Random header image... Refresh for more!

Republicans’ Kris Kross Moment: I Missed the Bus!

by Scott H. Payne

Like many bloggers, on November 4, 2008 I was feverishly watching election results come in and manically trying to live-blog something of importance from what information I had available to me. It was a good night, regardless of what side of the ideological street on which you happened to be set up. It was good because watching election results roll in on a contest as heralded as the presidential election is a thrilling experience, especially when you’ve been paying obsessive attention to it for months on end. This particular night was important not just in terms of Obama’s historicity, but also because it marked the end to what had been the longest and in some people’s eyes the most grueling presidential election in some time. We were all ready for a bit of a rest.

I was in touch with a number of good friend throughout the night, sharing impressions and predictions, and at one point following Obama’s official acceptance speech we all wound up on Skype to record our thoughts on the night for posterity. There were nine of us in total and we each took turns offering our insights and proposing questions to one another. The most interesting question I received was what I thought of Obama’s victory as the closest thing to a conservative on the call.

My answer was relatively simple. I said that I felt that Obama represented probably the best possible world for both conservatives and Republicans. Undoubtedly Republicans and conservatives would have rather seen McCain win, I noted, but given the damage that Bush-Cheney had inflicted to the conservative/Republican brand, that just wasn’t in the cards and of all the Democratic potentials Obama offered an administration that was likely to be the most hospitable to conservatives and Republicans as they prepared for their time in the wilderness to figure out just where they went wrong and what to do about it.

Listening to Mitch McConnell on ABC’s This Week last Sunday, it struck me how poorly conservatives and Republicans are using this moment.

Throughout the campaign, Obama made his respectful disagreement with conservative ideology a cornerstone of his rhetoric. In almost every speech, there was a reference for the need to reach across the isle and a recognition that good ideas are not always the sole property of particular ideologies. Drawing vehement criticism from the Clinton’s and some segments of the Democratic base, Obama even went so far as to offer complimentary words to conservative Citizen Kane: Ronald Reagan. And bearing largely true to his words, the opening chords of the Obama administration’s time in office were dressed in discussion of the need and desire for bipartisanship.

Unlike some Democrats, Barak Obama doesn’t seem interested in destroying Republicans and the conservative movement in the slightest. Obama might not agree with 95% of what conservatives and Republicans suggest, propose, or offer, but his deeply felt historical understanding of the American project lends a recognition of the important role that conservatives and Republicans play in cultivating a successful and healthy country. Therein lies the key to the opportunity that conservatives and Republicans seem so committed to ignoring.

As has been noted by many pundits, demographics are not siding with Republicans or conservatives. The procession of American popular opinion is a steady war of attrition with the future of conservatism and Republicanism in their current forms. So this time out of power is in many ways vital for conservatives and Republicans, it allows a time for careful consideration, at times painful reflection, but ultimately an ability to retool and rework the ethos that they seek to present. In all, though no political party or movement relishes the process of losing power, such milestones are inevitable and must be seen as opportunities to strengthen the narrative that one has to offer.

And by my lights, under no president in recent memory did conservatives and Republicans have a better ability to engage in this phoenix project. While it is certain that the ruminations of such a project are under way in certain segments of the conservative camp fire (David Frum’s New Majority comes to mind), the mindset presented by Republicans on the Hill and many conservatives in the streets is: double-down or die.

McConnell and others simply cannot effectively refute the charge of being the “party of no” because their cupboards are bereft of any ideas that haven’t already come under the damning critique of public opinion. All they can do is point to George W. Bush and say, “We’re not him,” which might be true, but it isn’t enough. And it won’t be enough until such a time as conservatives and Republicans have en masse come face-to-face with the challenge that lies at their feet: to articulate a conservatism of the twenty-first century.

Alas, you can lead an elephant to water…

(Cross posted at The Moderate Voice)

Bookmark and Share

Share and Enjoy
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Fark
  • Reddit
  • SphereIt
  • Yahoo! Buzz

Related posts...

Tags | , , , , , , ,

11 comments

1 Bob { 03.20.09 at 1:43 am }

So “as the closest thing to a conservative on” on this thread, so far, do you have a vision to “articulate [of] a conservatism of the twenty-first century?” A later post?

As so often here I really do miss specifics.

2 Scott H. Payne { 03.20.09 at 2:00 am }

Good show, Bob! Excellent question! I’d been looking to engage my liberal side more moving forward, but for you a post shall follow. I look forward to the ensuing discussion!

3 Bob { 03.20.09 at 2:18 am }

Thanks, no snark.

4 Scott H. Payne { 03.20.09 at 2:29 am }

No snark detected, nor any offered, friend.

5 Mike at The Big Stick { 03.20.09 at 12:58 pm }

I may have made this point here before but it bears repeating: Typically in the early stages of an administration the just-defeated opposition is going to be almost completely reactionary. Look at Democrats circa 2000-2003. Bush basically set their agenda as they just endorsed the opposite of most of his positions. Then after we went into Iraq the left began to unify around a general theme of anti-war sentiment. This eventually morphed into a general opposition to the tactics of the so-called ‘War on Terror’. By 2006 they were pretty well organized and presenting a unified opposition to the Bush administration on foreign policy and security matters. The financial meltdown last fall was just the icing on the cake.

Eventually Republicans will do the same thing which is to start coalesce around specific ideas…most likely financially related. It just takes time.

6 Scott H. Payne { 03.20.09 at 1:47 pm }

Mike, I appreciate the thoughts, but feel like you’re missing a key point. Comparing Democrats circa 2000 to Republicans right now isn’t an apt comparison. Sure Democrats had lost, but it wasn’t (contra Karl Rove theorizing) a crushing, re-aligning defeat. There was still a comprehensible movement and party intact.

Republicans have indeed just suffered a crushing defeat and their brand is very badly damaged in the public square. The task in front of them is much greater than what faced Democrats in 2000 and the sooner they get on with it the better, especially with a president like Obama in thew White House with all of his campaign rhetoric still hanging over his head.

Now if you could make the argument with a comparison to Democrats circa 1981 I think you’d have a much stronger case.

7 Mike at The Big Stick { 03.20.09 at 3:59 pm }

Perhaps Democrats were not dealt a ‘crushign blow’ in 2000 but they let their anger over a perceived stolen election make them look like a mob with pitchforks rather than a cohesive movement (unless you count mutual Bush hatred as the common bond). They were pretty aimless from 2000 to 2003. It’s part of the reason why the GOP gained seats in 2002 and 2004.

8 Mark { 03.20.09 at 4:31 pm }

Mike – I feel like you’ve forgotten our recent history. GWB had a 50% approval rating on 9/10/2001. Jim Jeffords had had crossed the floor of the Senate three months earlier. The house was 221R – 211D; in 2002, the Dems lost 6 additional districts. The Senate switched from 51D-49R to 51R-49D. In 2004, the Dems actually picked up a few districts nationwide but were gerrymandered out of at least six wins in Texas by Tom Delay.

Fast-forward to ‘08: the Rs are down 44 districts in the House and 15 seats in the Senate. Bush left office with an approval rating in the mid-20s with (charitably) perhaps one major policy accomplishment in his second term.

There’s simply no comparison between the 50.1-49.9 state the country was in from 2000-2004 and where it is now. The Dems were backed into a corner by the GWOT but they didn’t get abused in anything resembling the way the Republicans have been since Nov. 2006.

9 Scott H. Payne { 03.20.09 at 5:07 pm }

Indeed, neither was being a Democrat/liberal synonymous with ideological ruin and failure.

Look, what I’m suggesting is not just that Republicans have lost power and require some time to regain a sense of coherence in the face of that loss, but that they have come to a point where their primary focus needs to be on taking a fundamental look at how they present themselves in political landscape that is increasingly disinclined to their favour. That Republicans are, depending on your view, rightly perceived as being the “party of no” currently is not so much the point as it is an indication that they are not engaging in the kind of reflection that is desperately needed and have instead chosen to double-down on a losing agenda.

That just doesn’t make a lot of sense to me because if there is any politician currently out there that I feel like would be hospitable to their needs, it’s Obama.

10 Mike at The Big Stick { 03.21.09 at 3:40 am }

Scott/Mark,

Let me try backtracking a bit….

I’m not trying to equate Dems 2000 with Republicans 2009. What I’m saying is that asking the GOP to formulate an agenda now is moving too fast in my opinion. Maybe it appeals to policy wonks and intellectuals for the GOP to start reconstructing as a sort of shadow government that would offer an alternative vision. Politically speaking though, it is much easier to function as the loyal opposition and let Obama point out what direction to go when the inevitable stumbles happen.

This AIG thing is just the start. Chris Dodd is tangled up in this one but wait until Fannie and Freddie get ready to give bonuses shortly. So many Dems have their hands dirty with F&F that it could get very ugly, very fast. The point is, with these huge moves by the administration there is also HUGE potential for overreach and failure. Politically speaking, the GOP can just sit back and wait and they will have all their talking points laid out in front of them. That’s why I’m not convinced that they are as bad off as people make them out to be. Obama’s fast rise could be the precursor to a faster fall. And let’s not forget Rangel and Murtha under investigation. I will be very surprised if the GOP doesn’t start retaking seats next year.

11 Trackbacks { 03.22.10 at 1:28 am }