-
Damage Control for Dummies
May 22, 2013 | 75 comments
-
Assessing a Week of Scandal
May 17, 2013 | 135 comments
-
After Obamacare
May 16, 2013 | 24 comments
-
The New Paternalism
May 3, 2013 | 39 comments
-
Please Point the C-Span Camera This Way
April 29, 2013 | 32 comments
Political Hay
Republican Stockholm Syndrome
Post-election hand-wringing goes on and on and on and…
(Page 2 of 2)
And politics change. When George W. Bush was elected in 2000, no one anticipated that 9/11 would happen and he’d flourish as a war president. Equally unpredictable was that Bush would win re-election thanks to social issues. Or that the public would tire of the war by 2006. Or that an economic crash would help Barack Obama into office in 2008. Or that Obama would overreach with health care and the Tea Party would rise in 2010.
Casting aside decades of conservative thought to rebuild on the soft ground of an election loss is the height of foolishness.
Republicans have a dedicated activist base, a talented bench, and a strong beachhead in the House of Representatives. They’re facing record national debt, crumbling entitlement programs, and torpid small business growth. They should be planning for the year ahead, not nodding in unison with leftists wearing executioner masks.
Snap out of it, gents. There’s a fight to be had.
About the Author
Matt Purple is The American Spectator’s assistant managing editor.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (40) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Matt Purple
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/01/30/republican-stockholm-syndrome
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Former IRS Commissioner Refused to Say That Targeting Conservative Groups is Wrong
Benjamin Brophy | 2:27PM
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
Jack in Wi| 1.30.13 @ 7:43AM
The Republicans haven't stood for anything for decades. We could of nominated a real conservative who could debate the issues. Instead the elites and banksters nominated Romney. We need a real opposition party. Obama is going in the tank fast. We need some leaders who can articulate ideas and values. So far I don't see any.
GobBluthe| 1.30.13 @ 8:11AM
And who was that real conservative? None ran. Don't say Ron Paul. He would have lost in a Mondale style defeat.
Jack in Wi| 1.30.13 @ 12:08PM
Paul would have won or come close. He could articulate ideas and for an old man was very quick on his feet. Most people wanted out of these wars. Romney didn't come close to articulating what had to be done. Most people wanted an end to foreign aid and foreign wars. They also were sick of the Federal Reserve running there lives. Ron paul was also the best pro-life spokesman I have ever seen, for a politician. He can articlate economic ideas like no-one I have ever seen in watching politcis for 60+ years. At least if we would have lost it would have been about something. More likely we would have won. That being said, there are no leaders now on the right period.
GobBluthe| 1.30.13 @ 7:49PM
Paul would have been demonized unlike anyone in the last 60 years.
Jack in Wi| 1.30.13 @ 8:18PM
He would of kicked Obama around the block in any debates without any handlers. He would have been on free tv every night unlike Romney who hid from the press for 2 months. He had a huge following among young, educated, voters, unlike Romney. Romney stood for nothing and it showed, everytime he opened his mouth.
GobBluthe| 1.30.13 @ 8:16AM
"""Conservatives ought to be weathering the pain and dismissing it as a short-term problem""
Ahhhhh.....it isn't a short term problem. Winning 61% of the white vote translates into 48% of the total vote. That isn't a short term problem. It is a recipe for a permanent leftwing one party state. Romney won a larger percent of the white vote than all but 2 GOP candidates in history, and those two were incumbents not challengers. And oh yes, leftwing failure doesn't lead to conservative victory. If it did Detroit would be America's most conservative city and CA and IL the deepest reddest states.
Mark30339| 1.30.13 @ 2:48PM
Excellent insight. The electorate is more dependent than ever. The pride in rugged individualism is waning. So, lets cordially disagree; remain calm and insistent on fiscal and personal responsibility, and wait it out. Also, let's stop feeling sorry for ourselves and stop the derision of the electorate. Rather than whine and angrily spew contempt about voters being idiots, let's show grave concern with a display of dignity. Arrogance is not winning many over to small government conservatism.
Al Adab| 1.30.13 @ 8:19AM
We must remember that Conservatives remain a minority within a minority GOP. It is necessary to present a solid front with clear ideas and principles within the GOP and without. We have allowed the opposition to define the Movement for far too long.
That said of course, the Movement itself remains fractured with neos, paleos, fiscals, social, movement, libertarians, and others all looking for a leader to take them from the wilderness. In order to regain influence within the GOP (should we so wish) the fractures must heal and the Movement restore a sense of unity. We heard this once before, in 1960, at the very birth of the Movement, "Lets grow up Conservatives...Lets get to work."Wisdom and a call to action we would be wise to heed once again.
cicero| 1.30.13 @ 9:47AM
As long as we conduct elections like football games, and allow "consultants" to tell our candidates WHAT to say, the results will be the same. Say what you will about Bush II, but he stated what HE thought. Rove told him how to get out the vote, and how to reach the most people, not the message. Either the conservative movement has a winning message, or it does not. If the people want what they are now witnessing, so be it. It is up to the conservative movement to point out the truth of what is happening to their country. We are being plundered by people who never know when to stop stealing - they do not know the concept of enough. This will not end well for anyone.
The people will eventually (sooner rather than later) be impoverished, by both recession and inflation. This, in turn, will result in the scaffold for the plunderers. It has always been so, and will always be so.
Von Mises Jr| 1.30.13 @ 10:44AM
The answer does not lie in the DC GOP liberal establishment. If there is a solution it will either come from the States, some 35 of which have Federal lawsuits for Federal over-reach: http://tenthamendmentcenter.co.....ation-act/
OR
It will come from events. Has anyone heard that Iran had a secret nuclear facility sabotaged destroying 27,000 centrifuges and killing 240? While our "Lord of the Flies" diverts attention to gun control and immigration, the Middle East and North Africa are on fire.
"The Conference Board said Tuesday that its consumer confidence index dropped 8.1 points in January from December to a reading of 58.6, the lowest since November 2011." Average income is down from about $54K to $50K and taxes just went up minimum of 2% for Social Security that is an average of $1K in take home pay. ObamaCare taxes in 2014 for a smoker ages 55 to 60 increases (A FINE) of betwenn$4,300 and $5,100 per year.
A market crash or other domestic calamity could be the catalyst for much misery.
The last four years have sucked hind teat. But we forget September 11, 2001 so soon? We forget September 2008 sub-prime collapse?
Al Adab| 1.30.13 @ 11:16AM
Like Cicero says, a large part of the problem is the professional "handlers" who silence the very passion of our candidates which we so desperately seek. Conservatives hold the advantage in most fiscal and many social issues, but we continue to allow the opposition (ala Alinsky) to define the terms of the debate.
The Big E| 1.30.13 @ 11:20AM
When you say "we," do you mean "we conservatives" or "we Republicans?" It seems to me that for conservatives, the GOP has become part of the opposition - thus, they are happy to allow the Dems to define the debate.
Al Adab| 1.30.13 @ 12:02PM
E:
Thanks for seeking the clarification. I mean Conservatives for, as you note, the GOP has been in opposition to the Movement since its inception.
Job| 1.30.13 @ 4:12PM
Thank you, "Bush II said what he thought," no matter how ignorant that was at times, it still resonates real in a way that no candidate tip toeing around spewing some memorized canon of talking points can.
Pecos Pete| 1.30.13 @ 9:50AM
Matt Purple has the right attitude. Excellent article.
As for me, I'd rather go down fighting than laying in bed whimpering.
Col Bat Guano| 1.30.13 @ 10:05AM
Stockholm Syndrome implies the GOP is being held captive by someone or something - let us say leftians - and has begun to identify with its captor. I rather think its been leftian for quite sometime and is just now realizing it if the party elders are taking Democrat advice seriously. The Republic's hope of survival are not based in the GOP anymore. I have doubts the GOP will matter much more.
Al Adab| 1.30.13 @ 11:13AM
We are held captive in the sense that we allow the opposition to define the terms of the debate. As a result, we fight the battles on ground of the enemy choosing rather than where and when we find ourselves at advantage. At this time, it is crucial that we select our ground and win one or two in order to reestablish legitimacy of Conservative views.
The Big E| 1.30.13 @ 11:24AM
What makes you think the GOP has any interest in "reestablishing" the "legitimacy" of conservative views? It seems to me they just spent an entire Presidential election cycle trying to keep conservatives and our views hidden and out of view. And since the election, many of them have implied, or even openly said, that if the GOP wants to win, it needs to IGNORE conservative views and positions. So why in the world do you think the GOP would want to do anything to reestablish the legitimacy of conservative views?
Al Adab| 1.30.13 @ 12:05PM
Same clarification as above. It is essential for Conservatives to win a couple to reestablish their dominance within the GOP. It is only when Conservatives preponderate that the GOP enjoys success, yet the GOP fears Conservatism and while claiming its mantle, betrays it at every turn.
The Big E| 1.30.13 @ 2:02PM
Exactly. The GOP betrays conservatives at every turn, and yet, we are the "base" of the party, those who must turn out and pay up first for the GOP to have any hope of winning. At some point in time, we have to wake us and recognize that the GOP needs us more than we need the GOP. The GOP will never realize this, they fight against that concept every election cycle, but it is true. If conservatives leave the GOP and form their own party, that party would immeidately be more potent in opposition than the GOP is now because it would possess a potent, energized, and loyal base, while the GOP would have been drained of its lifeblood. Inaddition, a new conservative party could also draw from a still substantial pool of conservative Democrats (yes, they still exist, they just don't get elected) who disagree with their own party's positions on many, many things, but who see the GOP as impotent, or as the party which caters to fatcats (not true, but that is their perception). The GOP is holding conservatism - and conservative candidates - back. If we are to move the country toward conservatism, we must shake off the GOP.
Job| 1.30.13 @ 4:23PM
Okay,
RINOs all over the world
(everybody) join hands (join)
Start a love train, love train
RINOs all over the world
(all the world, now)
Join hands (love ride)
Start a love train
(love ride), love train
The next stop that we
make will be New England
Tell all the folks in
Portland, and Miami, too
Don't you know that it's
time to get on board?
And let this train keep
on riding, riding on through
Feign optimism, wallow in pessimism or debate realism; while some prefer the former I prefer the later.
PolishKnight| 1.30.13 @ 10:14AM
Insanity is repeating the same thing over and over in the hopes of getting a different result. This is truly what the left means by deriding the term "conservative" as a bunch of primitive reactionaries or fuddy duddies who can't keep up with the times. Or a combination of both.
This last election was significant and different because people can see that Romney should have won. Obama was awful. Finding the reason why he won should illustrate what conservatives need to address. The bottom line is race and racist/gender entitlements. 70% or so of Obama's voters want special privileges due to race or gender and label as "sexist" or "racist" a "color blind" process (judging them on character rather than as an entitled victim.)
Period.
The remaining 30% or so are rubes who bought into the Bain outsourcing but they have a point that the Republicans don't seem terribly concerned about the working and middle class that they need to show up for their party (pun intended) of pro-life and anti-gay marriage and flag burning amendments. That's all nice and good, but focus on the civil rights of your supporters first and foremost. Pretend they're rich people being targeted. that should get them focused!
The Big E| 1.30.13 @ 10:28AM
Matt,
You article is good, except that you fail to understand one key point - the Republican party is no longer the party of conservatives. We are not welcome there. Once you understand that, then you can grasp the following key concepts:
1. The Republican party is NOT an opposition party - it no longer opposes anything the ruling party wants.
2. We already ARE a one-party country - there is only the Democrat Party, which has several sub-factions, including it's Republican wing.
3. Conservatives outnumber liberals and moderates in polls, but liberals win elections, is because there is no conservative party - there is a liberals party, and it ran two this last election (Obama and Romney), thus giving the people a choice between the liberal who bragged about being a liberal, and the liberal who tried to deny who he really was. The moderates will always flow toward the strongest leader, and no one denying who they really are is a strong leader.
4. If conservatives want to win elections, we need to abandon the Republican party - and I don't to any of this third party crap from anyone - I'm not wanting a third party - I'm wanting a SECOND party, because right, there is only one.
PolishKnight| 1.30.13 @ 10:49AM
A leftist friend of mine told me to check out the "green party" and I did and laughed. It was basically the whole democrat leftist agenda but spelled out more clearly and, therefore, less able to get rubes to vote for it (white FDR voters who haven't figured out the score yet. The "greatest generation" of remaining fools.)
The left is united under a single banner of bashing Republicans and especially white males. This brings together a variety of groups that would be considered impossible to share the same room otherwise: radical Islam, feminists, and mainstream Jews. It's staggering what this point in history looks like. When the USSR falled, consider Yugoslavia...
The Big E| 1.30.13 @ 11:17AM
Have you ever seen the British TV series "Yes, Minister"? Or its sequel, "Yes, Prime Minister"? Though set in the Brit govt., neither is actually political, they are, instead, about the tension between elected officials and the bureaucracy.
One of the recurring themes is the ability of the bureacracy to get the lected officials to do what they (the bureacrats) want, even when they (the elected officials) don't want it. They present the minister with two choices, both of which are theoretically plausible, but one of which is realistically ridiculous. Inevitably, the minister chooses the non-ridiculous option, which is the one the bureacrats wanted all along.
Job| 1.30.13 @ 4:28PM
I think the vote that a realistic conservative poll should try to dissect is the womens vote; I'll bet this is where the big fail is.
PolishKnight| 1.30.13 @ 9:26PM
Job, crack open the style section of most major newspapers and it reads like something out of Women's day from the 1980's: "How to get men to buy you stuff!" "Why won't he call?" and "Where are all the men (breadwinning 1950's guys)?"
If anything, the man-hating feminist run of the past 40 years has decimated the supply of such men so much that most smart young women are well aware of it but don't know what to do about it. Even reasonable ones ask how to deal with giving up the goodies of feminism (that bigger paycheck (not by much thanks to massive taxation and wage deflation) while hoping to get more breadwinning men. Feminism threw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater and now young women don't know how to get either of them back.
But the answer is there: Cut the welfare mothers loose (most women agree with this, they HATE giving THEIR money to other women! Meow!) and grant tax breaks to married couples and eliminate the marriage penalty. Let lesbians get married if they want (if they want to discover the jobs of being a breadwinning man, more power to 'em! Hehehe.) Within a generation of two, the women will run back home all on their own. Many of them are already starting to.
Job| 1.31.13 @ 12:53PM
well as for same sex unions; these unions end up DOA way more than heterosexual ones and divorce is expensive so I think that my enemies enemy is my friend here and say let em have a union.
I know alot of professional women whose politics doesn't resonate republican because of hot button topics whose husbands votes are cancelled out because they vote D. anyway i'm thinkin the big fail is with these hot button topics.
you can be against abortions but when your for lynchings it doesn't ring true and straw man or not you look like an ass on the Colbert report and Saturday night Live and this is where elections are lost.
rjh| 1.30.13 @ 10:36AM
The first thing that must happen is the replacing of every member of the Republican leadership. Absent that, we are doomed. I am already hearing noises about Christie or Jeb Bush in 2016. If either one of those things comes to pass, lets just cancel the election now and save us all the aggravation and disappointment.
RJ| 1.30.13 @ 9:54PM
Agree - I heard enough from Jeb Bush and Christie last year to disqualify them from getting my vote in the primary should they run (hopefully they won't).
I also don't think the Stockholm Syndrome is the correct analogy. The fall of Saigon is what comes first to my mind. After the fall, the US was worried about the fate of some of its Vietnamese allies. After a few months it turned out that they were moles for the North Vietnamese. The GOP Establishment and RINOs strike me the same way. They keep saying we need to be united and accept compromise candidates, but when a Tea Party candidate wins the primary, they are the first in line to bash them in the liberal media. And each time something comes up where the fiscal insanity (or some other liberal cause) can be opposed, our elected GOP representatives throw in the towel and say we will take this issue up later. But meaningful opposition never comes.
And I am really beyond disappointed with many GOP Senators following the 94-3 confirmation of John Kerry. They have some explaining to do, but again, maybe they are just moles for the corrupt statist ruling class. The primary difference between liberals and Rinos is who they burden with taxes & regulations and who they provide favorable treatment to. The idea of government role to secure individual freedoms and equality under the law are almost totally abandoned by our government.
JP Jones| 1.30.13 @ 11:36AM
This stuff continues because we have Idiots
in Congress and in the Senate.
Obama won because he convinced enough good folks that he would be kindlier and gentlier to folks who lost their jobs and on the verge of loosing their homes and healthcare because of the changing world economy.
and running a rich out of touch plutocrat like Romney was all Obama needed to finish the political program.
The Reps are blowing it big time.
All they have to do is come accross as a bit more caring of the regular working stiffs and not seem so out of touch.
Its so simple a person with an IQ of 60 should get this.
Yet the Reps in the Power Chairs are truly out to lunch.
PolishKnight| 1.30.13 @ 11:59AM
I'll repeat this enough times until people get it: The majority of people who voted for Obama did so based upon race, gender, welfare, or government union. The 47 percenters, so to speak, but Romney didn't address the biggest factor: race and gender entitlements.
The Dems don't care about poor people if those poor are not in their special interest group. They refer to the right as "white trailer park trash" and laugh at the suffering of those poor. In the meantime, they rail about how "racist" such people are that they don't vote Democrat (gee, try not throwing them under the bus and see if maybe they warm up to you?)
But sure, a significant number of people were swayed by the Bain Capital commercials and images of Romney going to a country club and they have a point: The right does not do enough for their electorate. I'm not talking about throwing us free RomneyPhones but how about getting rid of the marriage penalty? Or dealing with unfair trade policies? Or H1B's? Oh, wait, that's money for their country club friends' pockets. Nevermind. Then they are shocked when the working class doesn't turn out to vote.
Bandido| 1.30.13 @ 11:59AM
Republicans should take a lesson from Democrats in responding to electoral drubbings. After '04, they complained that they had not veered far enough Left. They vowed to rectify that error. They went stone-cold Left as a group, and presented an implacable front against Bush. There was no talk of compromise, accommodation, or moving to the center. Democrats understand power politics and play it perfectly. Having the media in their pocket helps immensely. The approach is very effective, power being the Left's lifeblood, the air it breathes. They have made a fetish of achieving and holding power. Politics, said Mao, proceeds from the barrel of a gun. This is the Democrats' modus operandi. Not militarily, by shooting, not yet, but politically. Implacable in their power-drive, they are steadfast in their beliefs. They are the true heirs of Machiavelli. If Republicans hope to gain power, they must learn to fight with the enemy's weapons. Is there a Republican Alinsky? A Republican Rahm Emmanuel? A Republican Hillary Clinton? The question is absurd on its face. Unless Republicans come to grips with their supine character, their electoral results will be what they have been since Reagan's time: loss of power, loss of confidence, and loss of the culture. The American people will be the losers for it.
PolishKnight| 1.30.13 @ 1:41PM
The Democrats are political geniuses, but it's not terribly complicated how they are winning today (race and gender preferences). This is politics 101. What's amazing is how the right refuses to engage in "special interest politics". Get over it. We need a _real_ civil rights movement not just to reverse Jim Crow, but to end it.
Simon Templar| 1.30.13 @ 12:05PM
There is no majority or minority, the nation is split down the middle. Matt, you need to stop pushing this untruth.
PolishKnight| 1.30.13 @ 9:30PM
Not only that, but a significant percentage of those who voted for Obama, or stayed home and didn't show up for Romney, are unenthusiastic whites and men who would have liked to vote, but wonder when Romney and other Republicans will recognize that they CARE about those voters as much as LaRaza or feminists.
In addition, if the Dems faced losing their racist and sexist entitlements, then they would be left to pitch their economic and gay (literally) policies that a majority of their own electorate doesn't know or care about much about. The Hispanics that could vote Republican will NEVER do so as long as the left dangles preferential treatment for non-gringos.
Hardcard| 1.30.13 @ 3:49PM
It's the corruption, they are all on the take and it's systematic. Money, power, greed, dishonesty, and the fear of losing it.
JD| 1.30.13 @ 4:48PM
The Left defines "problem-solving" as "government fixing the problem." Their definition precludes non-Leftist ideas.
Because they are small-minded, they cannot comprehend that others believe in non-government solutions to problems, and so they accuse these others of having no ideas at all.
Balducci2| 1.30.13 @ 8:34PM
"Snap out of it, gents. There’s a fight to be had."
What about the ladies?
Oh, wait, I forgot, we were talking about the party that margnalizes them and ignores / mocks their concerns.
PolishKnight| 1.30.13 @ 9:21PM
Hahahaha! If anything, both parties pander to women way too much even as such women claim they want to be treated "equals". (Hint: To be equal to men, you can't be continually helpless and victimized!)
But that said, the Republicans COULD address women's needs but in a different way: Women's needs for traditional, strong 1950's style breadwinning men rather than limpwristed Alan Alda metrosexuals or bad boy babymommas. Neither party is addressing that concern but the Republicans are better situated to do so (when they're ready.)
But sure, if a law student has a "concern" that her $1200 a month contraceptive habit is just too expensive for her and that she can't handle being called a "slut" after she goes on a slutwalk, then perhaps she needs to be ignored and mocked until she GROWS UP.