The American Spectator

Mary| 4.29.09 @ 8:42AM

Interesting read. [Hat-tip to the really sharp commenter at Ace's place who calls himself George Orwell.]

Did you happen to catch Brooks' recent piece on how hale "decentralization" is for the swine flu?

Brooks lags far behind Governor Palin who during the campaign said “government closest to the people is most responsive and responsible.”

On Thursday my Mom is having surgery for cancer. I’m going to say with her in hospital. I did this three years ago. My Mom needs an advocate, someone who can protect her.

The last time I was in hospital this tall, really good-looking resident said to my Mom “you’ve got a great daughter.” And he said that, with the inflection that he used, because he knew that there are many Moms like my own who are alone during such emergencies.

It’s not a bragging point, just a reminder that the world we’re headed for doesn’t understand or maybe more accurately doesn't value the difference between the two. The State and Mom and Dad are interchangeable.

I may have to travel that road because the Democrats are going to force us down that road, but I’m not going to support any candidate of any party who helps advance this collective philosophy.

I'm not going to support anyone whose basic idea of leadership amounts to "hi, I"m your republican candidate, please tell me your Hispanic need?"

It's out of many, One, not the opposite. That it's become the opposite is due to the fact that the melting pot was considered oppressive. So the "salad" was brought in as substitute.

As an immigrant myself, the melting pot did not ask that I abandon my culture, my native tongue. It just meant that I recognize the unity of being an American. You can put everything and anything into the melting pot, not remotely so in the "salad." Clashing combinations produce a warring consciousnesss.

E pluribus Unum or bust!

Tom Paine| 4.29.09 @ 8:53AM

Ronald Reagan drew hundreds of thousands of Democrats to the Republican party, many from PA and the Northeast, a region of the country now represented by two Republicans in Congress.

"Conservatives" seem not to understand that Reagan was attractive to many of these Democrats for reasons other than strict ideology. The likes of Limbaugh often claim that his success was linked to an unflinching right-wing stance.

This is not true. My family and thousands like it were drawn to a larger vision of America that Reagan clearly saw. He persuaded the country in his first term that he was president of the whole country, something presidents since Nixon have had a very difficult time doing.

Frankly, I think Republicans deserve Specter's departure. Their base seems incapable of understanding why his becoming a Democrat is even a problem for them. They've entirely forgotten the Republican party that once was home to ideologically diverse politicians -- even a few downright liberals.

In Specter, you had someone who voted with you maybe 3 out of 5 times. Now, in Specter, you'll have someone who will vote with you 1 out of 5 times. If you don't see why this is a problem, you don't understand politics -- or math.

The fury and froth provoked by John McCain, a decorated war hero who voted with his party most of the time, was just the beginning. If you think McCain is a liberal, then your definition of conservative is so narrow you can count on a continuation of your shrinking numbers.

Good fortune to you when that happens.

Tom Paine| 4.29.09 @ 8:57AM

Why should a Democrat care if the Republican party becomes a withered regional party dominated by frustrated, middle-aged white men from the South?

We have a two party system. The Democratic party could easily slide into the squalors that debased the Republicans when they took over in the last decade.

An honest, strong, well-reasoned opposition is good for the party in charge, and good for the country.

The party of Joe the Plumber and Ann Coulter cannot be that opposition. No one -- and I mean no one -- really takes them seriously, for one thing. For another, they have no good ideas -- just bluster about nazis and neo-fascism. It's stupid stuff.

Democrats should definitely care whether the Republicans are a party of ideas.

jrs| 4.29.09 @ 9:15AM

I think it's a little of both. Our problems really begin with the election of 2004. Rove pulled out an amazing victory by ignoring conventional wisdom and energized the base as opposed to working towards the center. Unfortunately, there were 2 problems with this. 1, after the election, despite just a small majority of votes (but a majority, not just a plurality) he declared this a mandate and spent the next four years offending the other half of the country (ultimately energizing them). 2, he played to the base, but a small portion of the base, mainly evangelical Christians, while ignoring many other members of the base. The result is he ballooned the deficit, expanded government, and showed no regard for the constitution; all basic tenets of conservatism. The result is, like it or not, most Americans associate conservatism/republicans with Bush.
Now, going forward, we’re going to have even more problems due to the demographic changes, especially in the short run. Unless unemployment goes to 13+% before next election, I see little stopping the Obama momentum. Even if the economy gets worse (which it will at least for the next year or so) Obama will be able to continue blaming this on Bush / Republicans. Ultimately, this crutch will go away, but not until Hillary is trying her last shot (or Obama tries to be more like FDR than Lincoln). Even worse, with all the new social programs and an increase in the low skilled population who don’t pay for the services, Democrats are likely to benefit significantly in the future.
With all this pessimism, is there any hope. Yes. But what we are currently doing won’t help. Every time Rush or Bachmann open their mouth it becomes all that much easier to call us bigots, idiots, etc… Instead, we need to become the party of ideas and not just recycled ideas. One of the big problems with this election cycle was that in addition to the Bush baggage we got beat the same way Bush the elder did, and the focus on the wrong issues. It took us till about October to realize the importance of the economy (we should have seen this back in Fall 07, not just after Lehman) and when we did finally catch on we didn’t present any real solutions (neither did the opposition, but they packaged theirs better than us). Ultimately, the events of the past several years are going to present our country with some real challenges and ultimately these could be opportunities. Our economy will be significantly changed for at least the next generation as we try and rebuild a stronger foundation than the house of cards that just toppled. In addition, we are staring down a massive debt and multiples of that in entitlements. We need to come up with innovative solutions that are effective and the most palatable for the American public.
The other opportunity comes in the way of harnessing the demographic change. Think 50-100 years ago and who were the minorities that were so disruptive to the American way of life. That’s right, Catholic immigrants. We see how that worked out. The key here is to welcome these individuals with open arms. Remember, most are here for better opportunities, to avoid oppression, etc… all things that are consistent with conservatism. Many own small businesses, send their kids to public schools, and will pay for the massive debt and entitlements we have racked up. While at first many want to identify with Democrats as they claim to be the most in tune with the rights of minorities, we must show them that as long as they are Asian, Hispanic, Indian, etc… they might be minority on paper, but as Americans they are the overwhelming majority. Oh, and how does the policies of affirmative action, promoting mediocrity in schools, restricting small businesses that your Democratic friends offer help you or your family.

Bob| 4.29.09 @ 9:43AM

Philip -- again, you've hit the nail on the head. As jrs, I think the problem is both Bush AND demographics. That said, one of the things that you missed was the economic argument. You see, given the current financial industry problems, capital/credit will not be easy to obtain for at least a decade. Thus, if you are making the argument that less government and more small business might be the answer to the Republican Party's problems, the lack of credit/capital for small businesses will defeat this attempt. This restriction of credit will also cause businesses to unload things that require capital like healthcare and retirement plans. That's why many manufacturing businesses now support a nationalized health care system. Positioning the Republican party as the haven for entrepreneurs will not work as it has in the past.

The other thing you missed about immigration, is that most of our immigrants now come from countries that are more socialistic than us. They will expect more government services, not less.

The probability of losing social conservatives is far less than the continued move by moderates. Moderates have some place to go -- social conservatives do not.

You cannot fight the demographic shifts -- it is a matter of simple mathematics. You must redefine the party to be appealing to the new demographics. If you believe that Hispanics will be turned on by less healthcare, returning current illegals to Mexico, promoting an English only society, etc., you've got to be smoking something relatively strong. Right now, the policies of the Republican hard right are very "white". As far as Asians go, most of them come from societies where health care is a right -- and the Republican party is not there. Remember, there are just as many Democrat small business people as Republican small business people -- maybe more. Nationalized health care will help small business -- it is one more thing they don't have to provide.

Alan Brooks| 4.29.09 @ 9:46AM

who says Bush didn't rise high?--
Bush was the most towering RINO of all time.

Robert Stacy McCain| 4.29.09 @ 9:58AM

When it comes to addressing the demographic problem, I choose to lead by example -- six kids! Philip, consider that between you, Antle and Freire, you've produced a grand total of zero children. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Interested Conservative| 4.29.09 @ 10:03AM

T Paine - I think your analysis is a bit forced. As far back as I can recall, we've really had, at most, a 1 or 1 and 1/2 party system.

The natural tendency is for the party in power to dilute itself into an indistinct managing group that it's difficult to find it's "partisan" positions. This is prticularly true with the democrats who since leaving the south 50+ years ago, and succeeding with the socialism/interventionism of the FDR years, evolved into a collection of local interest representatives without a noticeable philosophy.

It took the GOP a century and a half to get there, but the latter Bush years looked similar.

Now, the GOP is reasserting or re-finding its more conservative core, and the BHO sweep has exposed the left core which remains in the democrats. Good luck with them trying to manage that, which is why the Specter move may be more of a headache than otherwise.

The GOP has plenty of "ideas", but the remnants of the party in Washington are not where they are found. As usual, they'll grow from the statehouses and governerships.

The democrats have the reverse problem - an idea for everything, sometimes two or three, and an over inclination for the federal government to do everything, and more! It's a self correcting, but expensive problem, as the latter years of the depression and late 70s-early 80s showed.

Alas, we're just at the beginning of relearning that.

Bob| 4.29.09 @ 10:30AM

RSM -- your six kids just proves that abstinence doesn't work. Right???? Perhaps my 5 children and 6 grandchildren (so far) will neutralize your activity. (Insert laugh here). I guess abstinence was just not my thing....

R. Dittmar| 4.29.09 @ 10:32AM

I said this in an older thread, but I’ll reiterate it here as it goes directly to your two points. The Republican debacles are due almost entirely to Bush’s fumbling in Iraq. He won re-election in 2004 because voters willing to give him the chance to see things through. After two more years of P.C. ineptitude, they were completely fed up and took it out on the GOP in the midterms. It’s even entirely possible that the hole he dug himself by 2006 was so deep that NOTHING he did from that point forward would have given the GOP a chance in 2008.

The sooner the GOP accepts this, the better things will be for them. There is nothing wrong with the traditional conservative Republican themes of limited government and self reliance. Those are perennials in American politics and voters will always be willing to give them a hearing. Reclaiming respectability on the strong foreign policy front is going to be exceedingly difficult given Bush’s bungling, but I can’t believe for a minute that this man-child we have in the Oval Office now is going to do any better. There’s just no reason to be pointing fingers at ANY group in the GOP base and asking them to change/leave. All of them did what they thought to be the honorable thing and defended Bush and his policy to varying extents. It was hard not to do so given how vicious the attacks on him were. At the end of the day though, he simply wasn’t up to the job and he let us all down.

JJ JR| 4.29.09 @ 11:07AM

Y'all and to the author,

How about something new and novel, when in doubt, "just do the right thang!" And get some leaders who can smile, are articulate, and can make a compelling case to the American people.

Another thought: as long as the Stalinists run the voter production line--our public schools--it will continue to take Herculean efforts by conservatives to deprogram them of all the socialist dogma they absorb in K-12 (not to mention the overwhelmingly liberal colleges and universities). If we don't get a hold of the "means of production" (some Marxist lingo for the Marxists who troll this website e.g., the fool who calls himself David Mathews), it's probably all a losing battle on the Road to Serfdom.

Tom Paine| 4.29.09 @ 11:28AM

Interested Conservative --

You make good points, and I think you're right in saying that the Democrats are going to find being in the majority not the paradise they're expecting.

My larger point was simply that the high point of Republicanism (to use that term) since WWII has to be Reagan, and Reagan was much more than the sum of his political beliefs.

I'm not saying Reagan was a closet liberal. I'm saying, however, that Reagan esteemed the plurality of American political thinking. (Consider his friendship with Tip ONeil.)

I don't think the party of Joe the Plumber, Tom De Lay, and Rush Limbaugh is going to produce another Reagan anytime soon.

BD57| 4.29.09 @ 11:45AM

Phil:

Interesting post - and comments that indicate you've described the "analytical framework" in play accurately (people return to their hobby horses).

W's discharge of his duties is a big part of the problem.

#1: For whatever reason, W was not willing to engage in the verbal brawl of ideas in the public square. "Walking softly" only works if they know you'll hit them with the "big stick." W simply wasn't willing to do what needed to be done to challenge the Democrat narrative. Eventually it took hold.

#2: Iraq. I don't fault the original decision or military plan; what I do fault is the failure of vision which didn't foresee Democrats eventually turning on the operation. W didn't have 10 years to get this done - military & post-victory planning should have understood it had a limited window to get the job done.

Simply put - no Republican President can count on Democrats to support any military operation one second longer than they think is politically expedient ... principle doesn't enter into the equation.

#3 is a variation of #1; not only did Bush refuse to defend his presidency against Democrats, he also refused to defend it against Congressional Republicans. The bad legislation W signed (for which he deserves criticism) was passed by SOMEBODY in Congress in the first place. Congressional Republicans blame Bush for the spending / earmark / ethics fiascoes because he's an easy target - and because it allows them to evade their own responsibility.

Right now, the Republican Party is allowing Democrats, the Media and the Left to define who is permitted to be in it. That's really what the jihad against social conservatives is all about - the Dems want to define a significant constituency of the Republican Party as being 'beyond the pale' hoping to drive them out of the electoral arena.

Note to the delusional: social cons certainly have somewhere to go - home.

Try this mental exercise -

Assume Democrats began attacking black voters in the same manner as social cons are being attacked .... they're making the party's political positions unattractive to the middle, there aren't enough of them to make the continued attention to their issues worthwhile, blah blah blah ...

Do you really think black voters would continue showing up in their current numbers and voting 95% Democrat?

The Republican Party was a minority party before the social conservatives got involved. By & large, social cons have accepted the "big tent" theory from the beginning. Funny thing - for the people who talk the most about "big tents", their tent never seems to have room for the social cons.

L. Ross| 4.29.09 @ 12:15PM

While I do think that demographics are incredibly important, in a two party system it is simply inevitable that when the party in power loses its way, that party will lose power. Let's all just man up, quit whining, admit that we earned this defeat, start putting some winning ideas, back some actual Republican candidates, and quite frankly, we will have to wait a bit until the Dems foul things up so badly that the unwashed masses in the middle say, once again, "anything but more of this." Admittedly, not a winning strategy, but that doesn't change the fact that it is true.

Mary| 4.29.09 @ 12:26PM

Thanks, BD. Well said.

I'll de-link BD from my own thoughts.

I recommend, depending on candidates in both 2010 and 2012, that we quadruple the 4 million who stayed home in November 2008.

They only want our votes. They don't want any of our ideas. It amounts to this: we need your votes, please get in line and try to stay out of sight.

Most of us are good citizens, we pay our taxes. Some of us single people can't even write anything off. Not that I'm for "writing off." I'm for paying what I owe, without loopholes of any kind. And I'm for accountability. How about you? This isn't just about taxes. It's about many other things, militarism included. Maybe there was another way besides the Iraq war.

I have affection for President Bush; no matter any bad decisions. He tried to keep us safe, and he did.

He said, before he left office: "I abandoned the free-market to save it." Are the current plans for GM and the Banks an illustration of that? Is the looming marriage a marriage proscribing divorce? Can technological advance be dictated? What will follow? Something like California?

I hate to hit GW with this, but I have to: how can you graduate from Yale and have such marginal language skills? How can you not know that once a never before experienced, pre-emptive war is waged, that it requires that you come and speak to your people on a regular basis? Even I know that, President Bush, even I.

In self respect we can't stay allied with those who detest us. Let's try to find another way.

Let's continue with the organizing. Let's not let a dogmatomacy stymie us before we've even begun. Most of all let's send preying, greasy politicians running and screaming like school girls.

Mattled| 4.29.09 @ 12:46PM

The Democrats that swept to power in 2006 ran as Conservatives. The Republican Moderates ran as Democrat-lite, or moderate or whatever you want to call them and lost. They're called Blue Dogs and some of them are now gone. Mahoney-FL comes to mind. He ran as not-Foley, and then next cycle, a mere two years, got canned (an adulterer and possibly using campaign funds for hush honey-money).

Obama ran as a Conservative with tax cuts for the 95% of Americans-----$8 bucks per week? They (the media) compared him to Reagan (while proclaiming the era of Reagan over??) and even said he's running like Reagan. Go figure.

If you're a smoker with a pack-a-day habit, your cigarettes went up $1.16 in tax under Obama's plan. That's an additional $8.12 per week. So much for tax cuts for the smokers, which are low-middle class mostly---and Hollywood.

Tedisco just lost by 400 votes because he ran, get ready, like a Democrat. The real Democrat pointed out he (Tedisco) was running like a Democrat, and the supposed Republican lost.

The honeymoon is not over by a long shot for Obama and the media. It was never over for Clinton either.

When we make the media irrelevant, the Tea Parties were a a good start, we make Obama irrelevant. Without their fawning coverage, and cover-ups of past associations and gaffes, the independents and moderates wouldn't have bought into it.

It's the media Mr. Klein, it's the media.

Bob| 4.29.09 @ 12:54PM

Mary, Bush was a legacy admit at Yale and Harvard. Legacy admits are virtually never flunked out -- they are given barely passing grades. This is done in order to increase donations to their endowments. The logic used to defend this policy is that these endowments allow others who cannot afford these schools to attend them.

Most of my classmates at Harvard graduated with honors from their prerequisite schools. Those of us who came from poorer background worked our tails off to get there.

Now don't get me wrong, there were some legacy admits that were absolutely brilliant. But then again, some were not.

Mary| 4.29.09 @ 1:34PM

Those of us who came from poorer background worked our tails off to get there.

I certainly respect that, and regret my own misspent and idle youth. I was a hippie-girl. Not really for the philosphy or the free love (that was lame), mostly for access to the contraband. But the foundation that my parents and the nuns gave me, called me home.

See all of you on the flip side. I'm just ready to depart for that big, old cancer center and one of the doctors there who saved my mother's life. Great surgeon; prima donna, of course. You can't ask him a thing. But I really don't care because he's right: "yes, I understand you read that on the internet, but you're not a doctor and I'm not in the mood for any more silliness."

You know, the last time I was at this hospital I found out that a huge number of the nurses were Canadian citizens. It wasn't just the good dollar that brought them there; according to them it had more to do with working conditions.

My heartfelt thanks to all the great surgical minds, who have given people hope. And to the pharmaceutical companies too.

Red Phillips| 4.29.09 @ 2:00PM

"his national security decisions lead to an international crisis or an attack on the homeland, then Republicans will be in a strong position to mount a comeback."

But Philip, Bush's interventionist hawkishness and the dissatisfaction with the Iraq War is a large part of what cost him support. The Republicans and the conservative movement need to embrace the authentic conservative position of non-intervention. If there is an "attack on the homeland" it will certainly not be because we haven't been hawkish enough or because Obama has changed much foreign policy because he hasn't.

Red Phillips| 4.29.09 @ 2:06PM

"If the GOP embraces comprehensive immigration reform, it may help them win over more Hispanics (though John McCain's experience would suggest otherwise), but it could hurt them among working class voters who believe that mass illegal immigration cuts into their wages."

No, it will in one fell swoop create a huge new block of Democratic voters making the demographic problems of the GOP even worse. The GOP needs to be against amnesty and restrictionist on legal immigration as well if for no other reason than self-preservation.

Bob| 4.29.09 @ 2:31PM

Red -- you are absolutely correct on both accounts. Republicans cannot win the immigration argument and thus can't get Hispanics. They certainly cannot attract blacks. The Asians coming over now are primarily Chinese who want socialized medicine so they are not a good target. Therefore, the only target left are the younger voters. You can get them by softening the stance on abortion, homosexuality, and fixing entitlements. But that means social conservatives will have a problem. Oh, well.....

Mattled| 4.29.09 @ 2:35PM

So by Bob's tortured logic, that would explain the "you know" Kennedy's --

Extra-Marital Sex (JFK)
Driving off bridges (Teddy)
Driving off bridges and leaving people to die
( Teddy)
Raping women in West Palm (William Kennedy Smith))
Wiretapping Civil Rights leaders (RFK)
Pre-Meditated murder (Skakel)
Driving into pylons (Patrick Kennedy)
Saying "you know" 55 times in one paragraph (Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg)
Flying airplanes at dusk with limited or zero knowledge of how to do it (JFK Jr.)
Flying airplanes at dusk with limited or zero knowledge of how to do it killing two innocent people on board (JFK Jr.)

Mattled| 4.29.09 @ 2:40PM

The Kennedy's were legacy's alright.

Took 4 innocent people (and who knows how many with patriarch Joe) right along with their leagcy.

I'll take a Bush any day, thank you.

I'll take a Community College (NOT a Community Organizer) grad any day over a Kennedy.

E.G.Tripp| 4.29.09 @ 2:40PM

We are into at least our third generation of poorly educated citizens, with practically no knowledge of our founding documents, the at least 10,000 year development of notions of liberty and freedom, our nation's history or the proper organization of governments.
T. Jefferson's observation about a dumb electorate reigns. Add this to years of dependance of people on gov't "solutions", and we obviously are failing to keep our Republic.

Bob| 4.29.09 @ 2:55PM

"We are into at least our third generation of poorly educated citizens, with practically no knowledge of our founding documents, the at least 10,000 year development of notions of liberty and freedom, our nation's history or the proper organization of governments."

So how do you accomplish that when you are the party that doesn't believe in higher education? You have Bush and McCain who did poorly in school. You have Hannity and Limbaugh who didn't go to college. You have Palin who certainly has not read the constitution or studied the Supreme Court.

A good start would be for Republicans to support higher education and fulfill that premise with people who are good examples -- people like Romney and Jindal, perhaps?

Tom Paine| 4.29.09 @ 3:03PM

Mattled --

You certainly are a jackass, aren't you?

Jrs| 4.29.09 @ 4:16PM

Bob,

Let's not forget Biden who finished towards the bottom of his class and a president who would be nowhere without affirmative action despite being sent to one of the best private schools in the country. Let's also not forget Kerry who would is at best on par with Bush the younger.

Bob| 4.29.09 @ 4:32PM

Jrs -- I agree with you on both accounts. However, Republicans defame education much more than Democrats. Did any current Republican leaders do well in school? The heroes of Republicans are not highly educated. That does say something....

Jrs| 4.29.09 @ 4:57PM

Bob,
I will admit that there are probably a larger number of impressive credentials amongst democratic politicians, but one must be careful with such measures. Also, we can't easily compare across periods. While harvard is always harvard, academic standards at most institutions have risen considerably over time ( mostly due to student loans and a growing population). In addition, let's be careful in saying dens do a better job at education. Affirmative action, support of unions over students, fight free market initiatives in education ( look at what just happened in DC ) , etc. I think republicans do just as bad of a job. We need a serious rethink of education. If we can have the best universities in the world, surely we can improve our secondary schools. Oh, and bobby jindals cv isn't too shabby.

Red Phillips| 4.29.09 @ 5:24PM

Conservatives should certainly not be anti-intellectual for anti-intellectualism's sake. But they are right to be skeptical of modern higher education which is hopelessly corrupted by liberalism and seeks not to educate but to re-educate. Conservatives should support "liberal" education in the old sense, broad learnings in the traditions of Western man. But few schools, even self-identified conservative schools, offer that.

Basil Plumley| 4.29.09 @ 5:59PM

Bob

You said--However, Republicans defame education much more than Democrats. Did any current Republican leaders do well in school? The heroes of Republicans are not highly educated. That does say something....

More humor from Bob. Bob, can you explain to our audience which administration took away vouchers from children from poor families in DC and relegated them back to those DC Public Schools?

I guess it is really tough to defame education when you owe the teacher's union.
You also may want to ask about the academic record of the Democrats from which you never seem to critique. It's rare you see Pelosi and rocket scientist in the same sentence.

The problem with "pointy-heads" like you Bob is that you put a greater premium on education(and where one gets an education) than experience.
Then again, it is just one reason you why this country is safer with you NOT in the White House.

@ Red Phillips

I get it. I get it. I get it. You are a "non-interventionist conservative". I don't believe the American people were against "taking out" Saddam. What they did tire of was the length and the concept of "nation building". "Nation building" is a terrible concept and trying to do so as part and parcel of a shooting war is a recipe for a disaster.
That being said, I am greatly concerned about Afghanistan.