The New York Times Magazine looks at the problems engulfing the Republican “brand.” For instance:
Several G.O.P. digital specialists…found it difficult to recruit talent because of the values espoused by the party. “I know a lot of people who do technology for a living,” [Michael Turk, a 42-year-old Republican digital guru] said. … “And almost to a person that I’ve talked to, they say, ‘Yeah, I would probably vote for Republicans, but I can’t get past the gay-marriage ban, the abortion stance, all of these social causes.’ Almost universally, they see a future where you have more options, not less. So questions about whether you can be married to the person you want to be married to just flies in the face of the future. They don’t want to be part of an organization that puts them squarely on the wrong side of history.”
New York Daily News columnist S.E. Cupp reflects that:
“People aren’t repelled by the idea of limited government or balancing the budget or lowering taxes. Those Tea Party principles are incredibly popular with the public, even if they don’t know it….”
And research seems to confirm that a majority of Americans remain center right and fiscally conservative, believing that the government spends too much and tries to do too much, wasting billions (or, really, trillions) and fostering dependency. But they are so turned off by the party’s focus on social issues that they can’t conceive of themselves voting for the GOP.
The message to the party: evolve, or die.
19 Comments for “The Deeply Troubled GOP ‘Brand’”
posted by Houndentenor on
When you talk about these “Tea Party Principles” I am confused. I am strongly in favor of a leaner, more efficient government. I don’t know anyone who is against that. I don’t really hear that from Tea Party types I meet. Most of them are social conservatives, highly confused about economic issues, and a good many of them are openly racist. If that’s not what the Tea Party stands for, then someone needs to tell that to the tea partiers. Yes, I realize that there was an original group that wanted to focus on small government conservatism. And then along came the religious right who co-opted the movement and it’s not really about that any more. Look at any state that has elected a large number of politicians who self-identify as part of the Tea Party. In all those states there has been very little done in terms of smaller government but a great deal of legislation proposed to ban abortion and restrict gay rights.
I’m going to say what I say to David Frum and so many other conservatives…get out of your bubble and go to Mississippi and Texas and Arizona and talk to people there. That’s the base of the GOP. I don’t get a sense that you interact with these folks nearly as often as I do or you wouldn’t say some of the things you say. The GOP is anti-gay and a good many people vote Republican precisely because they are far right on social issues. And those same folks talk about small government but don’t you dare talk about cuts to the government programs that send them a check every month! To me a Tea Partier is someone who’s against government health care, but don’t cut his Medicare!!! That’s your Tea Party right there. And that’s the base of your party. Sorry, but it would be rather obvious if you lived in a red state and had to listen to people like this rant and rave the most ridiculous nonsense day in and day out. Instead, like almost every gay Republican I’ve ever met, you live safely in a gay-friendly area and are completely out of touch with what the Republican party REALLY is.
posted by Houndentenor on
P.S. I notice you’re ignoring that GOProud is once again banned from CPAC. The GOP is anti-gay and try as you might, you can’t blame that on liberals.
posted by Gus on
Teavangelicals
posted by Walker on
Where did Stephen blame anything on theDemocrats? Seems like — in this post, at least — he’s a Republican criticizing his own party. Democrats should try it some time.
posted by Doug on
At the state level, how many state legislatures are looking at vaginal probes and mandating broom closet dimensions in a effort to get rid of abortion. About the only thing coming out of red state legislatures is anti-aboriton and ‘ban the word gay’ laws.
You brought them to the party, now you have to dance with them and if you don’t I see a 3rd party candidate at the national level.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
But they are so turned off by the party’s focus on social issues that they can’t conceive of themselves voting for the GOP.
Well, there is that … but it is the tip of the iceberg.
You might want to look the article you cited again, Stephen. A few excerpts:
And so on.
S.E. Cupp aside (I watch The Cycle a few days a week, mostly for Steve Kornacki), I have to wonder about her gnostic analysis (“Those Tea Party principles are incredibly popular with the public, even if they don’t know it …“). That’s not what I’m hearing out in the boondocks, at the gas station, in the barbership, at the grocery store and so on.
While almost everybody is in favor of “a leaner, more efficient government” (quoth Houndentenor), a more effective government, simpler taxes, and less complex regulation of small businesses, almost nobody thinks much of the Tea Party. Most people, and in particular the “center-right” moderates who used to be the backbone of the Republican Party, think that they are nuts.
That might be a local viewpoint (our county’s Republican Party was taken over by the far-fringe nutcase contingent of the Tea Party, and local people who vote Republican are disgusted), but that is what I hear.
Like Houndentenor, I would encourage the Washington think-tank Republicans to come to Wisconsin, and really listen.
posted by another steve on
And yet, Wisconsin voters returned very conservative GOP Gov. Scott Walker to office (defeating a union-backed recall effort) by higher margin than his original election, and gave Republicans both houses of the legislature. So that doesn’t seem to jive with Tom’s account of Wisconsin voters being disgusted with the GOP. Maybe Tom’s friends in the union movement, but not the overall electorate.
posted by Jimmy on
It’s ‘jibe’, not ‘jive’.
posted by Torsten on
A recall election at that time of year does not have the same kind of turnout that a general election does. This past Nov, Wisconsin gave Obama a 7 point margin. Obama is not exactly known for being aligned with Walker’s policies. Results like these are why Republicans are trying to prevent as many people from voting as possible (another tactic that’s quite unpopular).
posted by Tom Scharbach on
And yet, Wisconsin voters returned very conservative GOP Gov. Scott Walker to office (defeating a union-backed recall effort) by higher margin than his original election, and gave Republicans both houses of the legislature.
You’ve tried out this simplistic nonsense before, Steve. Two facts previously pointed out to you by others, that you might want to consider before banging this drum in the future:
(1) Post-election analysis by the Milwaukee Journal/Sentinal, based both on pre-election polling and voter exit interviews, indicates that a significant block of voters in the recall election (and potential voters who refrained from voting) would have voter against Walker in a general election but did not do so in the recall election because they believed that recall is not appropriate except to remove a criminal from office.
(2) The Republicans redistricted the State Assembly and State Senate to split up “purple districts” into pieces assigned to “red” or “blue” districts, lumping “blue” and “red” voters into districts that were no longer “purple”, the net effect being the intended effect, which was to make it almost impossible for Democrats to win control of the State Assembly or the State Senate. Democrats will make a run at it in 2014, but nobody I know who is knowledgeable expects to be able to gain a Democratic majority in the State Assembly, and probably the State Senate, until after the 2020 redistricting.
So that doesn’t seem to jive with Tom’s account of Wisconsin voters being disgusted with the GOP.
Well, if I said that, it might not jive, but that isn’t what I said.
What I said was “Most people, and in particular the “center-right” moderates who used to be the backbone of the Republican Party, think that they are nuts. “, the “they” referring to the Tea Party fringer.
Maybe Tom’s friends in the union movement, but not the overall electorate.
Pffft! Middle-school jibs like that just make you look, well, middle-school.
No, I’m talking about Andy, our retired fire chief who self-identifies as a Republican, Ed, active in Republican politics in the next county to our east, Jerry, a lifelong Republican who farms down the road, Jim, a retired AF lifer who votes Republican, and several other Republicans of similar views, all of whom I’ve talked to in the last couple of weeks.
Keep wearing the tea colored glasses Steve, and keep playing the fiddle.
posted by Shadow Chaser on
I have lived long enough that I have lost count as to the number of times that of one of two major political parties in the US have been declared “dead.” Funny thing about political parties … they seem to return from the dead stronger than ever before.
American voters are comfortable with a two-party system. Despite the talk, an emerging third party is just that … talk. Somehow, I cannot see Americans adopting a multi-party democracy — like Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, etc — and ensuing coalition governments.
Do I wish there were more conservative Democrats and liberal Republican? In a word … yep.
Do I wish that both political parties would veer more to the center? Ditto.
Representative democracy may have its problems, but compared to other government systems, it seems to have the most to offer.
posted by John D on
Not the mythic center, please. The center is not a direction Over the last forty years, the Democrats have moved slightly to the right (yeah, they’re more liberal on gay rights, but they also enacted a Heritage Foundation healthcare plan). Meanwhile, the Republicans have moved sharply to the right. Reagan and Nixon look kinda left-wing now.
Initially, the Republicans had success, as they moved the mainstream thought rightward. Now they find themselves out of tune with the voters. While hard left Democrats became marginalized, hard right Republicans took over their party.
I don’t want to see my party further abandon its left wing. If the Republicans want to come ore in tune with the voters, they need to move to the left.
posted by Houndentenor on
The reason America keeps having just two parties is that movements that pick up enough steam have their issues adopted by one party or the other. Both of our parties would be 2-3 separate parties that formed a coalition in most european systems. The end result is the same
posted by Don on
i enjoyed the article and the commentary. both parties veer to their extremes after they have had a majority of their agenda enacted. Clinton ratified much of Reagan’s agenda. Kennedy and Johnson changed things. Nixon created the EPA and was a very left-leaning president by today’s standards, much like Clinton ratified Reagan’s agenda but was still liberal.
Tax cuts are great in principle, but there comes a time when less government stops being a viable solution. No regulation? only in a libertarian fantasy. And after 30 years of trying to put the genie back in the bottle on social issues, the party has stopped trying but the party faithful haven’t. They’ll need a queen victoria to make self-repression chic again.
the Times article seemed to say to me that the republican coalition is breaking up and is likely to form along more libertarian lines. thank heaven for small favors if it actually happens.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The Times article seemed to say to me that the republican coalition is breaking up and is likely to form along more libertarian lines. Thank heaven for small favors if it actually happens.
To me, the article Stephen cited suggests that the Republican Party’s problems with the American electorate go deeper than the party’s anti-gay orthodoxy. As I see things, the Republican Party’s path back to the center-right is not quite so simple as Stephen suggests — that if only the Republican Party would moderate on the extreme positions taken in the 2012 Platform, while doubling down on other aspects of Republican orthodoxy, all will be well.
Along the lines that all is not as simple as Stephen suggests, Ramesh Ponnuru from the American Enterprise Institute argued in a recent NYT OpEd (“Reaganism after Reagan“), Feburary 17) that current Republican economic orthodoxy doesn’t the current economy. Other conservative writers are reaching similar conclusions about other areas of Republican orthodoxy, and calling for rethinking about conservative principles and their application to current issues, rather than just doubling down on orthodox positions that no longer make sense.
I would welcome a more libertarian approach from the Republican Party, because I think that the party has strayed far from constitutional conservativism — the core idea that individual citizens should be free to live their lives without government regulation of such things as marriage, birth control, abortion and so on — but to my mind, the libertarian idea that the least possible government is the best possible government (eliminating the social safety net, eliminating environmental regulation, and so on) is a good idea.
But that’s me. I’ve never made any bones about my politics. To my mind, our country should combine Barry Goldwater’s insistence upon individual liberty free from government interference with Robert Kennedy’s thirst for social justice.
I don’t know where the Republican Party will end up. I know that it can’t stay where it is — driven by extremes — and expect to win national elections. I think that keeping both parties near the center (center-left for Democrats, center-right for Republicans) would serve us best in the long run.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
… but to my mind, the libertarian idea that the least possible government is the best possible government (eliminating the social safety net, eliminating environmental regulation, and so on) is a good idea.
Correction: ” … but to my mind, the libertarian idea that the least possible government is the best possible government (eliminating the social safety net, eliminating environmental regulation, and so on) is nota good idea.”
posted by kosh iii on
I agree with Houndtender on one point: get out of the Beltway and visit the places that the Teanuts have control such as here in Tennessee.
They want to take away control from local school boards and give it to the State: but only in counties with Democratic Party majorities.
They push a bill to curtain Food Stamps if a child does poorly in school.
Don’t Say Gay.
Guns allowed on the property of private businesses, despite the objections of major employers like Nissan, VW, GM, Dell…..
Nullification has reared it ugly head again
And the list goes on……..
posted by Doug on
The headline speakers at CPAC this year are Sarah Palin, Allen West, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, Ted Cruz.
Yep that is change I can believe in. . . . . NOT.
posted by Clayton on
Speaking of CPAC–
They have banned GOProud–again! How come Stephen hasn’t done a blog post about that?