How to Sustain a “Republican Spring”

by Dennis Sanders on May 20, 2013

Chris Ladd, who used to write for this blog, has written a post on how to rebuild the GOP.  In many ways, he is trying to communicate what I’ve been saying for years: the need to create a viable alternative view of governance than what has been brought forward by groups like the Tea Party.  I want to offer some critiques on his advice and how to move forward.

Ladd’s point is that moderates and others not on the far right must take on and fight the Tea Party:

Traditional Republicans have been reluctant to engage in open dissent out of respect for party’s ethos of disciplined unity. Tea party groups couldn’t care less about unity. They have shown no concern whatsoever in undermining party interests in favor of their own. “Party unity” is a pillow pressed over our faces. It will be necessary to forge compromises to make any party realignment work, but an open split with the extremist wing will have to come first.

This is the dream of a lot of folks disgruntled with the GOP. It used to be my own tactic.  The problem is that in some ways it offers a bizarro version of the far right: be as intolerant as they are.  The other thing is calling out the far right has never really been a successful strategy other than getting a lot of folks on the left rather excited.  A number of folks loved John McCain’s “agents of intolerance” crack, but most of those enthralled by that didn’t support him in the 2000 GOP primaries.  Jon Huntman got points for saying that he, as opposed to other Republicans, believed in climate change.  Again, he didn’t get very far. Actually, we could go as far back as the 1964 GOP Convention in San Francisco where leading liberal Republican Nelson Rockefeller slammed the insurgent and successful Barry Goldwater.  Goldwater lost to Lyndon Johnson that year, but the moderates in the party didn’t succeed in becoming the dominant faction.
The thing about this theory is that it believes that the problem with the modern GOP lies only in its far right flank.  If we just get rid of those folks, then everything will be okay and people will flock to the party again.
But I don’t think the problems facing the GOP are just the fault of the Tea Party.  The problems are more systemic and won’t be solved by getting rid of the “unwanted” be they the Tea Party or “RINOs.”
The Democrats faced a similar problem in the 1980s as the far left kept the party from winning national elections.  Democrats didn’t try to go to war with the far left; instead moderates within the party created an alternative vision and then went about selling it.  The far left wasn’t its enemy.  What these New Democrats did is offered themselves as the winnable option against the Republicans.  They came up with ideas that co-opted Republican ideas and then made them acceptable to liberals and moderates alike.
The problem the GOP faces these days is not because of the Tea Party.  They might be more the symptom then they are the problem.  The reason that Mitt Romney and John McCain before him, lost the race to the White House was not because of the Tea Party as much as it was the party was stuck in the 1980s, the same way the Democrats were stuck in the 1930s.  America had moved on, but the political party still offers the same policies that gave it victory.
If we want to have what Ladd calls a “Republican Spring” we need to do a few things that will create lasting change and not feed into liberal fantasies.
1. Offer an alternative with real policies.  Too often the GOP dissidents tend to see the problem as one that is focused on social issues like abortion or gay rights.  But the moderates or dissidents need to come up with not only a social alternative, but present a clear governing vision that focuses on economic issues.  While I might disagree with someone like Ross Douthat on social issues, he tends to be spot on when it comes to how the GOP should attend the economic needs of the middle and lower classes.
A related point to this is that some of the more moderate candidates that lose to the Tea Party were not stellar candidates.  Indiana’s Richard Murdock was a horrible candidate, but Richard Lugar had been in so long he could not articulate a clear governing vision that would bring folks in to vote for him in the GOP primary.
2. The Tea Party is not a monolith. If you follow the major media, you tend get a picture of the Tea Party as a group of tri-corner hat crazies.  While there are those kind of people (think Minnesota’s own Michelle Bachmann), the faction is far more complex than the simplistic caritacure.  Yes someone like Ted Cruz confirms the Tea Party stereotype, but remember that Marco Rubio , who leading the charge to reform our immigration laws, was elected to the Senate with Tea Party support as well.  This leads to another point:
3. Co-opt the Tea Party. When Bill Clinton ran in 1992, he made news for his condemnation of rapper Sister Souljah.  It was a moment where he was seen putting the far left in it’s place.  But while he did that, he also was able inject conservative values with liberal beliefs in the role of government.  He could talk about welfare reform and also talk about health care reform.  Clinton was able to co-opt the liberal wing of the party and get them to support his centrist campaign.  The successful GOP candidate will be able to blend conservative values with the moment we are now in.  They will learn to co-opt the Tea Party penchant for small government with a belief that government might not do everything, but the things it does will be done well.  In essence, the road to reforming the GOP lies in holding on the base and also expanding the party as well.
4. Do you like the GOP? One of the problem with GOP dissidents is that you get the feeling that they don’t like the party they claim to be a part of.  Ross Douthat shared that one of the reasons for Utah Governor Jon Huntsman lost was not that he was too moderate, but because it seemed like he didn’t like the electorate that he needed to vote for him:
He picked high-profile fights on two hot-button issues — evolution and global warming — that were completely irrelevant to his candidacy’s rationale. He let his campaign manager define his candidacy as a fight to save the Republican Party from a “bunch of cranks.” And he embraced his identity as the media’s favorite Republican by letting the liberal journalist Jacob Weisberg write a fawning profile for Vogue.
This was political malpractice at its worst. Voters don’t necessarily need to like a candidate to vote for him, but they need to think that he likes them. Imagine a contender for the Democratic nomination introducing himself to liberal voters by attacking Planned Parenthood, distancing himself from “left-wing nutjobs” and giving a series of interviews on Fox News, and you have the flavor of how Huntsman’s opening act was perceived on the right. The substance mattered less than the symbolism, which screamed: I want your vote, but I don’t particularly care to be associated with your stupidities.
Shorter Douthat: if you call people stupid and nutty, don’t be surprised if they don’t want to vote for you.  People want someone who they percieve cares about them.  They aren’t going to support someone who looks down on them. A GOP politician has to deal with the electorate they have, not the one they wish for.

The thing is, if you’re going to run as a Republican, you have to respect the base of the party.  No one should expect to get very far in the GOP selection process if you call those who you’re going to vote for cranks.  Douthat is correct that people don’t need to like a candidate, but they need to know that the candidate likes them.  While people on either side of Mitt Romney see him as a flip-flopper who tries to please the base, the fact of the matter is if he wanted to be considered a candidate he was going to have to tailor his views to the GOP electorate.Of course, if moderates were more involved on the party level, then candidates like Romney wouldn’t have to give up their views on gay rights and abortion in order to be considered in the GOP.

But I think this all goes back to how the base is treated.  I don’t think one has to give their more moderate social views to be considered for President, but you need to bring the focus on issues like jobs and not give Christmas presents to pundits by calling folks who might vote for you crazy.  It’s crazy to think you can do that and get votes in the current primary system.

This leads to my final point:

5. Politics today works for the bottom up.  Moderates in the GOP are not the ones that will throw themselves into party work.  They won’t spend time trying to get out the vote.  We expect that the establishment will pick one of the wise men to lead the various elected offices.  We are not interested in going to conventions, much less caucuses. Conservatives in the GOP tend to be more active.  They are the ones who go to party functions and will work hard to get out the vote.  Moderates in the party need to stop thinking the party will just be handed to them.

I think the GOP will change.  Heck, it needs to change.  But a bloody intraparty fight will please no one except Democrats who will come and sweep in and win.

 

{ 0 comments }

Scenes from a Walmart

by Dennis Sanders on May 18, 2013

 

walmartAbout two years ago, the majority of the old Brookdale Mall were demolished. Brookdale was opened in 1962 and by the time it closed in 2010, it’s best days were behind it. In its place came a WalMart Supercenter.

I will admit WalMart isn’t my favorite place to go. But since there’s one close to me, I do go there every so often to find something that might be at a lower price than say at Target.

WalMart seems to be the villian du jour for people. Especially in the churches that I am a part of, it seems to be the norm for people to denounce the Arkansas-based retailer for a multitude of social sins. There was a time when I would agree with those pastors and other folks. But reality has a way of confusing things.

Whenever I walk through a WalMart, at least here in Minnesota, I am astounded at how diverse it is. I can see the Hispanic family looking for clothes for their kids, the Somali mother shopping for the week, the Hmong man getting paint and the African American man ringing up his purchases at one of the self-checkouts. I see people from different economic classes all coming to this one place to do shopping.

Maybe WalMart is more than it’s alleged sins.

WalMart has started a new ad campaign that is aimed at showing what they call “the Real WalMart.” The commercial, which is below has actual customers talking about the chain.

I am reminded of a blog post I wrote back in 2006 about WalMart:

I’m a centrist Republican, they are dyed-in-the-wool New Deal Democrats. I drive a late model Volkswagen made in Mexico, they are retired autoworkers who are proud United Auto Workers members. Where these contrasts get a bit strange is where we shop for discount goods: I tend tend to shop at Target; they shop at Walmart.

Walmart. This behemouth of a retailer is considered basically evil by many people. I’ve decided not to shop there because of some of their labor practices. My parents are quite aware of this, and yet shop there anyway. In fact, when the visited me here in Minnesota recently from my native Michigan, they got gas at the local Sam’s Club because they are members and it’s cheaper than regular gas.

I don’t understand why my parents shop at a place that seems antithetical to their beliefs, but they do and maybe I don’t have to understand.

What’s interesting to me is that many of the people who object to Walmart tend to be more middle-class. People like myself like to go to Target which tends to market itself as an upscale discounter. Walmart appeals to the working class folk like my parents who don’t care about design, they just want something at a good price.

All of this has led to me to wonder if a lot of the protest against Walmart has more to do with class than it has to do with things like health care or wages. I mean, Target probably pays the same wages that Walmart does in markets where they both compete. Walmart is even getting into the organics business,joining the trend among retailers to offer healthier and sustainable foodstuffs…

The fact is, a lot of my friends who dis Walmart are people like myself: we shop at more upscale places like Ikea and Trader Joe’s. These places are precieved as being more upper middle class; Walmart is more working class; and despite all the talk of caring for the less off, I would bet that a lot of those who profess Walmart as Satan and shop at these more upscale places wouldn’t want to be caught dead with those from lower socio-economic backgrounds.

Seven years later and I still have the same viewpoint.

Listen,  I don’t think WalMart is a saint that should be uncritically praised.  But I wonder what would happen if WalMart never existed.  How would some of the immigrants and low-income folks who shop at WalMart be able to find foodstuffs at a low price?

I still think those who hate on WalMart might want to go just once and observe the folk who shop there.  These folk at the hoi palloi they profess to care for.  Like I said, WalMart isn’t innocent, but I tend to think that the case against the retailer is far more complicated than some would like to believe.

{ 0 comments }

The Curious Logic on Civil Unions

by Dennis Sanders on April 6, 2013

civil-unions-old-700

Here in Minnesota, a bill legalizing same-sex marriage was introduced earlier this year.  This comes on the heels of the defeat of an amendment to ban same sex marriage in November.  The bill has cleared both committees and will head to the House and Senate floors.

This week a Republican House member introduced a bill allowing civil unions instead of marriage.  The main sponsor is state Representative Tim Kelly, who happened to be one of four Republicans that opposed allowing the marriage amendment from going to the voters when it came to the House in the spring of 2011.

Kelly’s proposal was denounced by several of the states gay groups as well as the sponsors of the same-sex marriage bill.  The common complaint is that civil unions are nothing more than “separate but equal,” creating a second-class system for gay couples.

The reference of separate but equal is on purpose, to liken civil unions to the way African Americans were treated during the Jim Crow era in the south.

I’ve become more wary of trying to tie the movement for same sex marriage on equal terms with the Civil Rights movement.  It’s not that the drive for same-sex marriage isn’t a civil rights issue, it is, but it isn’t on the same footing of how African Americans were treated.

In listening to the stories my Dad and other relatives on his side of the family, I’ve learned how bad segregation was.  Most of my relatives come from central Louisiana and life in the early to mid 2oth century was not good for African Americans.  Separate but equal meant not having a place to eat or lay your head after a long drive.  It meant poor schools and crappy hospitals.  Segregation wasn’t just an inconvenience, it was something that altered lives.

Civil Unions might be a poor alternative to marriage, but it is not the same as living under Jim Crow.  Not by a longshot.

The other thing that bothers me about the “separate by equal” charge is how inconsistent it is.  A few weeks ago, we heard about civil unions become law in Colorado.  There was a lot of positive talk about how far the state had come from the days of the early 90s when the state passed a law that allowed for discrimination of gays and lesbians.  No one was condemning the state for opting for an alternative to marriage; instead we had pictures of same sex couples kissing each other.

This is all good, but if separate but equal is bad in Minnesota, why is it good in Colorado?  Segregation wasn’t bad in Mississippi, but okay in Georgia.  It was bad all over.  If you are going to use the rhetoric of a system that not only separated African Americans from whites, but also kept them down economically, then use it consistently.  If it’s wrong it’s wrong; it isn’t wrong in this situation but right or feasible in this one.

We can argue if full-out marriage or civil unions are the right tactic.  Maybe now is the time for equal marriage, maybe not.  But these are discussions about tactics and politics, not morality.  If it was about morality, there would be no talk of civil unions as an option anywhere at anytime.

Let’s talk about Kelly’s bill.  Let’s talk about whether this is right bill for the times.  But please don’t employ rhetoric to hide your political concerns.  It insults the horrors that African Americans endured and it doesn’t help the cause of gay marriage either.

{ 2 comments }

Why Do We Have to Choose?

by Dennis Sanders on April 3, 2013

There’s a meme running around among some center-right wonks that I can only half agree with.

The meme goes like this: GOP domestic policy is hopelessly stuck in hyper-libertarian thinking, something that doesn’t resonate with middle class Americans.  These same Ayn Rand-loving Republicans go around supporting a more liberalized immigration policy and same-sex marriage.  What the GOP needs to do is stop supporting these silly policies and get back to a more conservative domestic policy that can help a struggling middle class.

Ross Douthat, a center-right wonk that I usually love, adheres to this view.  The most recent conservative pundit that supports this view is Robert Patterson, who worked for the first George Bush.

The GOP’s embrace of free-market absolutism also explains why party elites support the fiction of same-sex marriage and turning America into an open-borders, low-wage country via immigration amnesty, further weakening the social and economic foundations of middle America.

In the libertarian universe, “economic freedom” trumps everything: civilization, nation, statecraft, patriotism, industry, culture and family.

I get where Patterson is going with all of this, but personally, I tend to think adopting an anti-gay marriage, anti-immigration message with some more liberal economic policy isn’t going to help the GOP any more than what they are doing now.

What Patterson, Douthat and others want to do is pin the blame on libertarians and the elites for the current sad state of the GOP.  But the GOP hasn’t been losing just because of their economic policies; they’ve been losing because of their economic and social policies.  Telling Latinos that they need to self-deport themselves tends to make Latinos less likely to vote for the GOP, even if they have policies that might attract them.

The reality is that a hard-edged social conservatism and a hyper libertarianism has made the  GOP a less attractive alternative to the Democrats.  Both social and economic policies have to be overhauled in order for the Republicans to become a winning party.  The party doesn’t have to be pro-same sex marriage, but they do need to not look like hateful neanderthals.

I’m more than willing to accept that the libertarian economic policies of the GOP need to be changed.  What I won’t accept is throwing myself as a gay man under the bus just so that social conservatives don’t have to look at their own policies.  Clean up your own damn house before you go blaming others.

{ 2 comments }

A Few Random Thoughts on “Growth and Opportunity”

by Dennis Sanders on March 20, 2013

ap_reince_priebus_tk_130318_wg

The Republican National Committee released its long term assessment report yesterday. Called “Growth and Opportunity,” the document is intended to spell out the current state of the GOP (not good) and ideas on how it can improve. I haven’t read the whole report, but from what I’ve seen in the news I wanted to share these thoughts:

  • This report along with a some speeches by GOP leaders is in some aspects a breath of fresh air. There is an honesty in the report that I haven’t seen in a while among Republicans; a willingness to admit that the current incarnation of the party is scaring whole sectors of American society away. The first step is to admit you have a problem and this report does that.
  • I’m happy for the focus on minority outreach. It would have been nice to have done this prior to getting their butts whooped in November, but it’s at least happening. However, what remains to be seen is how this moves from talk to work. I also haven’t heard of seen any policy ideas other than immigration that will attract minorities. It’s good to extend a hand of friendship, but people vote on what a political party will do for them, not on how nice people are. As Ben Domenech notes, the party needs to set aside things like the debt and tax reform and highlight conservative solutions to problems that Americans face and in this case what persons of color face. Instead of talking about repealing Obamacare, there should be a focus on either reforming it to make it better or offer an alternative program like Health Care Savings Accounts. Will people like these ideas? I don’t know. But you have to offer ideas to fit what problems persons of color face, not what the GOP thinks is important.
  • I’m glad for the focus on social media. The problem here is they will have to link using new media with a credible message.
  • There wasn’t much about same-sex marriage or outreach to gays, but I never expected anything. That said, Republican candidates and local parties, especially those in blue states, should try to reach out to the gay community and even show up at a gay pride festival. Here in Minneapolis the city party has participated in Pride for years.
  • While the report was incredibly positive on reaching minorities, there will be a lot of pushback from the base and the conservative media. The National Review scoffed the attempt to meet with groups like the NAACP and La Raza, saying these minority advocacy groups oppose much of the GOP agenda. Their answer? Destroy them:

RNC chairman Reince Priebus has promised to establish dialogues with groups such as LULAC, La Raza, and the NAACP, which strikes us as unhelpful and willfully blind to the fact that such groups are ideologically opposed to Republican principles. A truly conservative minority-outreach strategy would severely weaken these groups by challenging their claims to represent their respective ethnicities.

And they wonder why people call the GOP racist.

I’m not fan of the NAACP, but if the Republican party wants to be seen as legit in the eyes of persons of color, then the GOP needs to engage these groups. If you go around them, if you work to weaken groups like the NAACP, then don’t expect to get votes from persons of color. For better or worse, groups like La Raza are seen as the legitmate representatives for various ethnic groups. You gotta play with what you have, unless of course, you don’t give a rip about minorities.

  • Finally, despite what National Review says, you have to support immigration reform. Opposing reform offends all Hispanics, even those who are native born Americans and it offends their friends. It doesn’t matter if we don’t get a ton of Latino votes. It doesn’t matter if you think they will just vote for liberals anyway. Opposing immigration reform will send the message that the GOP is against Latinos and that will prevent many folks from throwing the lever to the GOP.

There’s probably more that I could write, but this is what I got for now. After a good start, I’m interested to see how this report could change the GOP.

{ 5 comments }

The Party of Homer Simpson?

March 18, 2013

The Iraq War damaged the GOP’s advantage in foreign policy. Can it get its mojo back? The future is cloudy. read more

Read the full article →

The Downgrade of Detroit

March 17, 2013

Walter Russell Mead has a great essay on why Detroit is in such bad shape and it has very little to do with the auto industry. As many know Michigan Governor Rick Snyder finally called for an emergency financial manager to come in to stabilize the city’s finances. While many are seeing this state takeover as a power grab by a white, Republican governor who will steal democracy from a majority African American city, Mead places the blame where I think it duly belongs: It’s true that the emergency manager law is taking power away from Detroiters and other Michigan [...] read more

Read the full article →

Random Musings on a Random Act

December 15, 2012

The horrific shootings in Newtown, Connecticut has left a lot of people stunned.  It wasn’t simply the number of people who died, 27, that has left people speechless, nor was the fact that it took place in a school.  What has stunned folks is the fact that this took place in an elementary school and 20 of the victims were between the tender ages of 5 and 9.  No wonder President Obama could barely contain his composure when speaking to the nation yesterday. The event has brought about a number of thoughts, so I decided to talk about all of [...] read more

Read the full article →

The Battle of Lansing And Everything After

December 13, 2012

It’s been interesting to see what’s going on in my home state of Michigan.  As a kid, you learned how important the unions were in the state.  Most kids learned of the 1936-7 Sitdown Strike in Flint, Michgan which happens to be my hometown.  It was that event where the United Autoworkers made a name for themselves and where the Detroit automakers had to get used to labor as a partner.  For the next 70 years, the American auto industry and the UAW were partners in building the modern Michigan. My parents came to Michigan and became autoworkers.  My mother [...] read more

Read the full article →

Conservatives Need Better PR

December 5, 2012

The party doesn’t have a diversity problem. It most certainly does have an image problem. read more

Read the full article →

← Previous Entries