Three Fingers Pointed Right Back at Cha

There is a lot of talk (and blame) about what the Republican Party needs to do to rebuild itself.  As a campaign Internet consultant, I certainly agree with Patrick Ruffini that change won't come from the top down and that the Internet is vital in developing real grassroots operations.  However, it seems to me that something considerably more important is missing from many of the strategies suggested so far.

Since the Republican Party congressional losses of 2006, many people have been offering advice to the GOP, but it seems as if no one is listening to the likes of Richard Viguerie, Ryan Sager, John Dean, Peggy Noonan, Ron Paul, Michael Tanner, Bob Barr, and the many others who have been suggesting the same general message: get back to the basics of small-government conservatism.

The Internet is merely a tool, a medium to inform and energize the grassroots.  Without a coherent message, it's as useless as John McCain's Meetup numbers.

It's almost as if Republicans have forgotten what fiscal conservatism is.  To illustrate the point, I recall speaking with one of the students Mitt Romney had reportedly bussed in to CPAC 2007.  When asked why she supported Romney, the student replied that "Romney's health care plan in Massachusetts is a shining example of a conservative solution."

Shortly after this encounter, I ran into Ryan Sager in the hallway.  After relating the story to him, he chuckled and made reference to his book The Elephant in the Room.  Months later, when I told Richard Viguerie the same story, he shook his head sadly and talked about a lost generation which knows virtually nothing about conservatism.

Face it folks, the Republican Party has lost its branding.  It is no longer inaccurate to consider the GOP the party of big government, bloated budgets, billion dollar tax increases and bailouts. 

Immediately following Super Tuesday, many of us knew and accurately predicted November's electoral outcome.

Republicans nominated a man with a poor record on the Second Amendment and an absolutely abysmal record on the First.  While Obama (according to NTU data) wanted to increase federal spending by nearly $300 billion per year, McCain's policy proposals would have increased the cost of government by almost a hundred billion dollars per year.  And these data were derived prior to McCain's support of the bailout plans.

McCain talked a big game about cutting earmarks, which aren't nearly as statistically significant as even the tip of an iceberg.  So we cut a few million here and there while we pour a few hundred billion into the trough of ever-increasing federal budgets -- and then we start splashing bailouts into the swill.

The Republican Party can rebuild if and when voters find them credible on issues relating to fiscal responsibility.  With the Democrats in control of Congress and the White House, there will certainly be a target-rich environment for GOP personalities to scream a small-government message at the top of their lungs. 

Toward the end of his campaign, McCain started accusing Obama of being a socialist.  He failed to remember that while his index finger was pointed directly at Obama, three of his fingers were pointed right back at himself.

If my former political party is to get back on track, it is going to have to take a long look in the mirror and soberly make the decision that it's time for change -- that it is time for some real change.

4.75
Your rating: None Average: 4.8 (4 votes)

Comments

Your post is a good one. I'll give you a fiver.

Your article is a good one, with just one exception...what's the big idea that will set a fire in the minds of the electorate that less government spending is a good thing?

Until recently, I would have suggested a Fair Tax proposal. At least people would be confronted with the fact that they actually had to pay for their government spending every time that bought a candy bar and a Coke.

But the politicians have caught on. Now they are simply printing money and raising the debit. I suspect our message of fiscal conservatism won't have any real political impact until inflation raises the price of food so high, and with jobs so scarce, people's bellies will scream out to them to lower government spending.

ex animo

davidfarrar

 

Education, education, education...

...is my answer.

Barry Goldwater had his butt handed to him but he paved the road for Reagan victories.

I think the core issue is that Republicans have got to restart the education process.  It won't fix things overnight and it could take years.  However, the winning-at-all-costs strategy has now turned to a losing-no-matter-what-the-GOP-does reality.

Why would a voter turn to the Democrate-Lite party when they can vote for the real thing?

 

Help Wanted: A Leader

We need leadership now more than anything. Someone with a coherent vision for the party and someone who wants to divorce us from this "Compassionate Conservatism" crap.

I agree; we have to stick to our roots.

But many of us here are slowly realizing just how much the business sector has taken over our Party. It is from this sector the winning-at-all-costs strategy was developed, and from which the fiscal conservatives, read: Joe, the plumber, of our party have finally rebelled.

    LONG LIVE THE REBELLION

 

ex animo

davidfarrar

 

Y'all could try someone like...

...Sanford or Flake.  Of course, the GOP prefers to punish these sorts of people.

 

Off topic, but...

...no one seems to have brought it up on this site today:

Happy Veterans Day from this proud Army vet of over a decade.

I'll toss something up.

the day after, but it's a fitting day for a tirade. why is it that the Democratic sites have a veterans day parade, but y'all got nothin?

Fiscal Conservativism

Would you consider it fiscally conservative to call for a balanced budget and reduced deficit to be more important than lowering taxes?

In other words if you had to choose between getting spending under control, partially by raising taxes (at least temporarily) to cutting taxes but not balancing the budget (the last 8 years) which would you choose, as a true conservative?

Great question.

But I am a bit confused on your predicate. How would increase taxation reduce government spending?

In fact, neither proposition you propose would reduce government spending -- although, I appreciate your attempt -- which leads us back to square one. How do we convince the voting public that it is a bad thing to simply allow the government to print money, in effect, raising our taxes without our consent and in most cases, without our knowledge, by the devaluation of the dollars we have in our pockets? How do we do this before the fact?

I find it endlessly illuminating to see the car industry and government employees, both sectors heavily unionized,  now demanding their high negotiated wages be supported by the taxpayer in the form of a stimulus package and higher deficits. We are in the mists of selling out our future to pay for the sins of the present, and I can see no end to it.

Do they deserve taxpayer support? I really don't know. I do know the question should rightly belong to the taxpayer at the ballot box and not by the stroke of a pen by a politician, seeking the easy way out by simply raising the deficit.

ex animo

davidfarrar

the bailout was to prevent the collapse of

Just in Time, which would have meant martial law.

I'd rather just bail out the workers in the auto plants, and give them new leadership (hopefully someone who understands engineering)

Printing more money is an alternative to higher taxes. You get one or you get the other. Buy War Bonds!

Balanced budget = Increased Revenue - Decreased Expenses

It's not a binary solution.

Increasing tax rates does not neccessarily lead to increased tax revenues, so your more taxes, less taxes choice is not the proper argument.

Balanced budget = Increased Revenue - Decreased Expenses

We have to do both, increase tax revenue, and decrease expenses, in order to balance the budget.

McCain on guns

I'll grant that McCain's record on the First Amendment was abysmal, but where does the notion come from that he had a bad record on guns?  My recollection is that he opposed the Brady Act and the ugly gun ban (both times), supported the Firearms Owners Protection Act and the Protection of Arms in Lawful Commerce Act, voiced support for repeal of the Lautenberg Amendment, and apart from the question of regulating private sales at gun shows, has an otherwise near-perfect record on guns (and certainly a more perfect one that that of Reagan or either President Bush).  Am I wrong?

on cutting spending or taxes

Instead of increasing taxation to balance the budget, the solution is to cut spending -- and believe me, there is a lot of it out there which could be cut.

Grover Norquist once told me that it was a mistake for the right to target taxation so heavily for the last few decades.  If spending had been the target, tax cuts would have followed and the GOP wouldn't be in as much trouble today.

re: McCain on guns

Here are some reasons I say McCain has a poor record on the Second Amendment.  From OnTheIssues:

Calls for GOP "tolerance" of closing gun show loopholes

A recall petition drive was started in June 2001 by the Arizona far right. The petition complained that McCain was disloyal to the President, especially in voting against his tax bill, and it also complained about his proposal to close the gun show loophole. One form of the petition accused him of backing "dishonest and treasonist" legislation. Several of the petitions were posted at gun shops.

The NRA was particularly angry with him for its being included in his campaign finance reform bill, and for trying to tighten a loophole in the gun control laws. McCain himself was sufficiently concerned that he sent a 4-page, single-spaced letter to every GOP precinct leader in Arizona. He called for "greater tolerance" for Republicans "who occasionally dissent" from one or another majority position held by a party. He explained his vote against Bush's tax cut and talked about the need to build up national defense, about his work on the patients' bill of rights, and the gun show loophole.

Ban cheap guns; require safety locks; for gun show checks

McCain favors outlawing cheaply made handguns called Saturday night specials, and favors mandating safety locks on certain guns. He said he is intrigued by new technology that electronically identifies a person handling a gun, allowing only the owner to fire it. McCain rallied Senate Republicans behind a Democratic measure requiring background checks at gun shows.

Supports ban on certain assault weapons

McCain said he was open to voting for an assault weapon ban, depending on the details.

 

 

Also, read NRA Blasts John McCain, Bittergate and John McCain's Gun Control Problem.

Social Policy needs to be articulated

A Conservative social policy ought to be considered as part of the small government platform.

Specifically, what role does the government have (at all levels) in the various social issues currently in the forefront.  If the government ought not to be involved in some of these issues, then what vision are we offering for dealing with these issues.

earmarks, physical responsibility & small government....

...this is the rhetoric that causes the voters eyes to start to glaze over.  Gives them cause for a nap.  But it doesn't motivate them to the polls to vote GOP.  We have a lifeless message.  Why? Because the average voter knows that it will be impossible for us to deliver on it !  We no longer are bankrolling our own  nation but our tax money and our nations wealth is flowing out all over the world.  And only a trickle is returning.  We're getting no return on our investments!!!   Because we're not demanding it!  The world is con'ing us out of our wealth. Extortion.  And Middle America knows it and feels it.   Which is what happens when both of the major political parties have now completely embraced internationalism and tossed Nationalism off into the dumpster.  This is the essence/root of the GOP's problem.  Darvin Dowdy

McCain on guns

This is the first I've heard of McCain joining the "let's ban affordable guns" bandwagon or expressing support for any version of the AW ban, though on the latter point, query how much of an "assault" weapon ban he would have supported given the relatively tootheless nature of the one he opposed.  The rest of your examples prove my point, not yours.  Sure, the NRA hate him, but that's mostly because of his horrendous record on the First Amendment, not his mostly strong one on the Second.  The GOA's efforts to portray him as having "evolved" into an anti-gunner vis a vis Bush are particularly amusing, given that McCain voted against the very AW renewal bill Bush had promised to sign.

My original point stands: McCain's not perfect on the Second Amendment, but if his record as a Senator is any indication of how he would have governed as President, his "poor record" on the Second Amedment woudl have made him the least poor President in recent memory.  [That's not to say that Palin or JIndal wouldn't do better; I'm sure either would.]