Obama won and the Republicans lost most major races.
The Republicans salvaged some Senate races and avoided a Democrat majority that equals 60, the cloture vote total. However, the 60 vote rule is a Senate rule and can be changed by simple majority vote. There was discussion during the Bush administration that the Democratic block on court nominations could be removed by dropping the 60 vote rule. The “Gang of 14” was made up of Democrats and moderate Republicans that tried to avoid the overturn of the rule in the interest of “bipartisanship.” Harry Reid will find no impediment to ending that rule to further his agenda and anyone who expects him to avoid breaking precedent is a fool.
I do not expect Obama to govern as a moderate.
I do not expect the Congress to discover bipartisanship.
That’s OK with me.
Republicans need to restructure their arguments. David Frum has one recommendation for the future.
A generation ago, Republicans dominated among college graduates. In 1984 and 1988, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush won states like California, Pennsylvania and Connecticut – states that have been “blue” for a generation. (America’s least educated state, West Virginia, went for Michael Dukakis in 1988.)
Those days are long gone. Since 1988, Democrats have become more conservative on economics – and Republicans have become more conservative on social issues.
College-educated Americans have come to believe that their money is safe with Democrats – but that their values are under threat from Republicans. And there are more and more of these college-educated Americans all the time.
So the question for the GOP is: Will it pursue them? To do so will involve painful change, on issues ranging from the environment to abortion. And it will involve potentially even more painful changes of style and tone: toward a future that is less overtly religious, less negligent with policy, and less polarizing on social issues. That’s a future that leaves little room for Sarah Palin – but the only hope for a Republican recovery.
So we should try to restructure the message to appeal to the Creative Class.
The biggest difference between the creative class and the old business types isn’t on cultural issues–few traditional CEOs embraced the religious right’s agenda–but on environmental policy. Executives at places like Apple (nasdaq: AAPL – news – people ), as well as opportunistic investment firms, have become enthusiastic jihadis in the war against climate change. Conveniently, their companies don’t tend to be huge energy consumers and, if they make products, do so in largely unregulated facilities in China or elsewhere in the developing world. And youthful financial firms looking for the next “bubble” could benefit hugely from mandates for more solar, wind and other alternative fuels.
All this could prove very bad news for groups that produce tangible products in the U.S. or that, like large agribusiness firms, are big consumers of carbon. Also threatened will be anyone who builds the suburban communities–notably single-family houses and malls–that most Americans still prefer but that Gore and his acolytes dismiss as too energy-intensive, not to mention in bad taste.
Theoretically, there is opportunity for the Republicans–if they can somehow jettison the more primitive parts of their social agenda and come up with their own bold, environmentally sound energy agenda. The new hegemons could easily be painted as moralistic hypocrites who live the carbon-heavy luxury lifestyle of the super-rich while demanding ordinary Americans give up their cars, homes and even their jobs.
So, we “jettison” traditional religion and adopt the religion of Global Warming and Environmentalism.
My personal opinion is that the Creative Class is about 5% of the population; a wealthy and noisy 5% but still a very small group when the votes are counted. Of course, if the money is what counts, and the rules are easily broken as was done by Obama, they matter more.
But not enough.
I tend to think more along the lines of Victor Davis Hanson.
1. Spending. When Republicans spend at rates higher than Democrats they suffer the wage of hypocrisy, and discredit tax cuts, since the public blames lower taxes for mounting deficits even when they have been demonstrably proven to have brought in greater revenue. In the future, conservatives need to forget all the gobbly-gook about deficits being tolerable as this or that percentage of GDP— and just balance the budget, since the public deals in psychology and symbolism as much as abstract economic data.
I completely agree here. The failure of the Hastert Congress to control spending led to 2006 and 2008. There was a theory, advocated by Tom DeLay, that we could bribe our way to a permanent majority. It was called “The K-Street Project” and was an attempt to tie lobbyists to the party. Wikipedia is not unbiased on some subjects but this gives the outlines.
2. People. Conservatism means an allegiance to past values and behavior. When the Republican Congress not only spent lavishly, but was marked by a series of scandals—Foley, Cunningham, Stevens, et al.— then Republicans lost that high ground as well. Conservative reconstruction must focus on being above the ethical norm, not indistinguishable from corrupt career politicians. By the same token, highly-visible appointments of incompetent sycophants like Press Secretary Scott McClellan or “Brownie” at FEMA remind voters that conservatives have standards no different from the alternative when they claim otherwise.
Some of this was unique to the Bush family which is notorious in its devotion to loyalty to the family. A very good man in California, named Bill Jones, was the California Secretary of State when the 2000 primaries were held. He endorsed McCain and, in 2002 when he was running for the Republican nomination for governor, the administration got revenge by stiffing him. With that went the party’s best chance to win the California governorship. They ended up with a fellow named Bill Simon who lost in a gentlemanly fashion giving us Gray Davis. Bill Jones could probably have defeated Davis.
Bush loyalty gave us incompetents like the FEMA head and Scott McClellan, who rewarded Bush for making him Press Secretary, when he was unqualified, by endorsing Obama and writing a nasty tell-all book. Actually, he didn’t have much to tell.
3. Populism. Joe the Plumber caught on because (finally) the case was made that confiscatory tax rates (40% on top income, 15.3% FICA/Medicare, once caps removed, 5-10% state income tax) mean that none of us can hope to have the financial success guaranteed to others by birth.
Joe the Plumber was able to explain the consequences of Obama’s tax plan (at least that part he admitted to) better than McCain could do. The Republican Party is not the party of the “Creative Class” or of the very poor. I don’t think it will ever be so.
I think the party is best oriented to the concerns of those who own businesses, even very small ones. Salaried employees, who do not aspire to own the business, are not natural Republicans. This includes public employees, although some with unusual life styles, like firemen and policeman, will be different. Most bureaucrats and low level employees are unlikely to choose the Republican Party with one exception.
jettison the more primitive parts of their social agenda
Why did Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California, pass when Obama carried the state by a large margin ?
California’s black and Latino voters, who turned out in droves for Barack Obama, also provided key support in favor of the state’s same-sex marriage ban. Seven in 10 black voters backed a successful ballot measure to overturn the California Supreme Court’s May decision allowing same-sex marriage, according to exit polls for The Associated Press.
More than half of Latino voters supported Proposition 8, while whites were split. Religious groups led the tightly organized campaign for the measure, and religious voters were decisive in getting it passed. Of the seven in 10 voters who described themselves as Christian, two-thirds backed the initiative. Married voters and voters with children strongly supported Proposition 8. Unmarried voters were heavily opposed. LA Times 11/5.
Why is it a losing strategy for Republicans to support social issues when the gay marriage ban out polled Obama by 25% ?
Single voters and atheist voters are going to trend Democrat. Married voters and religious voters favor Republicans. Maybe we should figure out what the latter group have in common. I think we have lost many college graduates, partly because the left has dominated the faculty. They have had an impact on students. Once they get married and start a small business, they may change. Small business owners are probably disproportionately non-college graduates. They go to work and learn a business. Many are former junior college students but many, especially men, have given up on the value of a college education. Stories like this one don’t help.
Two other huge issues will be energy policy and health care reform.
I will be on the National Review cruise from next Saturday for a week. The topic will be “where do we go from here?” I will post more.
Tags: economics, government, Obama, Republicans
[…] 5-10% state income tax) mean that none of us can hope to have the financial success … View post Add your […]
[…] Post Mortem He endorsed McCain and, in 2002 when he was running for the Republican nomination for governor, the administration got revenge by stiffing him. With that went the party’s best chance to win the California governorship. … […]
[…] Post Mortem The Republicans salvaged some Senate races and avoided a Democrat majority that equals 60, the cloture vote total. However, the 60 vote rule is a Senate rule and can be changed by simple majority vote. There was discussion during the … […]
You do have a way of crystallizing the underlying factors. I tend to back off the noise and look at these turn arounds as waves. I remember quite well how the 60’s students of which I was one, washed through the staid backdrop of the 50’s political and corporate structures creating one hell of a sea change. Some of those flower children turned in money making dervishes in tech, real estate, and entertainment. Some went off to la la land or stayed in academia in order to cocoon themselves together in tribal bliss. Their kids either wasted themselves on coke or became lawyers. Those lawyers are now running the show, and playing to a colorful crowd.
Whatever comes next, it won’t resemble their daddy’s Dem or Rep Party that went before. This wildfire that’s sweeping through the economic and financial worlds globally will be one part of this new wave. The US getting knocked off the pedestal as world cop and reserve currency will be another. Our bar tab is getting called in pretty soon. I do see Obama hooking up with the new Euros, but the gorillas they are facing are the Asians. With relatively unfettered economies, these Asians certainly have the lead over the heavily encumbered old school economies who are hogtied with entitlements, aging derelicts, white and blue collar welfare, and debts to the moon. Debts owed to mainly the Asians and central banks in nasty places. When has it ever been the case that the debtor gets to call the shots?
We are in for a Japanese style decade or two with some notable twists because our current situation is not quite exactly what Toyko faced in the 90’s. I’m seeing this Obama stint as the pivot point. When the lawyers are in charge you already know one hand will be tied behind our back. Rule of law is a great idea. Rule of lawyers is a disaster waiting to play out.
[Side note to cassandra: learn options inside out, and especially playing off the near term VIX. And for godsakes get a cheap online acct, eg Interactive Brokers. A very rewarding past time I gayrontee you.]
[…] the rest of this great post here […]
Whut?? short or long VIX? I want all the answers NOW and you gotta give ’em to me allan!! But I do have an options book I haven’t cracked yet.
Even locally in my podunk neck of the woods, the emails are circulating that we need to get back to first principles, organize the grassroots and figure out how to WIN next time! I’m afraid I’m much more negative than that. I don’t know any local R who ran on anything but fiscal restraint, property tax cuts, and slowing down the growth of state govt. It was the hypocrisy at the top (as Mike K notes) that killed us, because any halfway alert voter knew about those transgressions. I got hit over the head with the doings the higher ups on more than one occasion going door to door.
But running as a *true* conservative has its drawbacks, because you can’t promise neat stuff to people. A lot of these new voters ACORN scooped up are expecting a lot. It’s all gimme gimme gimme, new entitlements, new dispensing state agencies, more public employees, more shored-up pensions, and only the Joe the Plumbers of the world seem to understand the cost of all that.
This could go into this thread or the energy one below. It’s from a newsletter I get called Outstanding Investments. It also involves our dear correspondent from Capetown, the one and only Charlotte.
“…The developing world is full of have-nots who want to be haves. And they want to be haves in a way that is almost incomprehensible unless you have experienced it up close and personal.
For example, South Africa has a national unemployment rate of over 25%. Much of the employed work force (another 25%, more or less) lives with minimal job security. So without more energy, there will not be more or better jobs for the teeming millions of that nation. There’s about zero political consensus in South Africa to do anything about energy supply, except to get more. If that takes digging coal and burning it for power, then that’s exactly what the South Africans are going to do.
Let’s put it in perspective. If the next U.S. administration controls too much carbon — with carbon taxes, cap-and-trade regulations, sequestration efforts and the like — the U.S. economy could soon suffer the same kinds of brownouts and blackouts that I experienced in South Africa. It gets back to that “people are policy” thing I mentioned above.
To get personal about it, the other night in Pretoria, the lights just plain went out. Poof. Darkness. There was no electricity from 10 in the evening until 5 in the morning. The South African power utility Eskom — which generates 95% of the electricity in the whole nation — just does not have the capacity and the grid to serve the needs of the population and industry. Lack of power is a recipe for instant economic setbacks and social discord…”
Home generator, anyone? Or at minimum a battery backup unit. I have it in on my research list now. I hear the Iraqis are flat out experts on this stuff.
[psst…cassandra, you play OFF the VIX, short or long is the point. Read and learn all you can about options, you won’t be sorry. Simple stuff really.]
Of course Frum “came out” and supported Obama. It’s pretty obvious why. Sad to see the author of “Axis of Evil” run off the road.
The folks in power deserve a good spanking from unfettered spending. They devoured one stand of the Republican stool and then act suprised when it tilts.
Frum’s push to opportunities in green alt energy is widespread in the VC and entrepreneur world. It was in line to be the Next New Thing in Wall Treet Bubble formation. Too late now. The FIRE economy may be dead.
We will see major changes including a blame game that will pale against what most of us have ever witnessed.
Frum endorsed McCain but dissed Palin. It will be interesting to sit and listen to the likes of Fred Thompson and Mark Steyn in discussions. Although, as might be expected after the election results, there is a new hurricane developing in the Caribbean today with us scheduled to fly to Miami tomorrow. My wife is glued to the weather channel.
If Obama goes down the path on energy that he indicated in the campaign, it will be a cold, dark decade. That is the most dangerous thing about his agenda.
Mike,
You’re right. I mixed Frum up with Ken Adelman. Known derisively as Cakewalk Ken for his 2002 WaPo op-ed, he recently endorsed Obama. To be fair, the defeat of Iraq was a cakewalk. Turning it into a semicivilized, West friendly state not so much. He has similar views to Frum re Palin and perhaps that’s why I confused them.
Enjoy the NR cruise, Mike.
Now, we have a new hurricane in the Caribbean so we’ll see how much I enjoy it. My wife is glued to the Weather Channel today. We leave tomorrow for Miami. We’ll see how it goes.
Salaried employees, who do not aspire to own the business, are not natural Republicans.
A very interesting observation that reminds me of someone I know.
I will be on the National Review cruise from next Saturday for a week.
I have DREAMED of going on one of those cruises. I wish you safe travels and interesting conversation!
Excellent post, Mike K. allan, always so interesting to read your comments.
“But running as a *true* conservative has its drawbacks, because you can’t promise neat stuff to people. ” To simplify: the winner is the one that promises a bigger public trough. The loser is the one who says, No, we don’t have the money (or somehow figures out a veiled way to say No without really saying it). Cali is in dire straits because no one (save Tom McClintock) will say No. The public trough needs to decrease, not increase. Gimme, gimme, gimme is right. The system has devolved to pandering to the base nature of self-serving demand.
Nancy, when the NRO cruise heads up to Alaska again, I plan to go!
I think the way to approach Hispanic voters, for example is a combination of social issues and small business concerns. Our cab driver today in Miami was a Cuban who has been here 13 years. We need to talk to these people and learn what their issues are. Cruise ship tomorrow.
The public trough needs to decrease, not increase. Gimme, gimme, gimme is right.
Republicans need to make the case that entitlement programs not only don’t produce their intended effect, but that they produce the opposite of the intended effect by keeping poor/needy people from advancing economically.
They could even add, for good measure, that the Democrat attempt to sway people with those carrots is a nasty, cold-hearted cynical ploy for votes. It’s time to make Democrats the bad guys, not just the dumb guys, and with the right PR campaign, I think it’s doable.
Nancy, when the NRO cruise heads up to Alaska again, I plan to go!
Ah, to dream….
The cruise I covet is the one VDH headed a couple of years ago through the Greek Isles. This year he’s leading a teaching tour through past civilizations. Dang it, I want to go!!! Dad and I are taking an Alaskan cruise as a present from his children for his 80th birthday. Schweet!
I believe VDH is correct. Though I do think we need to learn to approach gay issues differently. In reading the Gay Patriot’s blog I’m learning lots.
College students are reachable, we just have to be smarter and faster about approaching them.
Nancy, the problem has been that the argument about entitlement programs is counter-intuitive. I don’t think when the Dems promise to “help” people with some snazzy new program that the intended target voters see it as another crippling handout or inflationary subsidy.
McCain’s support of the bailout and plan to bolster insane housing prices were just more inanity. It could have been a good teaching moment that might have won him respect from independents.
Also, I’m not seeing exactly how the social issues manifested themselves in this campaign, except that selecting Palin mobilized the base. But abortion etc were not a centerpiece of her campaign or of McCain’s. The evangelicals and Catholics have already been masterfully split on social issues by clever vectors of lax interpretation recruited by the Dems, e.g. Jim Wallis among the Catholics. The religious right is not a monolith.
Those libertarians and indies who think the GOP must cast off its socialcon wing are wrestling with ghosts from the past IMO. But I guess perception is everything.
I don’t think when the Dems promise to “help” people with some snazzy new program that the intended target voters see it as another crippling handout or inflationary subsidy.
I agree. They don’t see it that way. They and their BFFs in the media have been in control of the message, which is, you need help. You need us. People who don’t want to help are bad, greedy people.
I know I’m being naive, but I wonder what how conservatives get control of that message. Turn the tables on ’em!
“I wonder what how conservatives get control of that”
You may be looking at this backwards. The dems did not take control. It was handed to them. Just as they handed it over to Reagan. Now I say that in a general sense, not entirely from a political stance. When things get gnarly it’s the ones at the wheel that get the blame. If things get as bad as I see them getting financially and economically, we’ll likely see a Carter-like exit in 4 years. Dire straits top politics every time.
The canary in the coal mine is the long term interest rate. If the long treasury yield tilts up that means a number of things have turned against us. One major factor will be that the foreign central banks will have given up supporting the US debt and US$. They can’t do that just yet for a variety of near term reasons, but watch for it. Of course, after the canary starts chirping it’s monetary inflation here we come. Some are calling for run straight to deflation and depression, by-passing the hyperinflation stage. That will happen only if the money boys turn off the presses. Just because it’s getting into the wrong hands right now, doesn’t negate the the fact that an excess of anything creates a devaluation of that thing.
Yes, some things will deflate, like credit and debt based industries and assets. And US stocks, too, except for a few select industries that provide the food, energy, and such. Real things. And the precious metal miners should see an explosive run, at least in dollar terms. Those are the stocks that did well during the 30’s, anyway. And that was WITH a strong dollar.
The Treasury and FED cut off the money supply (thus, credit) during the 30’s, and we still had the gold standard to a large degree. But with this current money crowd at the helm the money supply has gone through the roof in the last 3 months. That alone portends a nasty period of inflation (excessive money supply) as those dollars work through the system. So far that money has just been salted away on the books of the bad boys. The deflationists say that is one reason we won’t have inflation. If the FED/Treas stopped the presses right now, that would be possible. What’s your guess on that happening? That’s the dilemma the investors, traders, AND everyday people are facing right now.
As to the lenders suddenly getting scarce….who wants to loan money when you pretty much know it may never get back to you? Now that the govt ‘says’ they guarantee anything that moves, but the question is can they really? I think not. It’s never been done in any time in the history books I’ve read.
If you want some much more cogent explanations of all these things, read through some of the guest commentaries over at Kitco or Daily Reckoning. All kinds of interesting takes and perspectives.
allan, thanks for your thoughtful reply. You’ve given me much to mull over. I agree that the party in power loses or wins by the financial winds blowing during election year.
As to my point about the PR of handouts, cassandra wrote the conservative stance is counter-intuitive. It has been, but I think there’s a chance to get ahold of the message and turn that around.
Thanks for the tips on commentaries. I’ll check them out this weekend.