The Republican echo chamber reached a crescendo on Election Day.
Turnout was at record levels as enthusiastic Romney supporters
around the country were preparing to take their country
back.
Oops.
Even the most committed GOP operative recognizes that something
went wrong. Candidates for blame include the biased media,
Democratic vote fraud, and the Obama campaign’s superior electoral
targeting. Obviously to many Republicans the loss was someone
else’s fault.
The real problem is the GOP message. The traditional Republican
issue triad of fiscal responsibility, national defense, and social
regulation is broken. The electoral coalition which delivered the
White House to Ronald Reagan three decades ago is headed toward
civil war.
Washington’s wild spending, huge deficits, and massive unfunded
liabilities are the most important challenge today. However, the
Republican Party gave away that issue under George W. Bush and the
Republican Congress. The GOP increased spending across-the-board
and added the biggest expansion in the welfare state in four
decades, the Medicare drug benefit. The GOP tossed money at the
Pentagon, creating new unfunded liabilities out of two unnecessary
wars, which ultimately will cost trillions after caring for injured
veterans for the rest of their lives. Bush created the bailout
programs used by Barack Obama.
The various Republican campaigns did little better this year.
The GOP ran against the idea of a budget sequester because it
insisted on protecting bloated military outlays. Mitt Romney
promised to safeguard Social Security, even though the system has
started running a deficit, years earlier than predicted, and the
much-ballyhooed “trust fund” is an accounting fiction. Ads for
Republican George Allen in the Virginia Senate race criticized his
opponent, Tim Kaine, for being a spendthrift and supporting the
Obama stimulus — as well as for backing cuts in military outlays
and reducing education expenditures. Duh?
The GOP’s foreign policy can be summed up in two words:
permanent war. Throughout the Cold War Republicans held a political
advantage in foreign policy. However, George W. Bush’s bungling
also wrecked the GOP’s reputation in this area. Voters rated
President Obama ahead of his Republican challengers as military
commander-in-chief.
Nevertheless, Republicans remain locked in the past, determined
to paint their Democratic opponents as weak irrespective of the
facts — such as Obama intensifying the Afghanistan war.
Thus, excepting the redoubtable Rep. Ron Paul, during the primary
debates the Republican contenders, most of whom had never been
anywhere near a military installation let alone worn a uniform, did
the foreign policy equivalent of the Maori Haka, clamoring for a
bigger military to be used more often against additional
countries.
Mitt Romney spent five years, from his announcement until the
final debate, simply shouting “we’re number one.” Although the
Republican nominee did his best to avoid stating a clear position,
at times he seemed to believe that the U.S. should have stayed in
Iraq forever, over the objection of the Iraqi government, and be
prepared to stay in Afghanistan as long as necessary for undefined
“victory,” which likely would be forever — both positions anathema
to the vast majority of Americans. Then a couple of weeks before
the election he declared himself to be a peacenik. All that was
missing was him wearing beads and making a peace sign.
As for social issues, Romney presented a conservative agenda in
which he never seemed to believe. He was for abortion before he was
against it, before he ended up being not so against it. He was
against a contraception mandate that was part of Massachusetts law.
He was for limited government, except when it interfered with
people’s personal lives. The Republican Party’s mantra was
perceived to have gone from “leave us alone” to “make everyone
conform.”
The result was an electoral wreck. Although the margin
separating Barack Obama and Mitt Romney was small, the GOP could
take little comfort. If Republicans can only come close when the
Democratic incumbent is presiding over a painful recession and
engaged in an orgy of unpopular spending and borrowing, when can
Republicans hope to win?
The GOP should rethink what it stands for. Fiscal responsibility
certainly, but in practice as well as in theory. That means
resisting pork and earmarks, a temptation to which many Republicans
yield, and targeting corporate welfare, since business does not
need a hand-out.
That also means tying military outlays to security challenges,
not an arbitrary share of GDP. Why should Americans spend as much
as the rest of the world combined on “defense” when that means
subsidizing rich allies, engaging in foolish nation-building, and
launching military actions that create more enemies than they kill?
There can be no sacred cows if the budget crisis is going to be
resolved.
As for the “entitlements” that threaten to swamp the budget,
Republicans must point out that recipients have not paid
for Social Security and Medicare, which is why the nation’s
fiscal future is so bleak. On average the latter alone pays out
nearly four times as much in benefits as it collects in taxes from
recipients. The starting point of reform should be to means-test,
that is, kick the rich off the dole. And why should Washington
force young workers into Social Security, which will pay them less
than they “contribute”?
Republicans should explain that their argument against tax hikes
is not hatred of government, but recognition that Washington wastes
money prodigiously. There’s no justification for letting the Feds
seize more resources from working people. As for the “rich” who the
Left expects to provide everything, they already pay the most in
taxes and there aren’t enough of them to fund a generous
welfare/warfare/bail-out state.
On international issues Republicans need to rediscover the value
of peace. For most of the campaign Mitt Romney channeled George W.
Bush and John McCain. Yet conservatives once believed in peace.
They opposed wasting lives and money on dubious international
crusades; they understood that war threatened economic prosperity
and social stability. If war became necessary they wanted to win
and end it, not turn it into a permanent condition.
Indeed, Ronald Reagan was horrified by the prospect of nuclear war
and refused to be sucked into nation-building in Lebanon.
Republicans should promise there will be no more interminable wars
for democracy promotion and nation-building in the future.
The GOP also should insist on international welfare reform. For
more than six decades Washington has subsidized the defense of
Asian and European allies. All are now prosperous and populous.
Indeed, the Europeans collectively have a larger GDP and population
than America. It’s time for Republicans to admit that the party is
over. The U.S. should spend less while its friends spend more —
and they will do so only if the U.S. spends less.
This doesn’t mean “isolationism,” the all-purpose swear word
against a traditional, constitutional foreign policy. For instance,
if Republicans want to promise a more prosperous future, they
should promote free trade internationally. The U.S. remains the
world’s most productive economy. Americans can beat the best at
commerce.
Moreover, seeming hostility to all immigrants is an economic
minus as well as a political loser. The GOP should support an
increase in legal immigration, long a plus to American society,
while debating the parameters of immigration reform. How should we
repair socializing institutions that have weakened and limit public
subsidies, especially for education and health care in border
states, that have expanded with the welfare state? Is unlimited
“birthright” citizenship appropriate today, especially if it has
become an inducement to illegal immigration? While rounding up and
deporting millions of people who are here illegally is unrealistic,
how do we design a citizenship process that does not unduly reward
those who illegally “jumped the queue” compared to those who
followed the law?
Tolerance should be the GOP perspective on social questions.
Republicans need to avoid the perception that they are acting out
of spite. Years ago some religious-political activists went into a
White House meeting publicly denouncing “sodomites.” That openly
offensive approach is rare these days, but a similar motive is
sometimes suspected nonetheless.
The gay marriage issue is lost. There will be more battles, but
changing social attitudes suggest that the balance is permanently
shifting. Indeed, opposition increasingly is seen as a sign of
intolerance. (I write as a Christian who long supported civil
unions, not gay marriage.) Principles of federalism would suggest
leaving the issue up to the states, while focusing the fight on
protecting true tolerance — including for those who believe in the
historic Judeo-Christian teachings. That is, while gay marriage is
increasingly legalized, government should not force private
individuals and institutions to recognize it. That includes
companies in choosing which benefits to provide to which partners.
People should be left alone to make their own decisions.
Indeed, the expansion of the state into ever more areas of life,
such as health insurance, increases the importance of defending
individual and religious liberty. Republicans should unashamedly
insist that “live and left live” appropriately runs in both
directions.
For instance, the administration’s contraception mandate was bad
insurance, since genuine insurance does not cover “conditions” over
which the insured has complete control — that is, having sex. As a
policy the rule makes no sense because there are a host of
treatments, such as for cancer and cardiac disease, which are far
more important and therefore theoretically more deserve to be
delivered “free” (of course, patients will continue to pay, just
indirectly).
Instead, the mandate appeared to be motivated by political
spite, the desire of activists to humiliate their opponents. The
desire was not to ensure access to contraception, which is
inexpensive and widely available, but to force those who oppose the
practice to pay for it. That is, the mandate is an aggressive,
offensive use of the state against a fundamental freedom.
Republicans should go on the offensive to vigorously defend the
latter.
There are hard issues, such as abortion. Another life is
involved, so it is not just a question of tolerance or even
liberty. However, Republican candidates need to demonstrate that
they are acting out of compassion, not vindictiveness. The
principle is simple: If you choose to have sex, you share
responsibility for any life that results. The debate should be over
what that responsibility entails. The purpose of an abortion ban is
not to impose values but to protect life and choice by ensuring
responsibility. However, those who want to philosophize about the
theological implications of rape should join a seminary rather than
run for office.
Every few years someone writes the political obituary of one of
the major parties. Doing so always ends up being premature.
However, the Republican Party’s failure to defeat a president who
is well to the left of the country and whose entire first term was
characterized by no to low economic growth demonstrates that the
GOP is in serious trouble.
The answer is to mix a rediscovered commitment to fiscal
responsibility with devotion to peace and tolerance. There still is
a place for a robust debate over what real defense entails as well
as the responsibilities which naturally accompany the exercise of
freedom. But fundamental changes are essential.
The Republican Party brand is bust. Republicans aren’t likely to
win in 2016 unless they realize that they deserved to lose in
2012.
