A poll of Republican “insiders” reveals that Marco Rubio is the early favorite for 2016. I don’t take it seriously as presidential election speculation, but I take it very seriously as evidence of the climate of opinion among Republican functionaries. It reveals a combination of panic and laziness. The thinking seems to be that since Republicans are having trouble with the growing, nonwhite fraction of the electorate, they should nominate Rubio because he is the “The Latino Republican version of Obama/Kennedy — he inspires, he’s handsome, and what’s not to like?” Well if he is the Latino Obama/Kennedy…
The Republican problem is not that their last ticket was a couple of white guys. The problem is that the entire center-right infrastructure is unable to communicate intelligibly to a large and growing fraction of the population. I know lots of people who don’t know anything about Romney other than he was for the rich, tax cuts, and he was trying to take advantage of a lousy economy to win an election. A lot of the country hears almost nothing of what the center-right has to say and what they do hear in nonsense about job creators who really did “build that” and some bromides about “opportunity” that were unmoored from anything in their own lives What they have never heard is a pithy explanation about why any policy would make their lives better. That problem will be mitigated only very slightly and temporarily by picking Rubio for president. The whole idea of looking for a Republican Obama is discouraging because it is really just a search for a short cut to the hard work of winning people over. Two of the main challenges facing the center-right (alongside crafting a prudent and attractive policy agenda) are:
1. Crafting a language that is intelligible to people who have not bought into and are not even aware of the dominant center-right narrative of the past forty years. References to the good old days of Reagan mean nothing to them. They aren’t terrified of becoming “like Europe” and don’t know what that is even supposed to mean. Calling something “liberal” is not taken as a criticism. You have to start from scratch and say as much as possible, as clearly as possible, as fast as possible. This approach cries out for experimentation and it would do a lot more good than nominating an all Latino presidential ticket. This is going to take a lot of listening to real people. Let’s remember that Ronald Reagan partly built his career on a similar kind of experimentation. Part of Reagan’s job at GE was to talk business-friendly conservatism to FDR-loving union Democrat workers. It is too bad that the record of Reagan’s trial-and-error on that job is lost, but his effort is a fair approximation of the present conservative challenge. We are going to have to talk to and win over some Obama Democrats or people who are now growing up in Obama Democrat households just like Reagan had to learn to talk to and win over FDR Democrats.
2. Conservatives have to figure out how to use media to reach more people The center-right messaging system is completely broken when it comes to talking to a very large fraction of the American population. the majority of the country does not consume any of the vast quantity of product put out by the populist conservative media (Fox News and conservative talk radio.) That isn’t going to change. The vast amount of money spent by the right-leaning Super-PACs were largely aimed at talking to a small fraction of middle-class white women. They were almost entirely about reinforcing existing narratives in short bursts. They don’t work with people who haven’t already bought the narrative. The center-right would be a lot better off spending a lot of that money between elections making actual arguments at length to people who don’t already agree with them. Then Karl Rove’s Crossroads operation might actually do some good.
If the above don’t happen, it almost doesn’t matter what else the center-right does. The ethnic or racial identity of the next Republican presidential nominee should be one of the least important considerations.
Update: Edited for spelling – Pete.
November 10th, 2012 | 9:49 pm
One shouldn’t be surprised if there is near open warfare between the DC GOP establishment and the conservative base in the next few years. Especially if the DC GOP is perceived as being too accommodationist. Expect having any DC position to be a huge negative for any potential candidate.
November 10th, 2012 | 10:28 pm
[...] [...]
November 10th, 2012 | 10:34 pm
Here is how it can work:
Marco Rubio and some successful Latino businesspeople could have a Latino Prosperity Conference that goes around to the hispanic communities throughout the US. The conference is low cost and is about how to start your own business and how to prosper in a bad ecomony.
In all the conference classes, the idea of how a free market works is introduced as well as the seminar material on how to start your own business, how to market, etc. This is how you educate the Latino community.
Latinos are hard working and do not want to be on welfare, but they want to get ahead, to make it in the US and the US govt is offering a hand out, so they take it, thinking it is right. But, look at all the Democrat controlled cities — look at what welfare does to the family unit and to the neighborhoods. They need someone to connect the dots for them. Really, most are against homosexual marriage and abortion but they vote Democrat because they do not understand free market. They are really naturally Republicans .
Ditto for the African American community. Have Herman Cain and successful black businesspeople do the same. As the Bible says, without a vision, the people perish. Give them a vision. We have four years to change many hearts and minds — let’s do it!
November 10th, 2012 | 10:37 pm
The best Romney line was we’re the party “for people who want to get rich”. Ok, if we can prove it, then we would get 80% of the vote. We have to drop all the prejudice, all the God Squadding, all the gun stuff (not as individuals, but as a group) and shave it down to pure economics. If we say private sector, fine, then lets start creating jobs for these people that pay more than $50,000 a year. If we do that they’ll automatically become republicans. Even if we can bump up say 1/3rd of people’s wages in this group, and make it clear who is driving the money, we’d get that many people to vote (R). People have to earn. Obama lets them earn. We don’t. Could it be any clearer?
November 10th, 2012 | 10:51 pm
Cristina, Herman Cain ran a disgraceful campaign and has degenerated into a huckster. He should be retired as a spokesman for anything. Discussions should focus more on public policy (making higher ed more affordable, lowering health care costs) than anything else. I think your post is a sincere attempt to deal with a complicated problem though I do not share either your diagnosis or your preferred solution.
John, I don’t understand what you are talking about.
November 10th, 2012 | 11:04 pm
This is very good, but i suggest that the bigger obstacle to communicating the message is actually having a message to communicate.
November 10th, 2012 | 11:24 pm
John, of course, but you can see the outlines of such an agenda in the governorships of Mitch Daniels, and (yes) Rick Perry among others. That is to say nothing of the work of wonks like James Capretta and the folks over at National Affairs. There are lots of choices in putting together a policy agenda (it’s not for nothing that Romney proposed a major Medicare reform and it didn’t really hurt him even though he didn’t make the best use of Ryan.)
November 10th, 2012 | 11:24 pm
Pete,
As usual, I agree with your analysis of the problem. Unfortunately, it is difficult for me to see how the Republican Party and its allied would-be opinion-shapers have any hope of reaching the sort of people you’re talking about. These people have been educated and socialized since childhood – by their schools, by the movies and music and TV shows and comedians they watch and listen to, by whatever news media they consume, by the expectations of friends, employers and coworkers – to view the world the way the Left and the Democratic Party want them to view the world. I do not see how a few infomercials and townhalls have any likelihood of overcoming all of this. And, of course, I’m not even talking about minorities (such as Latinos) for whom the GOP stance of celebration
of the American past is seen as disrespect to their own identities.
The example of Reagan is nice, but does not give me much encouragement. When the Republicans started making headway with previously Democratic voters beginning in 1968, it was because the Democrats were moving to the Left ahead of their own voters. Today, the Democrats seem to be in synch with the voters they need to control the federal government, especially younger ones. As older voters die off and are replaced by new voters, whether those turning 18 or immigrants gaining citizenship, the Democrats’ advantage will only grow greater. I really don’t see a solution.
Of course, I agree with you that Rubio is not the solution to anything.
November 10th, 2012 | 11:45 pm
djf, that is a measured and plausible take, but I’d feel more confident in its general drift if the people in question had ever heard a plausible center-right argument that was relevant to their lives make in language they could understand. My sense is that many in these various groups have “conservative” instincts or even principles (I am not even speaking of particular ethnicities here) and they have no idea of the best center-right ideas or the policy radicalism of the left (on abortion above all.) Reagan was elected governor in 1966. Circumstances will matter of course too, but this is a case where fortune is more likely to favor the prepared. And I can’t promise any course of action guarantees an outcome I find agreeable. And of course I don’t have the answer or even half the answer. What I do see are people asking the wrong questions. I think that any answer that works will come (if it ever comes) from trying a lot of things in nonelection years.
What is not a good idea is the attitude of Ned Flanders’s parents. They were beatniks who couldn’t control their son. They go to a psychologist and say “We’ve tried nothing, and we’re all out of ideas.”
November 10th, 2012 | 11:48 pm
18-26 year olds , again… all demographics of that age group missed by marketing, why? we are not on their FL. How to get there? get in the colleges, and get going there
November 11th, 2012 | 12:00 am
Republicans these days seem to always be asking the question of “Who Heir?”, whether it’s during the primary season or after getting a shallacking in the general election. Maybe it’s time for a more appopriate question, like “What policies should we support given the circumstances?”
November 11th, 2012 | 12:03 am
Pete,
I’m all in favor of trying, and I agree that what the GOP has been doing up till now is a nonstarter. I’m just not terribly optimistic about the prospects for the success of the strategy you’re describing, even though it sounds like a massive improvement over what we’ve been doing for the last decade or so..
I should have said “around 1968″ was the time Dem voters began moving to the GOP. Again, what happened in the mid-60s and 70s was that Democrats started alienating much of their base, i.e., the white working class. I doubt that the same thing is happening now with the Democrats’ current voting base. I attribute less political salience to abortion than you do – people really don’t want to think about it, unless they are committed partisans on one side or the other of the issue.
I’m not sure what you’re referring to when you say many of the people you’re talking about have “conservative” instincts. That, if asked by a pollster, they will say that they think abortion’s wrong? That they’re against same-sex marriage? If that’s what you mean, I don’t think that’s much grounds for encouragement. But maybe I’m wrong.
November 11th, 2012 | 12:24 am
djf, more from informal conversation than opinion polls, but it includes revulsion at late term abortion on demand, an openess to entitlement reforms and being resistant to tax increases unless they fell they are getting the maximum bang out of their tax dollars. That of course is not the same as the GOP’s current message on tax cuts for job creators etc. I do think that events will provide opportunities to split off elements of the current Dem coalition (including the looming fiscal crunch), but the ground has to be prepared or else the Dems could win even as events turn bad.
November 11th, 2012 | 12:43 am
“I do think that events will provide opportunities to split off elements of the current Dem coalition (including the looming fiscal crunch), but the ground has to be prepared or else the Dems could win even as events turn bad.”
Interestingly, this could have been said in 2008 after Obama’s first victory, and it would have been true. Pete’s original recommendations could even be said to have been followed in the founding of the Tea Party movement which, among its other objectives, was to attempt to re-educate people in the founding principles of the United States and the importance of small government. We got as far as a successful 2010 election, then the tide slowly turned back, as the Tea Party was caricatured en mass by the media, and Romney painted as a 1 percenter fat cat.
Rinse and Repeat.
November 11th, 2012 | 8:33 am
[...] Pete Spilakos (“Memo To Republican Insiders: If Marco Rubio Is Your First Answer, You’re Asking The Wrong Question“) observes that, “The Republican problem is not that their last ticket was a couple of white guys. The problem is that the entire center-right infrastructure is unable to communicate intelligibly to a large and growing fraction of the population.” Crafting a language that is intelligible to people who have not bought into and are not even aware of the dominant center-right narrative of the past forty years. References to the good old days of Reagan mean nothing to them. They aren’t terrified of becoming “like Europe” and don’t know what that is even supposed to mean. Calling something “liberal” is not taken as a criticism. [...]
November 11th, 2012 | 9:51 am
[...] Memo to Republican Insiders – Pete Spiliakos, PoMoCon [...]
November 11th, 2012 | 10:04 am
Pseudoplotinus, I think you are mistaken about the Tea Party. Whatever else it was, it was a mobilization of already right-leaning voters that was hyped through the right-leaning media. there is nothing wrong with any of that, but it has nothing to do with figuring out how to talk to people who don’t already consume right-leaning media and who don’t already think that the Constitution needs to be saved from Obamacare etc. The candidates served up by the Tea Party were a mixed..bag. Some were pretty good candidates who could win an election that takes place in favorable circumstances (Pat Toomey.) Some were very good communicators (Marco Rubio.) Quite a few were hopeless at talking to people who didn’t already agree with them (Sharron Angle, that guy from Colorado.)
I personally saw a Tea Party-inspired congressional candidate bewilder an audience. The audience was perfectly attentive and polite, but they had no idea what he was saying about the need to “stop spending.” Not that they were against any such thing. They just needed an argument that connected to their lives. And he didn’t even know that because he thought he was making an argument. All the people who listened to the same shows he did would know what he was talking about. I don’t mean to mock. It is very difficult, but talking to people who don’t already agree with you can’t mean using the stock phrases that mean something to people who already agree with you and little or nothing to everybody else.
November 11th, 2012 | 10:06 am
John Bailo,
I agree somewhat with your statement, but it’s just not about the economy. I was once a Republican (Reagan, Bush, Bush Jr.) but have switched to independent (voted for Obama twice) mainly because of the prejudice, both overtly (in Republican only meetings/discussion) and covertly (messaging, backing of tea party), and focus on religion (I strongly believe in separation of church and state).
I should be the prototypical Republican, Asian-American, raised Catholic, graduate of top 10 MBA school, own my company and pay more in personal federal and state taxes than 95%+ of people in this country.
While GOP pundits and commenters are theorizing why they lost the vote, why don’t they just get out and ask people? There are likely many reasons, I can only speak for myself and my equally successful close friends of color, but they might be surprised at the answers.
I am sick of the prejudice and non-inclusiveness of the GOP. We know “Get back the White House”, covertly means “from a black man” or “from the minorities” we’re not stupid. We have rarely been asked or included in important GOP local functions, and when we do we feel like tokens (the photographer constantly taking many pictures of me with several of the local leaders). Even when invited, nobody asks our opinion on how to approach different demographics, nobody even brings up the topic. Also, we are offended when the GOP or affiliates bash on Mexicans and Blacks, when you bash on one minority due mainly to skin color, you bash on all people of color. I won’t support a organization no matter how much money I might lose, if they don’t accept me. It’s not about communication or new messaging.
In short, Newt Gingrich said it best, something like “The difference between outreach and inclusion is five white guys have a meeting and calling you vs. being part of the meeting”.
Also, Marco Rubio, isn’t the answer, stopping the overt and covert racism and being more inclusive at the community level will swing voters back.
November 11th, 2012 | 10:17 am
In an election between two white-raised men, one beat the other. The subject of race is the low-hanging fruit you expect from contemporary punditry.
November 11th, 2012 | 11:28 am
Somehow the GOP has allowed the country to get the message that they’re a bunch of nihilists when it comes to government. It shouldn’t be that hard to tell people that things would be perfectly fine (for now, at least) if only the government were spending “only” almost 3 TRILLION DOLLARS instead of the almost 4 TRILLION DOLLARS we’re currently spending. The choice isn’t between liberal caring, growing government, and conservative elimination of government.
Paul Ryan had done a great job in several committee meetings and elsewhere making the case that it doesn’t matter how much folks want to pretend otherwise, the current system is about to crash, and so changes are coming, and we should get started now while it’s maybe not too late (actually, it has been too late for several years now). Most famously, in his evisceration of Turbo Tax Timmy Geithner. For whatever reason, this case didn’t get made at all in the presidential campaign, but someone still has to keep trying to make this point.
Whoever that is is going to be hated.
I’m not aware of any precedent for economic catastrophe causing a resurgence of small-government feeling. Just the opposite usually happens, in fact. But we still have to keep forging ahead.
PS. At least we know that there won’t be a “Draft Petraeus!” effort for 2016…
November 11th, 2012 | 1:34 pm
Saying that Obama and the people who vote for him are a group of sluts faggots, Mooslims, and moochers is fast, clear and intelligible, it just says more about the kind of people that you all are than anything else.
November 11th, 2012 | 2:39 pm
Ramon,
Thanks for your brutally honest contribution. I recognize and agree with much of what you say, and am saddened by other things that you say as perhaps the product of the typically caricatured misrepresentation of conservative attitudes.
So, I would love to hear you elaborate on your following statements just to better understand where you are coming from:
1. “I am sick of the prejudice and non-inclusiveness of the GOP. We know “Get back the White House”, covertly means “from a black man” or “from the minorities” we’re not stupid.”
Question: so are you saying that if a white anglo democratic president were in office and successfully pushed through the policies that Obama pushed through, there wouldn’t be a similar Republican response. I find this strange because I see Obama’s first term as essentiall a replay of Clinton, only Clinton shifted paths after his ‘shellacking’ in 1994. It seems perfectly intelligible to me that Republicans would be as energized in 2012 as 1994 simply on policy grounds. On what basis do you differ from this?
2. “We have rarely been asked or included in important GOP local functions, and when we do we feel like tokens (the photographer constantly taking many pictures of me with several of the local leaders). Even when invited, nobody asks our opinion on how to approach different demographics, nobody even brings up the topic.”
Question 2: Painful to hear, but no doubt true. On the other hand do you really think Democrats are any less patronizing on the matter of minorities? For all intents and purposes they pretty much take the minority vote for granted assuming that all they need to do is scare minorities into running from Republicans (though Repubs certainly make that easy). So in what ways do you see Democrats as AUTHENTICALLY inclusive of minority opinion where Republicans are not?
3. “Also, we are offended when the GOP or affiliates bash on Mexicans and Blacks, when you bash on one minority due mainly to skin color, you bash on all people of color. I won’t support a organization no matter how much money I might lose, if they don’t accept me. It’s not about communication or new messaging.”
Question: So by bash Mexicans are you referring to the illegal-immigration debate? And by bashing Blacks are you referring to the whole food-stamp narrative that came out of the last Republican primary? If so I understand the reaction. On the other hand, I don’t understand that, however poorly the debate was articulated, and it WAS miserably articulated in the Repub primary, the issue of immigration is a legitimate problem and it needs to be confronted, whichever side your on. And similarly, the food-stamp problem isn’t a black problem, it’s a dependency problem that runs across all ethnicities. To what extent would you disagree with this? If you don’t how can a debate on these sorts of things happen if minorities are so quick to read racism into matters that actually require serious policy attention?
Thanks again, for you contribution, and I hope you takes these questions in the contructive spirit they are intended.
November 11th, 2012 | 3:18 pm
If the problem is that the Republican Party has to find a way to communicate and sell policies reflecting conservative values to traditionally Democratic constituencies, then how do they differentiate from the DLC “triangulation” policies of the 90′s?
Democrats have already spent the last 20 years picking over conservative policies and positions for anything that could be sold to their constituencies.
Who signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act? Who signed NAFTA? Who signed the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act?
Obamacare? It’s just Romneycare x 50.
The only uniquely “Republican” policies left are ending abortion and removal of illegal immigrants. Already the queue is forming to throw the latter overboard, and the former probably cost the Republican party two senate seats this go round.
So how exactly does this work, then?
“We are going to have to talk to and win over some Obama Democrats or people who are now growing up in Obama Democrat households”
November 11th, 2012 | 4:19 pm
Pseudoplotinus
Again this is my honest feedback to be used constructively. I’m not bashing the GOP, necessarily, just stating why I didn’t vote Republican. Also it doesn’t mean the I will never vote Republican again, but many things have to change, the biggest reason as I stated before.
Answers to your questions
Q1. Yes I think if an Anglo Saxon pushed through Obama’s policies (I am not a fan of Obama-care BTW) he would not be subject to the overt and covert racism that Obama faced. I honestly believe that from hearing the hush hush conversations or when others automatically believe that I sympathize with their prejudices base color. Ask yourself this, how many Blacks or Mexicans do you have as friends? Invite over to your house. Likely none because if they were close they would tell you the same.
Q2. Immigration. Abortion (if you consider women to be minority, which they might not be in numbers but are treated as such by older men).
Q3. I hate welfare and don’t support it. (See I really should be Republican). By bashing Mexicans and Blacks I mean in private conversations that I either overhear or directly when people assume “I’m with them”. This has happened many times in meetings with Republicans. I don’t like it when they generalize a whole race, I can only wonder what they think of my race.
Racism and prejudice still exists big time. I can’t recall how many times my new neighbors asked me if I was the gardener when I moved into my house simply because I was the only homeowner to mow his lawn (everyone else hires Mexicans). I don’t even look Mexican.
You can bash me all you like but my main point again is – WHY NOT JUST ASK PEOPLE why they didn’t vote Republican? Once you ask and find out the answers then come up with a strategy. Just like business, talk to your customers, include them in your product development and then sell it. Republicans if any group should understand this concept.
Remember, Asian Americans voted for Obama in higher percentages than Latino’s. By my count if it were 90/10 Republican/Democrat this would have been close to a tie.
November 11th, 2012 | 7:20 pm
Brian: “Paul Ryan had done a great job in several committee meetings and elsewhere making the case that it doesn’t matter how much folks want to pretend otherwise, the current system is about to crash, and so changes are coming, and we should get started now while it’s maybe not too late (actually, it has been too late for several years now). ”
Ryan had been part of the problem he decries when his party was in power, and his budget numbers didn’t add up in any way, shape or form.
November 11th, 2012 | 7:37 pm
[...] Larison kindly linked to my post on the Republican (really center-right), communications problem. Larison continues to say “What Spiliakos overlooks is that the GOP [...]
November 11th, 2012 | 8:39 pm
Ramon, I’m a Texan, a white girl, and a Republican, and I’m deeply offended at your accusation that anyone against Obama is a racist.
It gets under my “skin” especially because I’m surrounded by amazing Hispanic friends who are ardent conservatives and some libertarians. They apparently did not get the message that there is no room for them in the GOP. The thing these friends hold in common is an ultimate love for the Catholic Church and the unborn which they see in grave threat under Obamacare.
Please think twice before painting anyone as a racist.
November 11th, 2012 | 10:16 pm
Barry: OK, dude, keep telling yourself that that isn’t an iceberg dead ahead. No need to change course, no sir. In fact, anyone who dares say otherwise should have spoken up yesterday, and should be tarred and feathered. FULL SPEED AHEAD!
November 11th, 2012 | 11:35 pm
Ramon, interesting comments. Reminds me of a time I was at a lunch counter and this old white Virginia guy and I were beefing about some Obama thing, I don’t recall how we got onto it, but yeah, when he felt I was like-minded he went into some wink-wink routine about how race explained it all, with some cockamamie junk about Kenya too, and I mumbled some mild version of “I’m not on board with that” (just too embarrassed, surprised), turned away, settled-up quick, and left.
Two California conservatives you might enjoy reading are:
1) Shelby Steele–he’ll give you a black conservative read on how certain “masks” and identities are adopted by many blacks, and how the Democrats exploit these. Just super thoughtful stuff on race. Content of our Character is the book to begin with.
We still await, as far as I know, a writer of equivalent power and thoughtfulness who can give the conservative Mexican-American position. Especially on illegal immigration issues.
2) Victor Davis Hanson–somewhere between a national conservative resource and a writes-too-much pundit (and at times too neo-con, foreign-policy-wise), his personal observations on how illegal immigration has impacted the central valley of CA are very interesting. Mexifornia is the book. Oh, and he’s great on Greek hoplite warfare, too!
As a substitute teacher in my hometown of San Diego, I saw some of the worst situations that 1990s “Mexifornia” had to offer–I taught at a couple dysfunctional schools 80% Mexican, and perhaps 50% illegal, the gangs getting worse and worse, graffiti spreading onto everything, horrible oompah techno-polka being blasted from trucks, etc. (Please, give me some Texas Tornadoes or Los Lobos or this: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/2012/10/01/carls-rock-songbook-66-the-greatness-of-dave-gonzalez/ !) But as much as I love Virginia, one of the things I miss most about California is…Mexicans, and especially, the distinctly Mexican American ones. That lilt in the voice and odd-ball sense of humor. Hard to put your finger on what’s different about it… Perhaps I have rose-colored glasses because I look kind of Mexican myself. Nor do I deny the heap of problems my California now has that are connected to the illegal immigration.
Just thinkin’ and rememberin’ out loud, Ramon.
November 12th, 2012 | 5:37 am
“… it didn’t really hurt him even though he didn’t make the best use of Ryan.”
Paul Ryan?!? Best use? That man not only lost his state, he lost his home town! Every single district in Janesville voted against him except the extremely wealthy neighborhood he comes from!
The only reason he’s still in Congress is because our Republican governor gerrymandered a big chunk of an ultra-Republican county near Milwaukee into his district!
Being a Republican, maybe this is a surprise to you, but the average American voter doesn’t think that sacrificing a big chunk of the Social Security and Medicare they’ve been PAYING FOR all their adult lives in order to give welfare to the wealthy is a good idea.
The “best use” Romney could have made of Paul Ryan would have been to avoid him like the plague he is.
November 12th, 2012 | 7:51 am
Question: so are you saying that if a white anglo democratic president were in office and successfully pushed through the policies that Obama pushed through, there wouldn’t be a similar Republican response. I find this strange because I see Obama’s first term as essentiall a replay of Clinton, only Clinton shifted paths after his ‘shellacking’ in 1994. It seems perfectly intelligible to me that Republicans would be as energized in 2012 as 1994 simply on policy grounds. On what basis do you differ from this?
I think the Democrats’ crooning over winning a super majority (which they only had for 6 months) and Pelosi’s promise to use it to push for a agenda that would extend and secure the Great Society project had a lot to do with the obstructionism the GOP became known for. Especially when they realized not every Democrat was on board with Pelosi and Reid. They could block what they saw as a radical agenda (and Pelosi was promising to her own radical supporters). So everything began with a liberal overreach (97-0 against ring a bell?) only to take months for wounds to heal, trust to be built and a series of committees to start anew and finally last minute vote buying.
First rule of opposing a party machine is to not show it any legitimacy, the second rule is to do anything to prevent them from conducting their business, the third rule is to expose their corruption.
November 12th, 2012 | 8:08 am
Dave, “Paul Ryan?!? Best use? That man not only lost his state, he lost his home town!”
Rock County went Democrat in 2010 even when the rest of the state was going Republican for governor and Senator. Ryan ran 11 points or so ahead of Romney in Rock County and got about the percentage of votes that Republicans usually get there when they win statewide. Maybe he wasn’t the problem.
“Being a Republican, maybe this is a surprise to you, but the average American voter doesn’t think that sacrificing a big chunk of the Social Security and Medicare they’ve been PAYING FOR all their adult lives…”
I have some really bad news for you. Paul Ryan and Obama have proposed to cut Medicare by the exact same amount. You must feel so betrayed. Now, a better use of Paul Ryan might have not put you in a position to make such a mistake. Then again, your ego-investment in hating Ryan might have gotten in the way (that’s how I’m betting.)
November 12th, 2012 | 11:03 am
Ramon,
My questions are intended in exactly the spirit you’ve answered them – to gain a little bit more clarity on the reasons why those in demographics such as yourself voted the way you voted. So in this spirit, regarding your answers:
Q1. What I asked you was on what BASIS would you differ from the view that somehow Republican obstructionism was motivated by race when we saw the same behavior among Republican’s in Clinton’s first term. You’ve clarified that you do see their behavior toward Obama as racially motivated, but it seems clear that their record in the early 90′s presents clear counterfactual evidence that policy is sufficient to motivate the kind of obstructionism we saw against Obama. Is it possible, that your view of Republican motives is inclined to impute racial motives where there are none?
Q2. I asked in ‘in what WAYS do you see Democrats as authentically inclusive of minority opinion where Republicans are not?’ Not on what topics.
So could you explain in what ways Democrats are authentically inclusive of minority opinion on immigration. Especially since in Obama’s first two years they had both houses of congress, a supermajority in the senate, and a president in the White House with HUGE political capital and they did NOTHING on immigration reform?
Is it possible that the democratic party understands that the present irresolved status-quo on immigration gives them a tactical advantage that they would not have if immigration were finally truly reformed? If you don’t think so, why not, in light of the fact that they had a chance to do something yet didn’t?
Q3. Thanks for clarifying things on this point. Your following words were certainly clarifying:
“By bashing Mexicans and Blacks I mean in private conversations that I either overhear or directly when people assume “I’m with them”. This has happened many times in meetings with Republicans. I don’t like it when they generalize a whole race, I can only wonder what they think of my race.”
My observation here is that I had the experience of hearing quit a bit of prejudice too, but directed at Romney’s ‘cult like’ mormon religion, and the insidious motives of successful businessmen. In fact daily on my facebook I was regailed with posts from friends and family demonizing a very decent man for the crime of being successful.
What I found incredible though was that it was the Obama campaign that made prejudice a centerpiece in its strategy to win election when it ran this campaign in Ohio:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/10/obamas-last-hand-to-play-the-other-card/
Or if you prefer the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/obama-mitt-romney-not-one-of-us/2012/10/22/e78714ba-1bb3-11e2-9cd5-b55c38388962_story.html
My point here is that there’s a lot of ugly stuff being said among the rank-and-file on both the left and the right, but imputing that to the candidates in the case of Romney seems selective when the Obama campaign was actually leveraging fear of the other as a centerpiece in its campaign strategy in Ohio.
It’s interesting that as a minority businessman, you represent both potential targets of prejudice. So, at the risk of straining your patience, could I ask you why it is that you were not offended by the clear anti-businessman narrative of the Obama campaign, but, instead, were sufficiently offended by the racial prejudice you found, NOT in Romney’s campaign, but merely among conservative individuals that you voted for Obama? This despite the fact that between the two candidates it was the candidate you voted for that was engaging in class based xenophobia?
Again, I hope your receive these questions in the constructive spirit in which they are asked. I’m not interested in bashing. I’m trying to understand your statements in light of, what to a conservative perspective of what took place, seems surprising and even paradoxical.
November 12th, 2012 | 11:12 am
Pete, this is precisely the sort of conversation the GOP needs to be having right now, and you’ve done a great job getting things started. I agree that the non-election years are important for trying out new messaging strategies and making inroads on those voter groups not already consuming conservative media. Cristina’s conference idea is a creative attempt at just this sort of outreach. No single strategy is likely to bring GOP victory in 2016, but now is the time to start trying as many as possible, and building the local networks needed to compete with the impressive GOTV efforts of the Dems in 08 and last week. My sense is also that while many voters have an inclination to adopt the political stance of liberal or independent, the day-to-day choices of most voters are fairly conservative. Arguments addressed to the common sense or lived conservatism of the voter who does not and will not consume FOX-based media could very well do the trick. But we would also do well to listen to Ramon, who is trying to tell us something about the public’s perception of the GOP today by those who didn’t necessarily want to vote for Obama, but nevertheless did. It’s my sense–though I don’t have the empirical data to back me up on this–that Obama has energized a fair portion of the electorate to vote which has not regularly voted before. We would do well to remember that voting is itself often the first step in the political education of the average citizen–those who voted for Obama in their youth or out of some sense of solidarity will not necessarily remain committed Dem voters. The thing is to speak to these voters, and give them reasons to think critically about their previous political choices. All representatives disappoint their constituents at some point, and the GOP should be poised to capitalize on the disappointment of these voters in 2014 and 2016. Hopes for a full economic recovery and meaningful immigration reform need not be the only sources of disappointment addressed, but they’re likely starting points, and Pete is right–it’s never too early to begin working on selling sensible policy proposals which provide a clear contrast to the words and deeds of the Dems on these issues. The rhetoric of the GOP has been in decline since Reagan, and every effort should be made to seek out and develop those voices most successful in getting the GOP message across to a broad base of voters.
Thanks again, Pete, for getting us thinking constructively about the road leading away from 2012. It’s a step in the right direction.
November 13th, 2012 | 7:17 am
Pete, how would you have made “best use” of Ryan? Beating Romney by ten points was probably not what Mitt had in mind when he selected him.
Perhaps he could have tied and gagged him and locked him in a small room where nobody could see or hear him. That would have helped because, unlike your claim in the OP, the Republican party’s problem is not “…that the entire center-right infrastructure is unable to communicate intelligibly to a large and growing fraction of the population.”
If that was the GOP’s problem, then Ryan would have been a real help to the ticket because every time he opened his mouth he communicated exactly what the Republican party stands for: cutting taxes, coddling the super wealthy, shipping jobs overseas, destroying American manufacturing, destroying the middle class, letting Al Qaeda blow up New York and the Pentagon, starting wars all over the world that they couldn’t win or even afford, running up a $10 trillion dollar national debt and giving us a 1929 style crash that took down the entire world economy.
We heard Paul loud and clear!
November 13th, 2012 | 10:33 am
Pseudoplotinus
Too busy yesterday, it’s year end, business is good, family keeps busy and I have to make more money now to pay all the extra taxes. This will likely be my last post for a while.
Although I enjoy it, I just don’t have the time for lengthy discussion and as you have pointed out, I am not the best at debate and sometimes my arguments might be unclear or not specific. I apologize, I was an engineer in college, of course, so my writing skills lag behind my analytic ability.
My arguments however based on my personal experience/perceptions and that is something you cannot change with internet chat and some links.
But, I appreciate your comments and the links. I will look at them over time and give it thought.
I think you understand that I know there are a lot good people in the GOP and don’t hold you or anyone on this board personally responsible for the perceptions I hold, but what I need to vote more Republican in the future is more positive interaction with Republicans in all venues (professional, social and political events).
BTW, my ultra-liberal southern born/raised Caucasian wife (who would have thought?) is dragging me to one of her small business owner (she has her own company) democratic group meetings in a few weeks, I don’t know the exact name/venue but you can bet I will give them an earful of what I don’t like (as mentioned in previous posts). At least their asking and engaging me.
November 13th, 2012 | 11:10 am
“… my ultra-liberal southern born/raised Caucasian wife …”
Ah. Now all becomes clear.
Just kidding Ramon. Sort of.
Thanks for your posts. I hope you’ll have chance to get back, it’s been to get your point of view on this topic especially.
November 24th, 2012 | 9:09 pm
[...] the end of the story of course. No program can help the Republicans if the voters they need never hear about it. Tweet Comments [...]
January 20th, 2013 | 9:12 pm
[...] Mitt Be Mitt': But Who Was He?NPR (blog)Sunday Breakfast Menu, Nov. 11New York Times (blog)Memo To Republican Insiders: If Marco Rubio Is Your First Answer, You're …First Things (blog)Examiner.com -Huffington Post (blog) -KERA Newsall 3,295 news [...]
January 20th, 2013 | 9:13 pm
[...] an appeal to the far-right wing of the Republican Party. – Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @ …Memo To Republican Insiders: If Marco Rubio Is Your First Answer, You're …First Things (blog)George P. Bush, the Hispanic RepublicanGather.comWeak showing among minorities [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact