The GOP Reagan-Conservative Conundrum.

There has been much to do over the path which the GOP should travel in order to make it back into power. Some "moderate republicans" such as Meghan McCain, David Frum, and David Brooks argue that the GOP needs to move further from the right in order to win "big."

Even Nancy Pelosi, Screecher of the House, has put her two cents in on the ailing GOP's problems.

Yahoo News-"I say to Republicans in America, take back your party," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters. "The party of protecting the environment, the party of individual rights, the party of fairness."

Niccolo Machiavelli reminds us though,

"For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are."

Fred Barnes, Fox News contributor, penned an article titled, Be the Party of No for the Weekly Standard. In his article, Barnes, makes the conjecture that the GOP should wear the brand of the"party of no." He provides an interesting trek into politics of the past and provides a badly needed history lesson for our beleaguered Republican strategists.

As he points out, everytime Republicans have faced off against far-left destructive policies they have won.

Weekly Standard-If Republicans scan their history, they'll discover unbridled opposition to bad Democratic policies pays off. Those two factors, unattractive policies plus strong opposition, were responsible for the Republican landslides in 1938, 1946, 1966, 1980, and 1994. A similar blowout may be beyond the reach of Republicans in 2010, but stranger things have happened in electoral politics. They'll lose nothing by trying.

Let's take this one step further an analyze the Democratic victories in 2006, 2008, and some components of the Obama victory.

In 2006 and 2008, Democrats used a fifty state strategy and made incursions into traditionally GOP held territory. By moving further right, far-right by progressive standards, and running a host of Blue Dogs, or moderate to conservative dems, the liberals were able to retake control of the House.

From the New York Times, October of 2006.

NY Times-In their push to win back control of the House, Democrats have turned to conservative and moderate candidates who fit the profiles of their districts more closely than the profile of the national party.

From USA Today.

USA Today-Leaders of the 51-member Blue Dog coalition, which helped House Democrats bolster their majority in the 2008 elections, say they want tighter spending controls in exchange for their support of the proposed stimulus.

Some might grab on to the wording of moderate appearing in this article as further proof that moderates are the key to victory. Not so. What this proves is not that the GOP has gone to far to the right that it cannot win elections, it is that the Democrats had gone to far to the left and needed to appear to return to basic conservatism so they could remain viable.

The basic tenets of the Blue Dog coalition which I recognize to be conservative, are considered a "far-right" ideology by most Progressives. Strangely, in three elections, the progressive wing of the democrats has had to rely on the conservative candidates or having a candidate appear as conservative-minded in order to win "big."

From the Blue Dog Coalition.

The Blue Dogs are dedicated to a core set of beliefs that transcend partisan politics, including a deep commitment to the financial stability and national security of the United States.

Right now fiscal conservatism is the glue which can bind the fractured GOP. Much like the war against communists did when it brought together classical liberals, conservatives, and libertarians under one roof into an impressive coalition. Although important, differences on social issues can be fought out later, now is the time to apply what works. Something us non-Beltway dwelling dullards pointed out months ago.

Finally, Jeb Bush recently stated that it's time for the Republican party to give up its "nostalgia" for Reagan and that the GOP should steal the winning strategy used by Democrats in 2008.

He is actually halfway correct about adopting the Democratic strategy. But not about his "leaving Reagan behind" moment, since following Reagan is exactly what the Dems did.

Transcript provided by Open Left of Obama talking about why he admired Ronald Reagan.

Open Left-I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.

There are a few more examples of how Obama framed his campaign in a Reaganesque style. This is not to say he matched the Gipper on policy but more on political strategy. However as Scott Rasmussen shows in a November 2008 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Reaganism isn't exactly dead and assisted more in an Obama victory than most realize. Let me list the ways according to Rasmussen.

• Mr. Obama's tax-cutting message played a key role in this period of economic anxiety. Tax cuts are well-received at such times: 55% of voters believe they are good for the economy. Only 19% disagree and see them as bad policy.



• A Rasmussen survey conducted Oct. 2 found that 59% agreed with the sentiment expressed by Reagan in his first inaugural address: "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."



• Consider that 43% of voters view it as a positive to describe a candidate as being like Reagan, while just 26% consider it a negative. Being compared to Reagan rates higher among voters than being called "conservative," "moderate," "liberal" or "progressive."

If these so-called geniuses running the GOP are ever going to learn one thing it is always model your present fight on situations which have historical relevance. Then adapt accordingly. Consequently, the incompetents are on a quest to reshape the core of the GOP into a progressive model while heavily overlooking the key victories which basic conservatism has brought them. Thus, not adapting but "progressing." Besides anytime Nancy Pelosi is saying, "Hey, be more like us." any person of sane mind should run as fast as they can in the opposite direction. I guess these bozos aren't exactly sane.

(H/T to memeorandum)

Continue reading ...

Bad policy and the politics of fear: The New New Deal

   (photo from Wall Street Journal)

So this is the new change ushered in by Obama's mandate? Repeated reminders that "he won" followed by a hyper-partisan, lavish, Democratic retreat in Virginia -- during a time when our economy is supposedly on the verge of a catastrophe mind you. The speech itself amounted to nothing more than a sarcastic-laced, glib and polarizing pep-rally by President Obama. He used his slot to reinforce what has been the Democrat approach all along and that is, of course, spending -- any kind of spending. Obama obviously stopped short of any details about the items in the bill and how exactly the government proposed to come up with the money. He should really take Bill Clinton's advise in the future.

It became apparent that once the Republicans were not on board and the American public saw a one sided bill so crammed with goodies that few seriously mistook for anything less than an orgy of mass government spending, he resorted to the very thing he railed against for nearly two years on the campaign trail. He trumped up fear. He took to the airwaves about it. He addressed Congress about it. And he made sure along with VP Biden that the American people got the bleakest picture imaginable. He used terms like "catastrophe," "devastation," "grave consequences" and "serious threats" if Congress did not act now in passing the proposed bill. He painted a picture that the Republicans were escalating the dangers by refusing to play ball.

So this is the New New Deal? Well if it is, it is a far cry from "The only thing we have to fear...is fear itself!"

And despite the Presidents repeated calls for bipartisanship and a refreshing hands-on approach, he allowed his House Democrats to write the bill and fill it full of waste. The result was a hallmark of sorts that illustrates wonderfully to the American people exactly what is wrong with our government. Obama could have interjected and allowed for cuts in payroll taxes and corporate taxes. But, he didn't and he allowed an already despised Congress to hijack the bill and run it through to the Senate.

Instead, Mr. Obama chose to let House Democrats write the bill, and they did what comes naturally: They cleaned out their intellectual cupboards and wrote a bill that is 90% social policy, and 10% economic policy. (See here for a case study.) It is designed to support incomes with transfer payments, rather than grow incomes through job creation.

This is the reason the bill has run into political trouble, despite a new President with 65% job approval. The 11 Democrats who opposed it in the House didn't do so because they want to hand Mr. Obama a defeat. The same is true of the Senate moderates of both parties working to trim their $900 billion version. They've acted because they can't justify a vote for so much spending for so little economic effect. You know a piece of legislation is in trouble when even its authors begin to deny paternity, as economist Martin Feldstein has recently done. (Wall Street Journal: "The Stimulus Tragedy")

Recessions have historically lasted 16 - 18 months. Depending on the severity, government has acted to spend where there are shortfalls and apply tax relief to consumers and businesses. This isn't something new or unique to Obama's presidency. But he is choosing to handle it much differently than anytime before.

Not very long ago President Reagan inherited a far greater mess. When he came into office in '81 there was double digit inflation and unemployment. The interest rates were over 20 percent. He didn't change this and turn the economy around by endorsing social spending/engineering projects that are designed only to create patronage and offer something to point to during reelection time. In fact, he would be appalled by the very idea, and would probably announce every name responsible for the pork to the press.

Another thing he didn't do was try to scare the public into near hysteria in order to enact his policies. When so many saw eminent collapse and were predicting the end of the American dream -- namely President Carter and the majority of Washington pundits (sound familiar?)-- Reagan only saw America's strength and believed in its spirit. He cut taxes, he lowered the marginal rates and made it possible for people to invest and buy. He restored confidence in the American system. He led. He didn't bother with grave diagnosis or broadcasting the dark and stormy weather. How can you have time for both?

He was optimistic. That was his vision for recovery. Simplistic? Lack of imagination? Hardly. He freed the American people from the heavy hand of government, removed its restraints and got out of their way. Reagan created ways to raise incentive for innovation, competition and production. All things he knew were needed for success and prosperity in our American system. He understood this when few even believed it.

Now, that is what you call a real stimulus package.

Continue reading ...