StubbornFacts
Stubborn Facts
Stubborn Facts

Navigation

User login

Subscribe via RSS

Resources

The latest from our partner, the PoliGazette

Blog Roll

The GOP universe

Submitted by Simon on Fri, 11/07/2008 - 9:38am

Gingrich, Romney, Palin, Huckabee, Pawlenty and Jindal says the Baltimore Sun. I think that's right, although I might include Mike Pence in the list. Palin has a role to play, but for now, the best thing she can do for herself and us is go back to Alaska, continue doing the outstanding job that brought her to our attention in the first place, and develop a cohesive articulation of what she believes. We already know what she's made of; writing (or helping to write; perhaps Mark Salter is now available to render services) a book - more personal than Goldwater's, but recognizably a manifesto - would help clarify and cohere her own thinking as well as giving us a clearer picture of what she believes. During the campaign, I analogized her to Andrew Jackson - "New Hockery" - but recall that Old Hickory didn't beat the establishment first time out, either. I was wrong in suggesting that this election was 1828; 1824 might turn out to be a closer analog. There is every reason to believe that if she does what I've said above, and does it well, she could well be the standard-bearer in 2012 or 2016.

In the meantime, however, there remains the need to regroup. Instead of wandering aimlessly and fractiously, it would help to have a person or an issue to regroup around. Regular readers know I love Newt, and I would suggest that we could do a lot worse than make him the focal point around which the party now recoalesces. Strike that: I propose that we should not have a power vacuum and that Newt should step up as de facto leader of the movement.

While I understand the desire to be an inclusive big-tent party, and while I urged supporting him if he won the primary, I'm really not sure of what Huckabee's place is. I worry that he represents the Larsonite tendency of more government and less interest in federalism and Constitutional limits, which is precisely what got us into this mess in the first place. If the GOP is going to recover, it must stand for what Reagan said in his first inaugural address: it must again be our "intention to curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the States or to the people. All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government." We should not seek "to do away with government[, but] ... rather, to make it work — work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it." Newt understands this well, and so far as I was able to determine, so does Sarah Palin, instinctively.

Post facto:
I don't know why you say hello... (11/9/08) (followed)
Gingrich, Steele, and the RNC Chairmanship (11/11/08) (distinguished)

From your mouth

to the GOP's ears.

Amen

Amen!

"writing" a book

Well, I'll have a hard time believing that a book alleged to be written by Sara Palin is her own work unless the entire thing is one gigantic run-on non-sentence, with one period at the very end. :-)

OK, that's not fair. I am sure she can string cogent ideas together when writing. She really does need to do some work on speaking in complete sentences though. Gerunds are dangerous things in the wrong hands.

On Newt versus Huckabee: spoken like someone certain the canon is virtually flawless. You say you want a big tent, but you reject most manifestations of a big tent.

__________
I have often said, and oftener think, that this world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel. -Horace Walpole

why....

...should the GOP allow the opposition to define them? I know of no iteration of an American political party that exemplifies LESS intellectual diversity than this iteration of the Democratic party.

RSVP

Well, I'll decline the invite to play comparative political demonology, but thanks for asking. If you want to believe that there's more intellectual diversity in the 48% who voted McCain than the 52% that voted Obama, that's your mileage, and fine with me. MY personal opinion is that too much of the intellectual diversity in this nation operates outside of the rigid confines of the dominant ideologies of the two major parties. So in my view, it's not especially interesting to compare the diversity of parties themselves. They are both too rigid.

I don't recall saying that the GOP should allow the opposition to define them. Anyone with a whit of sense knows that's a mistake. It's not a question of whether the GOP should define itself, but rather what approach to defining itself makes sense. Is there an approach that can both remain truth to principles yet also be appealing to more folks?

I'm not a republican, so I'll leave the definitions up to you guys. But here's the thing, if you keep saying you want a big tent, it behooves you to keep taking a headcount in the tent. And to keep reconciling the headcount trend with your perceptions of how well you are doing at the diversity you say you value. Simon has said that he has a hard time imagining how a guy like Mike Huckabee could have an important role to play in the GOP. If that's indeed true, how does that square with the notion of the big tent?

Maybe it really does make sense to you guys from inside the tent. But knowing something of the republican party and of Mike Huckabee, it would shock me to find he had been sent to the portion of the tent for the people who DON'T really get what the tent is about. Instead, I'm suggesting that just perhaps Mike Huckabee gets something important which some of the guys running the tent do not. Huckabee has appeal, and to me that must mean he has some insight into what makes Americans tick.
__________
I have often said, and oftener think, that this world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel. -Horace Walpole

Apples/Oranges

Uh...sorry but the 52% who voted for Obama are not all in the Dem tent, and the 48% who voted for McCain aren't all int he GOP tent. By that logic, whoever wins a given election has the bigger tent....that makes the idea meaningless.

The problem with a Huckabee is that he is so obviously "the evangelical Christian" guy that he's never really gonna be viewed any other way, particularly among those who consider themselves more fiscally conservative than anything else. That doesn't mean he must be shunned or cannot have ANY role to play...it just means he cannot be the standard bearer for the party in a national sense. He's too parochial in nature to be the "big tent" guy.

I've always hated the caricature of Gingrich as somehow being devisive. That was always BS. It was something invented by the Dems and perpetuated by a sympathetic MSM. But there hasn't been a Republican pol brimming with ideas (good, bad and indifferent) like that. (And off the top of my head, I cannot think of a Dem pol who is similar. The hagiographic memory of Wellstone fits the bill better than the real Wellstone ever did. If you have nominee, I'd love to hear it.)

And lets look at the historical record. Gingrich led Republicans to controll in Congress for the first time in over a generation. Its other side of the aisle nonsense to believe that happened because he was more devisive than the other guy. You were defining Newt as not being a big tent guy, and I think you are dead wrong.

C'mon

So he's elected as Governor of Arkansas and re-elected. Bill Clinton was elected and lost his re-election and then later re-elected and undoubtedly because he became the "evangelical Christian" guy! Is this kinda like Barack Obama is the "black guy". C'mon, how about a bit more. I didn't even support Huckabee but I could clearly see he resonated with a significant part of the Republican party, and not just the Evangelicals.

Chris

def'n of divisive

I tend to view divisiveness as best measured by high negatives. By this measure, both Newt Gingrich and Hillary Clinton are comparatively divisive figures.

I'm happy to agree with you that for the most part there isn't anything specific in Gingrich's ideology that sounds more divisive than the next pol. Maybe he can have a second act. I'm skeptical, but time will tell.
__________
I have often said, and oftener think, that this world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel. -Horace Walpole

Some people's time at the

Some people's time at the helm is over, even if their time in smaller spotlights is not.

Newt is one of those.

I'm a political neophyte so

I'm a political neophyte so I may be off base here...

But would Newt perhaps be a good RNC chair? Does that person somewhat set the agenda, or is it more a PR/fundraising position?

Seems like a good fit if it's the former- and it's a position where partisanship is a given and even a plus. You don't expect the party chairperson to have a record of being loved by the other party, right?

Ha! I swear I hadn't seen

Ha! I swear I hadn't seen this before I wrote that comment- but apparently Newt is putting out feelers.

Gingrich...

...I can't tell you how many times over the last few months I wish we had more involved gadfly Gingrich, as opposed to a mostly sidelined cheerleader Gingrich. He could be equally infuriating to liberals and conservatives, but at least he was interested in real ideas.

I want Newt back in Congress in 2010.

Palin writing a book--a

Palin writing a book--a substantive not folksy book--is a good idea.

Have you seen Huckabee's TV show? I think he does a good job of articulating conservative fiscal ideas and social values while being likable and "nice." He doesn't seem too interested in conservative interpretations of the Constitution, as you mentioned.

--Fern

I haven't seen a whole show, but I saw clips

I always thought he was likable, I just felt he was too much of a larsonite. I should say in reply to Brian, too, that I'm not saying he ought to be drummed out of the party, only that I don't think I want big government types in leadership roles. It comes down to what's core and what's periphery. I think that federalism, "fiscal conservatism" broadly defined, abortion and small government are core issues, and if you're an Arlen Specter who doesn't buy one of those core issues, that's fine, but you know that you're compromising and you're asking us to compromise, and consequences follow from that.

"When someone says their heart needs lifting, don't ask how come, ask how high."

We must be pure!

Chris

Conservatives like to say

Conservatives like to say Huckabee is too liberal, but he supports the fair tax, for christ's sake. He had some infrastructure programs when he was governor, and some taxes had to be raised to maintain a balanced budget--but he was right in the debates when he pointed out that by some people's standards today Reagan would be considered a liberal-- since as governor he pretty much had to do the same thing.

The only other thing which makes Huckabee stand out from other conservatives is that he isn't absolute in his support of free trade--but neither are paleo-conservatives like Buchanan, someone who worked as Reagan's speechwriter.

I don't think Huckabee is a good candidate for the Republican Party, but this is exactly why the base is narrowing. With history behind them and the party uniting behind Bush's presidency, they've lost sight of the actual diversity that made up their party.

I nice eval of the Christian conservatives

Here's a nice summary of the shift in the evangelical vote from Spiritual Politics

As they sought to do this time around, the social conservative leaders want to shift their positions not at all, advancing the cause sub rosa behind a suitable front man like Romney. Permitting a broader agenda, a la the National Association of Evangelicals' Rich Cizik, runs the risk of sanctioning their folks to vote Democratic--behaving like, God forbid, the Catholics. And yet, despite a not very impressive outreach effort, the Obama campaign managed to round up twice as many young evangelicals as John Kerry did four years ago. If the old guard can think of nothing better to offer that growing demographic than the same old values agenda in 2012, perhaps it ought to think again. As for the rest of the electorate, its antipathy to religious right culture warriors should not be underestimated. Jews and Mainline Protestants and, yes, many Catholics too run the other way when evangelicals are on the march.

Having just experienced this in my own church, this is very reminiscent of what older churches experience as they try to make the jump to attracting younger congregants. If the church wants to stick with that "old time religion" including the traditional hymns, the King James way of speaking and keeping out the "unwashed masses", it will die.
Chris

Recent comments

Advertisements
StubbornFacts.us does not endorse the content of any advertisement

Featured Movie

Syndicate

Syndicate content

Who's online

There are currently 0 users and 2 guests online.