You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
Pubs Should Learn Dems Lessons of 1989
2013-09-23
The Republicans of 2013 look a lot like the Democrats of 1989 -- shut out of the presidency, beholden to a shrinking base and on the wrong side of major demographic shifts in the country.
Wait, the Pubs were on the right side of the demographics in 1989?
That's the argument two longtime Democratic strategists -- Bill Galston and Elaine Kamarck -- make in an essay titled "The New Politics of Evasion" in the fall edition of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas. For any Republican hoping to win back the White House in 2016, it's an absolute must-read.
Because you can trust a couple of Democratic strategists to give the Republicans clear, unfiltered, good advice...
The first myth centered on the idea that Democrats had come up short at the presidential level in 1980, 1984 and 1988 because the candidates they had nominated -- Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis -- were insufficient adherents to liberal orthodoxy. If only the party had nominated a "true liberal," the argument went, they would have won. Sound familiar?
Another similarity - they were all doofuses.
The second myth -- of mobilization -- is all about demographics. In the 1980s, Democrats insisted that if only blacks and Hispanics would vote in numbers commensurate with their share of the population, the party's nominee would win. They didn't, and Democrats didn't win. Fast-forward to today and some within the Republican Party are making that same losing argument about consolidating the white vote.
And if the Pubs could figure out how to get dead people to vote five times, that'd be another good lesson from the Dems.
The final myth is that of the "congressional bastion," the idea that if the party out of the White House still controls a chamber of Congress and/or a number of state and local offices then it's evidence that all is well and major change isn't required. But, holding a House majority in a deeply gerrymandered set of districts is not the same as winning a national presidential election. And the 2012 election proved that the massive gains the GOP made in the 2010 midterms are more the exception than the rule.

The problem for smart Republican strategists is not figuring out what's wrong, but developing a real and pragmatic plan to fix it. Democrats fixed their problems of the 1980s with one man: Bill Clinton.
And now, the interesting part.
The obvious analog to Clinton in the modern Republican Party is former Florida governor Jeb Bush. Bush, like Clinton, spent much of his formative life as a governor and, on issues ranging from education to immigration, has shown a willingness to break from Republican orthodoxy and the party's base.
Has he also got a thing for not-all-that-attractive young wimmins?
Posted by:Bobby

#13  That is why whenever a small government Republican comes around the Establishment Rino's, DemocRATs and media go total-war to destroy them.

True. That's why when Reagan grabbed the brass ring, the Establishment GOP saw that they either had to get on board (see: Peggy Noonan) or get left in the dust. The Democrats and the media did some damage, but the campaign had been on 'go' for a long time by then.
Posted by: Pappy   2013-09-23 18:43  

#12  Well, then, that'd leave this big void for the Tea Party to just slide right in and take over.

No? [shakes head] Prolly not.
Posted by: Bobby   2013-09-23 18:01  

#11  The only way -- only way -- the Pubs lose the House in 2014 is to fold like lawn chairs on the sequester and Obamacare debates this month. Which is precisely what they're doing.
Posted by: Steve White   2013-09-23 17:04  

#10  Sarah wants to get together with Ted so they can compare the shiv marks they got in their backs from RINOs.
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2013-09-23 16:51  

#9  That is why whenever a small government Republican comes around the Establishment Rino's, DemocRATs and media go total-war to destroy them.

Case in point the above mention Allen West. Now Ted Cruz. And lets not forget Sarah Palin.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2013-09-23 15:33  

#8  Keep in mind is that Reagan spent a lot of years "in the weeds" building up a base of support and honing his views. When the time came, he had a message and a coherent set of objectives.

That doesn't happen now, or hasn't happened yet.
Posted by: Pappy   2013-09-23 15:28  

#7  Wait, the Pubs were on the right side of the demographics in 1989?

Bush Sr. won in California in 1988. He lost in 1992 to Bill Clinton. After Clinton took over there was a HUGE demographic shift in California. I think y'all know what I'm talking about. It is highly unlikely that a Republican will ever win California again. Clinton used demographics to turn California into a blue state and the Republicans let him do it. What a bunch of fools.

My opinion is that it's time for the Tea Party to officially break from the Republican Party. I see no point in continuing to support the Republican party. Some of them may still pretend to be at least fiscally conservative but as long as they collude with Democrats on legislation like the Dream Act, the demography will continue to shift and Republicans will remain irrelevant.

Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2013-09-23 15:23  

#6  Reagan caused a lot of die-hard union democrats to cross the line and vote republican. There is something very powerful in his message but the folks in DC don't want to hear it.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2013-09-23 15:09  

#5  Yep, OS is spot on! Over time they all turn into RINO's. The big perks, pu**y, and pesos gets to em. What is needed is 'turn limits'.

You get a turn or two, then he or she gets a turn. Once you've had your turn, it's over.
Posted by: Besoeker   2013-09-23 14:59  

#4  Old Spook has the truth of it.

Tea Party points to the enduring popularity of Reagan's approach -- and to how far the Republican party has strayed from it.
Posted by: Jaising Creque9323   2013-09-23 13:29  

#3  Nice observations, Spook. You'd think the Pubs would be thinking smaller government, and that the Tea Party (but who listens to them?) would be driving that boat. Our French friend also has some good - and obvious - points.
Posted by: Bobby   2013-09-23 13:11  

#2  The problem for the Republican Party is twofold:

First: Racist Black vote. I define Racist vote by voting for a person because of his color instead of his capabilities. Both at presidential level and at city/state level (think Detroit) we have seen this again and again: while Whites, at leat a majority of gthem, habve no problem voting for a Black most Blacks automatically vote for a Black whatever his non-Balvck opponent and whatever his lack of results/caompetency. Obama's first term has been nefarious for Black byt they blindly voted for him.

Alan West could have been a solution but he underwent the same kind of character asssination of previous opponets of Obama

The second factor is lack of courage for enforcing vopte fairness: in many districts pof Massachusets particiiapation was well over 100% and, of course, Obama got over 90% of the votes in those highly "civical" districts. Now, I am not saying Republicans could havce won Massachusets, but many swing states and perghaps several non-swing states who weenbt for Obama wouldn't have gone were America halfa as serious about vote firanes than Geramny or even France.
Posted by: JFM   2013-09-23 12:58  

#1  1976, GOP was dead from Nixon, Reagan was defeated by Ford as "too conservative", party was running as bigger better government, Ford's Whip Inflation Now, getting along by compromising with Congressional Dems, etc. Carter won in a landslide, nature of the voters had changed, become liberal...

Along came Reagan. Set all that on its head, Ran on "Government is not the solution, its the problem". Won big. Twice.

Hasnt been a republican run on that since.

Bush 1, voodoo economics, read my lips "No new taxes" plus the effects of Ross Perot's hillbilly feud with Bush
Dole: GOP establishment picks "Its his turn" (IHT)
Bush 2: Barely won as Social-con, not a small gov con.
Bush 2-2: Won as incumbent wartime CINC over a IHT Dem.
McCain: The prototypical "Maverick" moderate IHT Establishment beltway repub.
Romney: Establishment wanted a more moderate, Romneycare candidate, more of IHT.

Haven't run a real small government conservative since then at the federal level. State level? It works. Cruz TX, Lee UT, Paul KY, all very popular senators Rubio ran as one in FL and won (then veered off).

SO how about we try running another "Government is the problem" person instead of anothe moderate establishment mushy middle ?
Posted by: OldSpook   2013-09-23 12:30  

00:00