The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Jennifer Rubin Goes Brooksian?

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Jennifer Rubin Goes Brooksian?

By Robert Stacy McCain on 11.13.08 @ 11:10PM

If she is to be believed, Republicans may have suffered low turnout on Election Day because their "base" voters were too busy slopping the hogs and tending their moonshine stills:

In a recent interview [Virginia Republican Rep. Tom Davis] said, "We've become a regional party, basically become a white, rural, regional party, and not a national party. And we're going to have to retool ourselves."
That poses an acute problem considering that rural whites are an ever-shrinking proportion of the electorate.

We have heard this refrain before -- 10 years ago, from Christopher Caldwell, as Jim Antle recently noted. And, considering her assertion that neither limited government nor social conservatism are effective issues for Republicans, Rubin's complaint bears a close resemblance to what David Brooks argued 11 years ago in urging "national greatness" as a GOP objective.

This panic-struck reaction to the debacle of 11/4 is what I sought to forestall in my columns of Nov. 5 and Nov. 12. First, there is the normal tendency of partisans to take political defeat as a personal rejection: "We are unworthy!" Second, there is a tendency of intellectuals to believe that political defeat is the result of one set of ideas defeating another, requiring that the losers must come up with "new ideas." So Rubin looks at the results, exit polls and an Electoral College map that looks very much like the 1996 map and comes to conclusions very similar to those that Brooks and Caldwell drew from Bob Dole's defeat.

Candidates win or lose elections. Other factors being equal, good candidates win, and bad candidates lose. This is a political truism that ideologues and partisans ignore at their peril. Elections are decided by independent "swing" voters who are neither ideologues nor partisans. Independents tend to be disconnected from and ill-informed about the political process. The political scientist Samuel Popkin coined the term "low-information rationality" in an effort to explain how such people make political choices, but it is clear that these voters act on general perceptions of candidates and parties -- perceptions that are sometimes at odds with political reality.

Is the GOP too Southern, too white and too rural? Might that have something to do with the inarticulate Texas drawler who has been the face of the Republican Party for the past eight years? And if the party notably failed this year to connect with younger voters, might that have something to do with the 72-year-old presidential nominee?

This is not to minimize either policy failures or the tone and content of political messages as part of the Republican Party's problem. But to urge that the GOP abandon both limited government and social conservatism (jettisoning both Grover Norquist and James Dobson, as it were) doesn't exactly strike me as a winning formula. Minus both social and fiscal issues, what do Republicans have left -- invading foreign countries to promote global democracy? That's really worked well so far, hasn't it?

Republicans should try to learn a lesson from the Democrats. In terms of basic political philosophy and policy, Barack Obama is indistinguishable from Howard Dean. But Obama is charismatic in a way that Dean was not, and voters in 2008 were sick to death of Republicans in a way they were not in 2004. After successive defeats in 2002 and 2004, Democrats kept their powder dry, improved their game, and were ready to score victories in 2006 and 2008.

Finally, as Jim Antle pointed out yesterday, Republican "Reformists" -- I prefer the term "Young Turks," since it is broader and less ideological -- do themselves no favors by offering criticisms that sound suspiciously like RINO mating calls. We've already got one pro-gay-marriage, pro-abortion party, and we've already got two pro-amnesty parties, so those aren't exactly "new ideas." Soi-dissant "Reformists" who couch their criticism in such terms might get published at the New York Times, but they're unlikely to gain much influence among the rank-and-file of the GOP.

View all comments (17) | Leave a comment

ruth| 11.13.08 @ 11:21PM

Amen!

Captain America| 11.14.08 @ 12:09AM

Jen is overreacting to the lose.

As much as I admire President Bush, he takes a great deal of the blame for both 2006 and 2008.

President Bush should have fired SoD Rumsfeld a month before the 2006 election instead of a week after. Would it have changed the entire outcome? No. But to fire him after the election looked really weak and as a reaction to the loss as opposed to an act based on principle. Then, there were the other self-inflicted wounds of bloated spending and unethical behavior by Republicans.

The 2008 loss was also due to the Bush administration that had historically low approval ratings even before the financial crisis "of our lifetime."

Was McCain the best candidate we had to run with? Hell no. But the whole slate was deficient. RINOs, pro choicers (Rudy), social health directors (Huck), and pure whacks (Paul).

The only true conservative was Thompson and for some reason he ran an incredibly poor campaign.

Were they all better than Obama and Hillary? Yes, but only to varying degrees.

As for "reformers" or "young turks" who cares? When liberals start chanting the same thing as the "young turks" you know it is out of glee at our supposed disarray.

Alenda Lux| 11.14.08 @ 12:10AM

I didn't really understand that article, particularly since a day or two after the election, Rubin directed all of her readers to "A Roadmap for America's Future," Rep. Paul Ryan's policy brief on health care, social security and tax reform.

I really hope this isn't a thinly veiled attempt of hers to join the "social cons must go" camp. As I point out here, we didn't lose b/c of social conervatism, or fiscal conservatism or foreign policy conservatism.

http://alendalux.blogspot.com/2008/11/cats-and-dogs-living-together.html

We lost b/c it seemed like we had no ideas. McCain actually had a good health care plan, but Obama beat him mercilessly day after day about it, and you could tell McCain's heart was not in it.

I should also add, just like I get tired of people trying to say the social cons have to go, I get tired of all the "RINO" talk. If someone truly is a fiscal conservative, but moderate on social issues, I'm happy to have them in the party. (Lincoln Chaffee is neither, so he's not a good example).

I should also add, I'm quite socially conservative on issues like abortion, marriage, etc. (though am in favor of states handling it). But I get tired of shouting "amnesty" at every attempt that we see, including Mike Pence (!), to get at the immigration problem. If that makes someone like me an "open borders, shamnesty RINO," despite all my other agreement with the GOP, then this is a pretty good sign that the Republicans will have some troubles for a while to come, and before long will end up losing Texas.

Thomas| 11.14.08 @ 12:22AM

At the risk of being beaten up again, let me reiterate what I keep harping on. The Republican Party is in no danger of being swept away. The Conservative base hasn't really changed in the last forty years, it is just that the Party refuses to run conservative candidates for national positions.

IN the case of health care, the best solution is to get government out of health care all together. Immigration reform? What, except for the fact the our elected representatives refuse to perform their legal duties and enforce the law, is wrong with our current immigration policy? It is not that immigration law can not be enforced, it is simply that our elected officials violate the law by refusing to enforce the law. When you are sworn to enforce the law, then you either have to enforce all of the laws or none of them.

Run candidates for office who will adhere to the Party platform and who espouse Conservative values and people will elect them. Perhaps I am wrong, though, and that is too simple a solution.

Eugene Debbs| 11.14.08 @ 12:56AM

Re: Candidates win or lose elections

This is true, up to a point. If you'd run an articulate, intellectually agile candidate who was charismatic, he'd probably have done better. But then again, an intellectually agile candidate would have had a more coherent message.

As a Democrat, I really hope the people who think Palin is better for your party than David Brooks win out. I mean, you'll guarantee Democratic governance for the next generation.

Brooks is a thoughtful, intelligent thinker. He's more intellectually honest than any columnist I know (and I say this as a liberal who regularly disagrees with him).

If you think abandoning the intellectual elitism (and that is what conservatism traditionally was) of William F Buckley and people like Brooks in favor of inarticulate "regular" folks like Palin will save you, so much the better for us. But you won't produce leaders or thinkers that people will follow or listen to -- not with the world as complicated and dangerous as it is today.

Dummies who can't find Iran on a map let alone rationally discuss foreign policy are not the future of the Republican party. You guys should think again.

Eric| 11.14.08 @ 1:45AM

Thank you, R. S. McCain. Finally, a sane analysis of the election. If I had a dollar for every article attempting to explore the complexities and dynamics of the race, particularly those spelling doom and gloom for the Republicans unless they heed the call of "thoughtful" and "intellectual" pundits, I'd be one less guy worried about the financial mess. Call me simple-minded, but, with a few exceptions, history bears this out: every eight years, the people get sick of the party in power and, coincidentally, we also get hit with a recession. As far as I'm concerned, any further thought about the matter is a waste of time.

Robin| 11.14.08 @ 8:43AM

It really was about the candidates. Every time I heard Obama speak in the last few weeks, he sounded more right of center than John McCain in generalities. If I didn't know the specifics of his policies, I would think he was a moderate too. Those all important "undecided" voters made their decisions based on Obama's charisma and his seemingly moderate, sometimes even hawkish, rhetoric.

Personally, while I'm deeply concerned about the future and I hope that the "hope and change" crowd is right about Obama, I'm looking forward to the deft navigation that is going to be required of Obama as he moves forward. Talk about dancing a fine line!

Bob| 11.14.08 @ 8:44AM

RSM -- another reactionary analysis! You are seemingly arguing to go back to the past, but this time with a more charismatic, younger candidate. However, this makes little demographic sense.

The 51% "majority" by putting together a coalition of fiscal conservatives, national security protagonists, and social conservatives is no longer mathematically possible. The party lost young, Hispanic, and black voters -- the growing population segments -- by 2 to 1 or more margins. Having a younger candidate will not bring on younger voters. If that were true, you'd find a young, half black, half Hispanic, social conservative and automatically win. This was proven by choosing the chromosomal VP and not getting the women's vote. Let me state this as clearly as possible -- YOU WIN VOTERS WITH THE MESSAGE, NOT THE CANDIDATE. Young and Hispanic voters were turned on by Obama's message, not his age.

The social conservative message to young, Hispanic, and black voters does not work. The message of homosexual intolerance does not work with young voters.

In order to achieve a longer term winning formula, you need to attract the next generation of voters. The current Republican message draws an older, white audience. Look at the convention, you had the lowest representation of blacks and Hispanics in recent history.

Personally, I do not agree with becoming "Democrats Lite". We must become smarter and not run candidates who were poor students, cannot speak English properly, and don't understand international and national policy. NO MORE PALIN'S or BUSH'S. We need to concentrate more on conservative outcomes and less on conservative ideology. We need to drop social conservative litmus tests and broaden our appeal. A bigoted party will always limit their appeal.

It is easy to blame the candidates for the losses, but that is just scapegoating. These candidates ran in the primaries and won. Social conservatives don't care if they run apparently dumb candidates. It is NOT the candidates, it is the people that chose the candidates. Please face up to your role in this thing.

Crusader| 11.14.08 @ 9:00AM

We should just amend the law to spell out who can vote and who can't.

1. Raise voting age to 21.
2. If you are on welfare or receive any kind of gubmint handout/support, you can not vote.
3. If you pay no federal income tax, you can not vote.
4. Must be a property owner to vote.
5. Weigh votes based on tax bracket. Make more money? Your vote counts more as you have more of a stake in the outcome. Why should some guy on welfare have his vote count just as much as my vote?

Stuff like this would eliminate the pandering to the unwashed, uninformed, unintelligent masses who overwhelmingly vote democratic. Candidates could actually focus on issues instead of handouts. And if you wanted a say in the political process it would force you to get up off your lazy behind and get a job.

As far as blaming the loss on so-called "social cons," well RINOs, keep moving to the center. Keep nominating people like McCain, those guys who are fond of reaching across the aisle. Just how well did that work out for you this year?

The thing RINOs don't get is dems push leftist/socialistic/liberal ideas, not "democratic" ideas and they all get behind them. RINOs try to push compromise or "republican" ideas and not true conservative ideas and there is fissure at the base. Push CONSERVATIVE ideas and we can get behind you. When you push lib lite ideas we say screw it and vote Constitution Party.

J David| 11.14.08 @ 9:44AM

RINO Rubin has been soft on ideology for some time, as evidenced by her various defenses of RINO, and Soros-owned Juan Amnesty McVain before his spanking on Nov 4. The value of the loss by the career commie-lib Dem ally is that it is flushing these pionty-haded pseudo-intellectuals out for the rest of us to identify and shun. Call Ted Nugent, for the game is afoot!

J David| 11.14.08 @ 9:45AM

My spelling can attest that I am no pointy-headed pseudo-intellectual, and I must now go out and slop the hogs, and fire up the still.

J David| 11.14.08 @ 9:53AM

I am building a running tally of RINO pundits: Brooks, Douthat, Barnes, Parker, Rubin, Krauthammer, Noonan, and working in that direction, George Will... Feel free to offer further entries...

Mary| 11.14.08 @ 9:54AM

Elections are decided by independent "swing" voters who are neither ideologues nor partisans. Independents tend to be disconnected from and ill-informed about the political process. The political scientist Samuel Popkin coined the term "low-information rationality" in an effort to explain how such people make political choices, but it is clear that these voters act on general perceptions of candidates and parties -- perceptions that are sometimes at odds with political reality.

Perfect!

Don't have much to add except that I will never vote in desperation again. And that's what my vote for McCain was, a vote of desperation. I admire his biography, but biography was all he had, and even under more hospitable circumstances he probably would not have won.

Minus both social and fiscal issues, what do Republicans have left -- invading foreign countries to promote global democracy? That's really worked well so far, hasn't it?

Fiscal conservatism and social conservatism are inextricably bound, and Brooks' notions of reform advances this.

I'm glad that I have a father who would not have preferred I be taught about contraception instead of or in place of abstinence. I'm glad my dad adhered to such a moral code. I'm glad my dad was a superior man. Whatever rebellion I engaged in was in contradiction to his teaching and not in concert with it. Thank God for my superior parents.

I'm a hawk once war is on, but this election has caused me to re-think my support for imperialism and/or empire.

General Powell stood before the UN, and with his reputation, gave credence to the necessity of this war. He advanced the "grave and gathering threat theme," and then walked away. He was the bloated general on Meet The Press, and I didn't give a fig that he endorsed Obama, I cared that all of a sudden he played the virgin of the war.

Conservatism is not about the acquisition of power, it's about preserving faith, family, right and wrong. I don't need the Republicans, and I'm certainly willing to let the Country remain in the hands of the Democrats for countless years to come, as there really isn't enough of a difference between Reformed Republicans to make a difference.

Social conservatives, maligned though they be, run the party on the ground. You'll have to replace them, and what will the Cri du Coeur be? It will be what Tony Blankley called "me too republicanism." And if it advances that's okay too: no difference, no sale.

Lastly, the Republicans should not be afraid to run Sarah Palin. The cretin Sullivan, for all of his perverse interest in Sarah's birth canal, knows one thing, and that's that the Country could move in her favor four years from now. He knows this because he's not stupid enough to be pretend that a hard middle exists. See here: See here: http://article.nationalreview.com/ q=MThlM2RmMDg3ZGQ5OGNlZDZhMmY0MjAwZWNiMTNiOTA= for a thorough explanation.

That's not really a plug for her because to be honest with you, I suspect she's a social conservative but not really a fiscal conservative. She's already spoken of the "Hispanic" vote. I'm an immigrant too, and pandering is not for me.

By the way, what do you think is going to happen to our 401Ks? Do you think it's possible for the government to require a transfer of these funds to a SS like account?

The shadow of the reach of government will only be extended by both Republicans and Democrats. I don't need either one.

Whatever the Creator allows, He allows. A hardy conservative knows this.

The America of the Founding Fathers is not Brooks' America. He doesn't have the slightest clue about what really makes national greatness possible.

Michelangelo said he'd nursed at the breast of the wife of a stone-cutter. Do you really think the greatness of the Renaissance came about because of some god-forsaken center? Do you think any of our own national greatness ever came about because of same?

Brooks is standard issue for his time and his place. He and those who think like him are incapable of inspiring national greatness because they believe such a thing can be manufactured. They don't have a clue what made Michelangelo and Botticelli who they were.

You can be a true atheist and once you walk into the Sistine Chapel you know that what motivated Michelangelo was something beyond comprehension.

Brooks' vision is a mediocre vision at best. He admires Obama and the attempt to thread the Niebuhrian needle. The greatness of all ages past was never steeped in such lukewarm starter as he advances.

An almighty No to Brooks, and an Almighty No the brand of Republicanism that he advances.

The party of Lincoln came to be to right a wrong. Let it go the way of the Whigs, if it is too weak to carry the cross of that Legacy.

By the way, Mr. McCain. Keep up the good work!

Mary| 11.14.08 @ 10:09AM

Pardon the mistakes in my post. Too many to itemize and correct.

james23| 11.14.08 @ 10:36AM

This is a very good column, and this a valuable insight: "In terms of basic political philosophy and policy, Barack Obama is indistinguishable from Howard Dean. But Obama is charismatic in a way that Dean was not, and voters in 2008 were sick to death of Republicans in a way they were not in 2004." The Dems have kicked butt for two straight elections without tossing out any of their most cherished principles. They've been picking much better candidates.

"Republican 'Reformists"'. . . do themselves no favors by offering criticisms that sound suspiciously like RINO mating calls." To this I would add, they make a big mistake allowing themselves to be defined and apparently led by David "Cancer" Brooks. I don't think there is a columnist more despised on the right today than Cancer Brooks. He isn't one of us.

Bullpup| 11.14.08 @ 10:43AM

The reason the right lost so bad this round is much simpler than all the indepth analysis out there:

1) Republicans were subjected to mass punishment for their ridiculous spending.
2) John McCain was unwilling to attack/confront Obama's silly proposals when he had the nation watching.

J David| 11.14.08 @ 1:38PM

The candidate was who he was, a Soros-owned, constitution-crushing, Gaia-worshiping, hater of Bush taxcuts, and ally of the MOST liberal America- loathers in the Senate, and Amnesty pumper. People at the top CHOSE this man to represent the RINO Party, and not merely cross-over voters. Juan Amnesty McVain could not attack the Marxist because he was NOT substantially different from him, and wanted to be "Mister Niceguy" as the Bi-partisan surrender monkey to the commie-lib Dems that he is, and he represents the RINOs in that attitude.