A suggestion for strategy

The Republicans are largely leaderless right now, and understandably so. McCain lost the presidential election and the Democrats hold majorities in both houses of Congress. There was a bit of a flap the past week when the Obama White House orchestrated a charge that Rush Limbaugh was the “de facto” leader of the Republican party. That was a clever ploy since they thought they had detected a trend in public opinion of dislike for Limbaugh by moderates and especially women. The story lasted a week and is mostly over now. Limbaugh speaks for conservatives but has no interest in a formal role in the party.

The new RNC chair, Michael Steele, got his foot in his mouth by attacking Limbaugh as an “entertainer” and by implying that the party is racist. That was a very bad week for Steele but it doesn’t answer our question. Where do we go from here ?

Hugh Hewitt has a reader who is in advertising and who comments about the party and its public relations performance. He calls himself “Bear in the Woods” and he had a very useful post this week.

The two most powerful words in advertising have always been: “Free” and “Truth.”

The problem is, once they get turned into marketing language, they sometimes develop twisted meanings. But, if, in fact, marketers can use the words legitimately, they absolutely should employ them whenever possible. It’s important to understand that many times, though, the two words conflict. Yes, something might be “Free,” but the “Truth” is, in the end, you still have to pay.

It’s clear the Democrats have embraced the concept of “Free.” Just look at all the stuff they’re “giving” away. I’m reminded of a discussion I had a few years ago with a Canadian friend of mine — and no, it wasn’t about health care — but it was about some other government program from which he believed he was getting free services. “The government’s going to pay for it!” He was ecstatic. Then I asked him his tax rate. Although he made less than half of what I made at the time, his rate was 15 points higher. A lightbulb went off when he realized that yes, the government was paying for his service — with his money. This is the twisted concept of “Free” the American people are being sold by congress and the president. But “Free” is seductive. And emotional. And people are almost universally willing to buy it. The Democrats are, quite literally, banking on it.

De Tocqueville warned about the possibility that the American public would learn to vote themselves money and goods from the government. It is in the interest of politicians to feed this appetite for government largess as it is much easier than explaining economics and politics. We now have a situation in this country where a large share of the electorate pays no income tax. If Obama gets his way, that share will be about 50% of the voters. He is already playing to their desire for other people’s money by promising that no one outside the top 5% of incomes will see a tax increase and, in fact, is promising a tax cut. Unfortunately, even if the government confiscated the entire income of those who earn more than $250,000 per year (and assuming they would work for nothing), there would not be enough revenue to pay for his spending plans. The stock market collapse shows that the investor class realizes that his numbers don’t add up. This leads to the second suggestion.

But, then, there’s the Truth. One of the most successful public
service campaigns in recent memory has been “The Truth” campaign against smoking. Just the facts. Just the truth. Presented in a raw, yet emotionally arresting way.

When, in times past, Republicans have presented the Truth in an emotionally arresting, and creatively competent way (The Bear in the Woods, The Contract With America) we’ve succeeded. I’ll even throw in the Swift Boat spots for good measure here, just to make a point. When we’ve failed, we’ve done one of two things: (A) We’ve failed to live the Truth, for instance, by becoming big spenders while telling the country we’re not, or by shutting down communication altogether, thus obscuring the Truth; or (B) we’ve failed to articulate the Truth in a way that is concise and emotionally appealing. Which is why I frequently liken GOP responses to Liberal banner waving as the communications equivalent of a white paper.

The Truth is powerful on its own. It can be spoken in short sentences.

The Truth is simple. The Truth is pure. The Truth trumps opinion.

This, it seems to me, offers a simple plan. The man who lives this the best in the Republican Party today is Senator Tom Coburn. He is a general practice physician from Oklahoma but he has mastered the intricacies of parliamentary procedure and legislation. I have been involved in politics on a local level and in medical associations. I know it is not easy to learn how to navigate in such circles but he has mastered it. Michael Steele may be the party chair but Coburn, I think, has the answer. He is reviled on the left, take a look at that outfit and who runs it. He is death on earmarks and has embarrassed the Democrats again and again (if that is possible) on the subject. I don’t agree with him on everything but on the issue of truth, he is solid.

UPDATE: There is some uncertainty about whether he will run for re-election. I think he will decide to stay.

The hard part is living it. The last eight years, especially from 2001 to 2007 when the Democrats took the majority in the House, have nearly ruined the Republican brand for fiscal responsibility. Were Obama a moderate Democrat of the sort he appeared to be during the campaign, at least to the majority, the task would be impossible. The Republicans would be in the minority for a decade. But Obama is not a moderate and the path he is choosing leads to disaster.

Telling and living the truth is a strategy that could work but it will require discipline and honesty.

Tags: , , ,

2 Responses to “A suggestion for strategy”

  1. allan says:

    Glad you brought up Coburn. I’d read a few things about him in the past several years that led me to consider him favorably as someone who doesn’t put the party over his own perspective. Who knows really, it could be a false front. But his outspoken divergence on earmarks is enough for me to give him the benefit of any doubt. Now if he could only embarrass his own party colleagues on their particular earmarks.

    As for the disarray amongst the Republicans, it is somewhat parallel to the state of the Democrats when the country went red state after Clinton stunk up the place with his philandering and triangulating. I’m old enough to see how this all runs in cycles. We’ll be fortunate if Obama’s turn results in a one-shot Carter run. And I believe it’s highly likely because when the populace is unhappy as they will be increasingly, then the instinct of the crowd is to run to the other side of the ship. You’re on to something by recommending the Republicans need to keep it simple and sound.

  2. […] see Rush anointed as the leader of the Republican party. Here’s Rahm Emanuel on Face the Nation A suggestion for strategy – abriefhistory.org 03/08/2009 The Republicans are largely leaderless right now, and understandably […]