-
The Perfect Storm
May 17, 2013 | 0 comments
-
The Perfect Storm: Feb. 2006
May 17, 2013 | 0 comments
-
A President Loses His Power
May 3, 2013 | 102 comments
-
Murder in the Old Dominion
April 2, 2013 | 136 comments
-
The Only Prophylactic Against Voter Fraud
March 16, 2013 | 0 comments
The Campaign Spectator
Beyond the Water’s Edge
Will foreign policy play a role in 2012?
The dominant narrative of the 2010 Republican/Tea Party landslide is that the election was all about voter anger at and fear of the spending initiated by President Obama and the Democrats. On November 2, 2010, 60 percent of the 30 percent of Americans who do not identify as Republicans or Democrats voted for Republican candidates for the House and Senate. That was a dramatic change from the 2006 off-year election, in which the same independents voted 60/40 for the Democrats, and a sign of broad-based concerns about the government’s finances.
This victory raised concerns among some social conservative leaders that their issues had been or would be ignored or downplayed. These fears struck most observers as overblown. The 2010 election added a net 38 congressmen and six senators to the pro-life cause, and the Second Amendment won an additional 32 congressmen and seven senators to the pro-gun cause. How could social conservatives be uneasy about their place in the universe with such electoral success?
This paradoxical situation is a result of confusion over total votes and swing votes.
The Republican base vote is made up of millions of voters who are voting for the same party and candidate. One candidate. Many votes. Many reasons for those votes. As Phyllis Schlafly said in 1980, “Everyone is allowed to vote for my candidate for his own reason.”
When voters elected 87 new Republican congressmen and 12 new Republican senators they-with exceptions you could count on one hand-elected candidates who were committed to opposing any tax increases, supporting spending cuts, opposing taxpayer funding of abortion, advancing tort reform, opposing labor union abuses, and supporting the Second Amendment.
And yet the TV ads in 2010 were all about spending and the economy. Why? Because the target audience was the independent vote. Swing voters. Those Americans who on Election Day could cheerfully vote either Republican or Democrat. This year they were motivated to vote against big spenders in Washington. The pro-life, pro-gun voters were not ignored. They were largely embedded in the Republican vote. Tea Party activists were new to politics. If one was motivated solely by pro-life or pro-gun or pro-tax cut views-one would have been active and involved (and Republican) a decade ago. Or two.
Voters know that if they vote for the anti-tax candidate they have an Ivory soap percentage likelihood of also electing a pro-life and pro-gun legislator. And vice versa. That is why Rahm Emanuel’s 2006 strategy of running self-proclaimed pro-life and/or pro-gun Democrats for congressional seats was so effective. Many voters saw a candidate claiming to be pro-life and they assumed he or she was conservative, or at least, not actively leftist across the board. But with no exceptions they were — behind the false flag they raised — loyal votes for Pelosi and Reid when needed. During the four years of Democrat control of the House and Senate almost all of the phony “Blue Dog Democrats” or “conservative Democrats” were exposed, and all but 26 were turned out of office — cutting their numbers in half. Rahm Emanuel’s Trojan horse was a one-trick pony.
So what about foreign policy and national defense?
If you vote for the Republican you know he won’t favor tax hikes. But what about his view of U.S.-China relations? How many carrier groups does he believe America needs?
If you vote for the Republican you know he won’t spend taxpayer dollars funding Planned Parenthood and abortions. How long does he think U.S. troops should occupy Iraq and Afghanistan? Does he see a role for America in deciding who should run Kashmir?
Given the importance of national defense and foreign policy, why are those issues not as clear in elections as taxes, abortion, and guns? And now, thanks to the Tea Party, government spending?
ONE REASON FOR THE LACK of definition is because there is no National Right to Life Committee or Susan B. Anthony List focused on defense. There is no National Rifle Association or Americans for Tax Reform drawing clear lines in the foreign policy sand for candidates and voters. Voters know that on guns, babies, and taxes the professed position of a candidate will be monitored by national groups and therefore once elected a candidate is unlikely to shift his or her position.
This situation developed over time. The Republican Party was not always the pro-life and anti-tax party. Reagan signed legislation in California to liberalize abortion laws. Goldwater voted against the 1964 Kennedy tax cut.
Over the years pro-life groups highlighted which candidates were pro-life or pro-abortion. Among voters who actually cast their votes on that issue there was an advantage for the pro-life position. The issue brought Catholic and evangelical voters across the aisle from the Democratic Party — tentatively at first, and then permanently.
Similarly, the Taxpayer Protection Pledge of Americans for Tax Reform had 100 House members and 20 senators commit in 1986. Today 97.5 percent of Republicans in the House and 85 percent of Republicans in the Senate sign and keep the Taxpayer Protection Pledge.
About the Author
Grover G. Norquist is the president of Americans for Tax Reform.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (18) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Grover G. Norquist
More Articles From The Campaign Spectator
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/04/19/beyond-the-waters-edge
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Paul Hilsenrath| 4.19.11 @ 6:56AM
Whenever I see something written by Mr. Norquist I always think, Fifth Column.
What's really behind what's been written, what's hiding behind the veil?
I guess its my knee jerk reaction, just like when I see Muslims on the street in their burqas the word traitor pops into my mind.
What treatment does Sharia proscribe to for the traitorous?
It must be a character deficiency in me.
Ya think?
Occam's Tool| 4.19.11 @ 1:02PM
Good point, Paul:
I was criticized for noting that Egypt was going to go Islamic following Mubarak, by some idiot, whose name I forget, stating that the rebels were "mostly secular."
Of course, that was crap. From the Daily Telegraph, within the last 7 days:
"Damien McElroy in Cairo, reporting for the UK Telegraph, has the following observations:
The Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s largest Islamic movement and the founder of Hamas, has set up a network of political parties around the country that eclipse the following of the middle class activists that overthrew the regime. On the extreme fringe of the Brotherhood, Islamic groups linked to al-Qeada are organising from the mosques to fill the vacuum left by the collapse of the dictatorship.
The military-led government already faces accusations that it is bowing to the surge in support for the Muslim movements, something that David Cameron warned of in February when he said Egyptian democracy would be strongly Islamic."
The same will be true in Libya, in Syria, in Saudi, etc. The only place I can think of where it might NOT be true is in the Iranian opposition, and they're the ones Obama's not listening to, because they might be friendly to the US!
Norquist is good on tax policy. On foreign policy, useless.
Alan Brooks| 4.19.11 @ 6:57AM
"Will foreign policy play a role in 2012?"
DUH! are you senile, Norquist?- of course foreign affairs will play a role.
Alan Brooks| 4.19.11 @ 7:02AM
"there is no National Right to Life Committee or Susan B. Anthony List focused on defense. There is no National Rifle Association or Americans for Tax Reform drawing clear lines in the foreign policy sand for candidates and voters."
Now why do you sup-hose dat iz, Sherlock? golly wolly doodle
Al Adab| 4.19.11 @ 3:29PM
Brooks has an idea here although Heritage, Cato and others serve partially as such. Maybe the Conservatives do need a foreign policy based think tank. Count me in.
JimH| 4.19.11 @ 8:37AM
Absent any immediate existential threat such as we had with the Soviet Union, most people’s priorities will focus in various ways on the economy. Polls show this, and it is to be expected. However the primary responsibility of the Federal government is to provide for the national defense. My concern when it comes to defense is that we are to focused too much on what beyond the waters and not enough on whats going on nearer at hand. I think whats going on in Mexico represents a bigger imediate danger than anything our troops in Europe are guarding us from. We need to secure and defend the border.
The Big E| 4.19.11 @ 11:27AM
I think you're exactly right about that. What's going on in northern Mexico is nothing less than a civil war between powerful criminal gangs over territory which been all bu abandoned by the so-called government. Inevitably, that violence will spread across the border, and potentially throughout the nation, following drug trafficking routes within the US itself. In another decade, maybe less, we may need those troops currently fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan back home fighting on our own soil.
loulou| 4.19.11 @ 9:48AM
Norquist had best stay away from foreign policy musings what with his link to the jihadis through his Arab wife.
Or maybe he would have had a soft spot for domestic jihadis even without the Muslim wife.
PCC| 4.19.11 @ 10:13AM
Please allow me to suggest humbly how to make foreign policy an important issue in the 2012 presidential campaign.
Simply produce campaign ad consisting of a film montage of President Obama bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia, the Emperor of Japan, the Queen of England and the President of China, amongst others, and close with "Vote Obama."
Occam's Tool| 4.19.11 @ 1:04PM
Good point PCC: Couple that with continuous loops of his laughing at the guy who was complaining that gas cost too much, and you have Obama neatly sunk on foreign policy.
Al Adab| 4.19.11 @ 11:49AM
While voters remain focused on the economy, you are correct we cannot overlook foreign policy. After all, our intereaction with the wider world through trade, and the shared politicaql perspective of others helps define our nation. What is lacking is a cherent world view and a policy that reflects that world. We must view world affairs through the lens of our national interest and not through either rosy "spread Democracy" or "Kumbaya". Neither will produce a stable world and that should be our goal.
Occam's Tool| 4.19.11 @ 1:05PM
As usual, Al Adab, correct,. You are consistently a joy to read.
Al Adab| 4.19.11 @ 3:27PM
Thanks again OT however, I see I need to pay more attention to my spellchecker as always. I find your comments enlightening as well.
Jordan| 4.19.11 @ 1:39PM
Good article, I always say that foreign policy has absolutely no bearing on a national election unless the President makes a total hash of that foreign policy (Bush in Iraq pre-surge and Carter's failed rescue of American hostages come to mind). Foreign policy can almost never actually benefit a politician but can lead to a politician's downfall, particularly in the post-Cold War era where America still does not have an all-encompassing enemy like the Soviet Union, but instead a bunch of minor non-state actors.
In the case of the next election, foreign policy will certainly not aid Obama's re-election chances, but if a GOP candidate can successfully reinvent himself to be opposed to nation-building or if Libya, Egypt, et al. Islamicize, or if the drug wars in Mexico get out of hand, then Obama could certainly have a "Carter re-election" where the economy is still in the doldrums and this is coupled with foreign policy issues that got completely out of hand.
Nite| 4.19.11 @ 10:01PM
Obama has no foreign policy except for several stupid and poorly conceived decisions and certainly do not make the country safe. In fact they make us more at risk. The worst Republican President has to be better than this guy who is severely in over his head.
9500LBS electric winch | 4.20.11 @ 4:17AM
I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Johnny| 4.20.11 @ 6:38AM
The republicans need to take it to Obama on foreign policy. Some very good comments, I just hope that someone has learned that our current and last several years of that policy is a complete and utter failure. We have accomplished sending all of our manufacturing jobs overseas and allowed the rest of the world to much control over our country. Wow look at that the economy is linked to our foreign policy...imagine that.
Creative Recreation | 8.10.11 @ 10:08PM
is good