By J.P. Freire on 11.15.05 @ 12:08AM
With speculation rising about 2006, Republicans need to realize where they come from.
There's a certain voice popularly associated with intrigue, or
suspense, belonging to the fellow doing voice-overs for movie
trailers, and you would expect his baritone whisper humming the
tunes practically shrieked throughout the past week. I don't know
if you've heard it, but the Republican Party is in deep
(Hooray! Hooray! -- ahem) trouble. No big deal, you know, just the
inevitable failure of the Grand Old Party.
That's what the pundits said last week. Last week was known as
"A Really Bad Week for Bush." That of course followed "A Week of
Uncertainty for Bush," which was teased by its predecessor, "Hard
Times Looming for Bush." This week ought to be more of the same,
but perhaps it will be "Republicans in Crisis: Really Bad Uncertain
Week of Hard Times and Grave Misfortune for Bush." Got that?
There's a whiff of truth here. Bush's Veterans Day speech was
met with sighs of relief, but not righteous encouragement. Far too
much praise has been allotted for Bush's tactic of letting
Democrats overplay their hand, as though it actually deserves to be
called a tactic. Bush's crack team of public relations advisers
have failed to make clear to Americans the facts behind the
Plame-Wilson issue. Americans should be aware of our victories in
Iraq, Afghanistan, and in other distant venues. Bush has not been
having a bad couple of weeks at all, particularly given the success
of certain nominations, a lack of indictments, and obvious
desperate moves on the part of the Democrats. But his
administration's public relations efforts have made him seem aloof,
and this hurts not only the President's ratings, but those of his
colleagues down the street.
Not that they are doing so great at staying on message either. A
Washington Post article has Rep. Thomas M. Davis III
(R-Va.) offering strange insights:
...The current fixation on conservative voters may
jeopardize his party's prospects for holding on to some of its
seats. "If the leadership just plays to the base, they're going to
be a minority leadership in the next Congress," he
said.
This comes from a former National Republican Congressional
Committee Chairman, but reflects a failing attitude in Congress,
that somehow the base isn't enough to maintain seats. As it stands,
it can hardly be said that there's been much of a fixation on
conservative voters at all; though tax cuts and Supreme Court picks
are well within the margins, these have been in the President's
domain. Mid-year elections are typically the stomping ground of the
party faithful who bother to turn out; this means
conservatives.
Congressmen, defending their conservative credentials, remark
that spending would be a lot worse if left in the hands of
Democrats. Perhaps. But such a defense dances around the corpse of
the spirit of 1994, when the party's mission was made clear in
bullet points. The sign "Under New Management" was probably a
misnomer. Given the past 10 years, it is disingenuous for Rep.
Davis to claim that the lack of growth in Republican control of
Congress has been a result of unreasonable fastidiousness to
conservatism.
None of this would really be news unless it called attention to
this small window of opportunity for Democratic ascendancy. There's
hope for a reversal of the '94 Republican Takeover, and news
anchors everywhere have a strange sense of optimism for the
Democrats. Robin Toner of the New York Times runs with it:
Democrats dream of another 1994, with control of the
House changing hands, this time to them....They are preparing to
run as a party of change, offering "new priorities"... with an
emphasis on "putting our fiscal house in order" and making new
investments in energy independence, healthcare and
education.
Which is it? Putting finances in order or making new
investments? What new priorities? What change? What is new on the
platter here? And the message isn't the only problem. Incumbency is
seldom overturned. Democratic legislative victories are few and far
between. (Name a piece of popular Democratic legislation.)
Democratic mantras are negative and coarse, if not downright
paranoiac.
The same weekend, the Washington Post ran "Democrats
Losing Race for Funds Under Dean," noting that the DNC has been losing the funding
race 2 to 1 with Republicans. Surprise, surprise, Dean has been
having difficulties delivering on his mandate to expand Democratic
fundraising, in part because, as one staffer put it, "people aren't
certain that the DNC is a wise investment." With Dean at the
helm?
Daydreams about a Democratic remake of 1994 are a long way off.
Newt Gingrich had been working on building up the conservative base
since the mid-1980s under Reagan, focusing on state primaries and
encouraging candidates with conservative credentials. Numerous
seats were left open thanks to a wave of retirements. Democrats
were still reeling from the House bank scandal. What in the news
today, between the intra-party squabbles and difficulty in moving
legislation, would make the Republican Party so susceptible to
defeat?
The 2006 election is too distant to call, but when you hear
echoes such as these, just pay attention to what happens when
someone does something marginally conservative. The President's
Friday speech earned him plaudits, just as Alito and Roberts
created a whirlwind of excitement. The activity surrounding those
moments crowded out moderate feints like the Miers nomination and
big deficits. Republicans need to play it conservative by the book.
Otherwise, 2006 is theirs to lose.
J. Peter Freire is a Journalism Fellow at The
American Spectator under a grant from the Collegiate Network.
topics:
Education, Supreme Court, Iraq, Conservatism, Energy
