it seems many of the generals have lost their will to fight. Must the rank and file Republican respond via guerrilla tactics ?