Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: Memo to Republicans: It’s Big Government, Stupid!
Source:
National Review
URL Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic ... vernment-stupid-michael-tanner
Published: Aug 13, 2010
Author: Michael Tanner
Post Date: 2010-08-13 15:29:04 by go65
Keywords: None
Views: 14191
Comments: 33
Riding a record of unprecedented government spending, rising debt, a government takeover of the health-care system, high unemployment, and proposals to tax everything they stumble across, Democrats have put themselves in position for an epic electoral defeat that will rival the Republican debacles of 2006 and 2008. Given this record of Democratic ineptitude and the voters’ reaction to it, one would think that Republicans would be talking about these issues every day. Instead, Republicans and conservatives have spent recent weeks talking about such distracting side-issues as immigration, the 14th amendment, gay marriage, and when and where mosques should be built. No doubt these are important issues to various constituencies. But, the merits of the issues aside, if Republicans believe that the key to victory this year is to refight the culture wars, they are mistaken. Today, the Republican base is fired up, and Democrats are dispirited. To see how important that is, look no further back than 2008, when overall Republican voter turnout was down by 1.5 percent. Putting this in perspective, in the crucial swing state of Ohio, Barack Obama received 40,000 fewer votes in 2008 than did John Kerry in 2004. Yet, Obama carried the state while Kerry lost it. Despite their repeated threats to stay home if Republicans deviated from a commitment to conservative social issues, it wasn’t the Religious Right that deserted Republicans in 2008 (or 2006, for that matter). Turnout among self-described members of the Religious Right remained steady from 2004 to 2008, and these voters remained loyally Republican. Roughly 70 percent of white evangelicals and born-again Christians voted Republican in 2006, and 74 percent in 2008, essentially in line with how they have been voting for the past two or three decades. It was suburbanites, independents, and others who were fed up with the Republican drift toward big government who stayed home — or, worse, voted Democratic in 2008. Republicans carried the suburbs in both 2000 (49 to 47) and 2004 (52 to 47), but in 2008, suburban voters — notably wealthy, college- educated professionals, many of whom consider themselves moderate on social issues but economically conservative — voted for Barack Obama by a margin of 50 to 48. The switch among voters in the suburbs of Columbus, Charlotte, and Indianapolis, for instance, was largely responsible for moving Ohio, North Carolina, and Indiana into the Democratic column. Democrats also continued their gains in the more independent, libertarian West. These independent and suburban voters are now regretting their Democratic flirtation. They didn’t vote for record deficits, the health-care bill, bailouts to banks and auto companies, or cap-and-trade. Having rejected big-government conservatism, they never realized they were going to get even-bigger- government liberalism. But these voters are not culture warriors. Polls show that while they are fiscally conservative, and very upset by excessive government spending and rising deficits, they are socially moderate, tending toward indifference or even support on issues like gay marriage. It is true that many vulnerable House Democrats this year represent culturally conservative districts. But those Democrats are likely to share the same positions on social issues as their Republican opponents. One is not likely to get to the right of, say, Tom Perriello (D., Va.) on social issues. But if cultural issues come to dominate the fall campaign, it could hurt Republican candidates in more moderate suburban districts — candidates like, say, Keith Fimian, who is challenging Gerry Connolly in northern Virginia. On the other hand, both Connolly and Perriello voted for the stimulus, the health-care bill, and cap-and- trade. If one needs a template for victory, Republicans need look no further than last year’s gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey. Bob McDonnell and Chris Christie did not run as culture warriors. Instead they won their upset victories on issues like jobs, the economy, and a commitment to limited government. The polls are overwhelming. Those are the issues that voters care about, not whether two men in California get married. Republicans should focus on creating jobs, reducing spending, repealing Obamacare, and cutting the size of government — and leave the culture wars for another day.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 33.
#1. To: All (#0)
While I agree with the author's conclusion that the GOP ought to focus on issues that actually matter, the author is dead wrong about 2006 and 2008 - the GOP got slaughtered because of Iraq.
Not that they'll govern any better than they did before. As soon as Brian Williams or Katie Couric call them racists, they'll fold like a cheap suit. And probably give Zero everything he wants. Hell, even Zero's gonna vote rep this time around. It will guarantee him success in 2012. Rah rah rah, sis boom bah . . . go team go, rah rah rah.
Do you have evidence for this? 2008 had the biggest voter turn out since 1968. 2006 had above average turn out as well.
The author of this article (and go65, for that matter) are of the view that - "if/when republicans act MORE like democrats (code for when they toss the social conservatives over the side) - they are successful. Here's a clue: given the choice of a genuine democrat vs. a faux democrat, the voters will choose the real one. Every time. Since go65 is a statist/democrat - it's easy to see why he/she gives that advice. He/she is for whatever advances statism. Remember how "out of the mainstream"; "right-wing" and "kook" Reagan was portrayed? He carried 49 states.
Here's a clue: given the choice of a genuine democrat vs. a faux democrat, the voters will choose the real one. Every time. Since go65 is a statist/democrat - it's easy to see why he/she gives that advice. He/she is for whatever advances statism. Remember how "out of the mainstream"; "right-wing" and "kook" Reagan was portrayed? He carried 49 states. I think social conservative issues can still compete in elections, but as more and more of the WWII generation dies, it will be less and less effective. Voters my age almost uniformly are okay with homosexuality, and feminism. Right now these younger people are a small voting block. But Obama carried the youth vote by a huge margin. As these people grow up they will grow more fiscally conservative. They'll actually have to pay taxes. However they aren't going to grow more religious, or more anti gay, or more anti immigration. Exactly the same way the conservative mainstream media portrays Obama. When in reality the Obama administration is hardly much different from the Bush administration. And Reagan did extremely well amongst the youth of 1980, especially for a conservative. And it launched a generational shift towards conservatism. Reagan himself wasn't even a hard liner. He wasn't an extremist, he made thoughtful policy changes. Ignoring today's youth is a mistake. You may get a generation of faithful liberals.
Therein lies the problem. Whatever differences they do have is only in degree. Bush may have said the Constitution is a "g*d-damned piece of paper", but Zero believes it with all his heart. Your generation is going to have a choice between statism and survival.
I honestly don't see why Obama is worse. Bush socialized healthcare (medicare Rx Drugs) more than Obama did, did Tarp, etc etc. There isn't a measurable difference really. Nah, I think that is Chickenlittlism. The sky isn't falling. The "communists" we face are people trying to give us a national health-care system, the communists you faced had nuclear submarines with nuclear missiles pointed at our cities. In the 1960's our stupid wars were killing 50K, now they kill 5K. Crime is lower than the 70's, racial and social strife is slowly receding. It's not a bad time to be an American.
Take just a moment, and really reflect on that statement. An economic collapse would be a real test . . . Americans have gone through hard times before, certainly. My parents went through the Great Depression and then WWII. That generation had something called "character" and "self-reliance", however. Something that is in short supply in 2010.
Because complex identity systems and computers didn't exist. This is like arguing the world is ending because in 1908 there was an infinite increase in plane crashes. I only hear rumblings from idiots who think blacks should be judged by Obama's presidency.
Really? What about the crimes that barely existed in the 70's and are rampant now? Crimes like identity theft? Computer espionage? Crimes that could bring the entire system crashing down? Because complex identity systems and computers didn't exist. This is like arguing the world is ending because in 1908 there was an infinite increase in plane crashes. Fast forward to 2010. One computer hacker commits one act of computer hacking. Through that one act, he has the potential to affect thousands - or even millions. So you may be right that the "crime rate" is down. I would argue that, through technology, the potential for individual criminals to destroy is much greater. Not since Zero's election - there are rumblings that indicate it's getting worse. An economic collapse would be a real test . . . I only hear rumblings from idiots who think blacks should be judged by Obama's presidency.
This has always been so from the fist to the rock to the spear, bow and arrow, gun, machine gun, bomb, nuclear weapon and now the software virus. Image what one person will be able to do in 50 years.
There are no replies to Comment # 33. End Trace Mode for Comment # 33.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latestt was suburbanites, independents, and others who were fed up with the Republican drift toward big government who stayed home
#2. To: go65 (#1)
While I agree with the author's conclusion that the GOP ought to focus on issues that actually matter
Why? Your hero Zero is so out of touch and so hellbent to take his party down, that the reps can run Alfred E. Neuman and still win. . . .the author is dead wrong about 2006 and 2008 - the GOP got slaughtered because of Iraq.
Bullshit. The GOP got slaughtered because - after getting hosed by Bush and his clowns in Congress - the base stayed home.
#3. To: Ignore Amos (#2)
Bullshit. The GOP got slaughtered because - after getting hosed by Bush and his clowns in Congress - the base stayed home.
#5. To: Rhino, go65 (#3)
#6. To: Ignore Amos (#5)
The author of this article (and go65, for that matter) are of the view that - "if/when republicans act MORE like democrats (code for when they toss the social conservatives over the side) - they are successful.
Remember how "out of the mainstream"; "right-wing" and "kook" Reagan was portrayed?
#9. To: Rhino (#6)
(Edited)
When in reality the Obama administration is hardly much different from the Bush administration.
Ignoring today's youth is a mistake. You may get a generation of faithful liberals.
I'm in my mid-50s - I'm going to assume you're quite a bit younger. My generation may have had a choice between liberalism (which I call statism because it's not the liberalism of Jefferson) and conservatism.
#12. To: Ignore Amos (#9)
Therein lies the problem. Whatever differences they do have is only in degree. Bush may have said the Constitution is a "g*d-damned piece of paper", but Zero believes it with all his heart.
I'm in my mid-50s - I'm going to assume you're quite a bit younger. My generation may have had a choice between liberalism (which I call statism because it's not the liberalism of Jefferson) and conservatism.
Your generation is going to have a choice between statism and survival.
#19. To: Rhino (#12)
The sky isn't falling. The "communists" we face are people trying to give us a national health-care system,
give? GIVE? the communists you faced had nuclear submarines with nuclear missiles pointed at our cities.
The communists we faced were - for the most part - external. Yours are internal - much more dangerous. In the 1960's our stupid wars were killing 50K, now they kill 5K.
They're killing just as many - if not more - of the indigineous populations. And, that aside, they're just as un-Constitutional. Crime is lower than the 70's,
Really? What about the crimes that barely existed in the 70's and are rampant now? Crimes like identity theft? Computer espionage? Crimes that could bring the entire system crashing down? racial and social strife is slowly receding.
Not since Zero's election - there are rumblings that indicate it's getting worse. It's not a bad time to be an American.
A challenging one, to be sure.
#22. To: Ignore Amos (#19)
(Edited)
Really? What about the crimes that barely existed in the 70's and are rampant now? Crimes like identity theft? Computer espionage? Crimes that could bring the entire system crashing down?
Not since Zero's election - there are rumblings that indicate it's getting worse.
An economic collapse would be a real test . . .
#32. To: Rhino (#22)
[crime is down]
Not quite. Say one man with one gun commits one crime. He murders someone. Well, that's bad, of course. [racism is down]
Apparently, the "idiots" are reproducing . . . 
#33. To: Ignore Amos (#32)
(Edited)
through technology, the potential for individual criminals to destroy is much greater
Replies to Comment # 33.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]