How to fix a party

[Martinus]

Lexington
How to fix a party
May 14th 2009
From The Economist print edition

The Republicans could learn a lot from the Democrats

THE Grand Old Party is getting less grand by the day. It failed to return a single congressman from New England in 2008. Republicanism is about as popular as celibacy among 18-30-year-olds. A recent Wall Street Journal-NBC poll revealed that in the party's heartland, the South, there are more self-identified Democrats than Republicans.

So far the party has shown few signs that it knows how to reverse its slide into irrelevance. Should Republicans shout louder? Apologise for recent mistakes? Launch a listening tour? The only thing that the party's various factions seem to have in common is an obsession with junk food. Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida, launched his "listening tour" in a pizza joint. Mark Sanford, governor of South Carolina and one of the party's most outspoken traditionalists, argues that Chick-fil-A would never allow its franchisees to cook their chicken any way they like; so why should the Republican Party allow its elected officials to promote big government?

Here is a modest suggestion for the Republicans: why not learn from the Democratic Party? The Democrats have had much more experience of defeat than the Republicans. They saw a two-to-one advantage in party identification in 1952 disappear by 2002. They were locked out of the White House for 20 of the 28 years between 1980 and 2008. As recently as 2003 a Democratic senator from Georgia, Zell Miller, denounced his party as "a national party no more". But today the Democrats are contemplating power without end.

The first lesson from the Democrats is to create a "vital centre"—one that is a source of ideas rather than split-the-difference compromises. The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) has been challenging old-fashioned liberalism since 1985. DLC-affiliated politicians have been designing centrist ideas in conservative America for almost as long: Kathleen Sebelius, Barack Obama's health secretary, Janet Napolitano, the head of his Department of Homeland Security, and Hillary Clinton, his secretary of state, cut their political teeth in Kansas, Arizona and Arkansas respectively. At the same time, Mr Obama has made a huge fuss about embracing anybody and everybody.

The Republicans are showing some signs that they understand the importance of the centre ground. They are cooing about their success in recruiting Charlie Crist, Florida's middle-of-the-road governor, to run for the Senate, for example. But the Republican centre is very far from being vital. Most centrist politicians are opportunists rather than policy innovators. The party's leading think-tanks are all on the right. The first priority should be to create a Republican version of the DLC, to act as a counterbalance to Washington's conservative establishment and an inspiration to innovative Republicans across the country.

The second lesson is the importance of detoxifying the party. The Democrats have realised that you cannot win elections as long as your party is associated with toxic people or un-American causes. Bill Clinton, the detoxifier in chief, denounced Sister Souljah, an extreme rap artist, signed welfare reform into law, balanced the budget and cut 350,000 people from the ranks of government. More recently, the party has chosen strategic silence on the vexed question of gun rights.

Again, a few Republicans show signs of understanding this strategy. They have tried distancing themselves from Rush Limbaugh and his kind, issued increasingly abject apologies for following George Bush wherever he led, and generally promised to be a nicer bunch. But that is only a start. They need to follow through on their Sister Souljah moments rather than issuing abject apologies whenever Mr Limbaugh cracks the whip. They need to abandon their state of denial about global warming. And they need to recognise that gay marriage could well be their equivalent of the gun issue. The party's opposition to gay marriage not only makes them look mean-spirited. It is also destroying any chance Republicans have of regaining the support of younger Americans. Gay marriage is becoming progressively more popular among young Americans at a time when another favourite conservative issue, abortion, is of less concern to them.

Competence tests
The third lesson is the importance of proving that you can run a country. Jimmy Carter destroyed the Democratic Party for a generation because voters concluded that both he and his party were too incompetent to be trusted with the White House. George Bush may have done the same thing for the Republican Party. He turned a surplus into a gigantic deficit. He launched the war in Iraq on the basis of false intelligence and wildly optimistic assumptions about how easy it would be to win. He filled important government posts with klutzes who were appointed on the basis of family loyalty and ideological litmus tests. By the final months of his presidency, Americans judged Democrats to be more competent than Republicans by a margin of five to three.

Regaining their reputation for competence is the most difficult task Republicans face. It is also the most important. The party's current strategy is to argue that Mr Obama is too soft on America's enemies and too loose with the purse-strings. But this is hardly likely to reassure people who associate Republicanism with military adventurism and hypocritical spending.

The Republicans need to demonstrate that they understand the importance of self-restraint, both at home and abroad. They need to prove that they are more interested in solving practical problems than in ticking ideological boxes. This suggests that the party's revival is likely to start in the same place as the Democratic Party's revival—among the ranks of post-ideological governors out there in purple America.

Thought I'd post it because it seems to be something many Languishites would agree with.

[Neil]

OMG THE PARTY NOT IN POWER IS DOOMED UNLESS THEY BECOME THE OTHER PARTY!

Hans was posting these around about 2002-2006.  A Congressional rout in mid-terms or in 2012 should cure this sort of thinking.  Many foreigners have this misconception about the US.  The parties don't really transform into each other in the US, the way they do in, say, the UK.

[Martinus]

OMG THE PARTY NOT IN POWER IS DOOMED UNLESS THEY BECOME THE OTHER PARTY!

Hans was posting these around about 2002-2006.  A Congressional rout in mid-terms or in 2012 should cure this sort of thinking.  Many foreigners have this misconception about the US.  The parties don't really transform into each other in the US, the way they do in, say, the UK.

This article was written by an American. Who isn't a foreigner. Unlike you. 

It's funny how you constantly seem to posture as if you were an American, but in fact are a wannabe from the arsehole of Canada.

[Neil]

OMG THE PARTY NOT IN POWER IS DOOMED UNLESS THEY BECOME THE OTHER PARTY!

Hans was posting these around about 2002-2006.  A Congressional rout in mid-terms or in 2012 should cure this sort of thinking.  Many foreigners have this misconception about the US.  The parties don't really transform into each other in the US, the way they do in, say, the UK.

This article was written by an American. Who isn't a foreigner. Unlike you. 

The 'foreigner' thing was a shot at you, not the author.  You like the article because it makes sense in your little mind.  The author is merely an idiot who forgot what happened five years ago, and for that matter, also forgot the crowing when Gingrich took over Congress or when Clinton took over the White House.  Either that, or an ultra-partisan Obamaniac Democrat who really thinks that his party has somehow broken the cycle of history by electing the Dear Leader.

I'm definitely not an American.  I enjoy all the benefits that CdM only wishes were his:  Socialized medicine, freedom from Christianity, freedom from black people, a solvent economy, and so on.

[Strix]

A recent Wall Street Journal-NBC poll revealed that in the party's heartland, the South, there are more self-identified Democrats than Republicans.

The writer should learn more about Southern Politics. North Carolina is a solid Democrat state. They have only had two Republican administrations in their history. Yet, they usually vote Republican when it comes to national elections because they think non-Southern Democrats are batshit crazy.

[vinraith]

OMG THE PARTY NOT IN POWER IS DOOMED UNLESS THEY BECOME THE OTHER PARTY!

Hans was posting these around about 2002-2006.  A Congressional rout in mid-terms or in 2012 should cure this sort of thinking.  Many foreigners have this misconception about the US.  The parties don't really transform into each other in the US, the way they do in, say, the UK.

Yup. I'm perpetually stunned by how short everyone's memories are.

[vinraith]

A recent Wall Street Journal-NBC poll revealed that in the party's heartland, the South, there are more self-identified Democrats than Republicans.

The writer should learn more about Southern Politics. North Carolina is a solid Democrat state. They have only had two Republican administrations in their history. Yet, they usually vote Republican when it comes to national elections because they think non-Southern Democrats are batshit crazy.

Which, of course, is the way many of us feel about southern politicians of both parties.

[Sheilbh]

Yup. I'm perpetually stunned by how short everyone's memories are.

But the Democrats did change a fair bit between 2002-06.  In 2006 they were recruiting candidates who could win, even if they weren't perfectly in line with the party on many subjects.  I remember reading somewhere that the Democrats in Congress are a lot more ideologically (and geographically) mixed than they were in 2002.  That's part of why they won.  If the Republicans were to do the same I think they could do very well, but running Republican candidates who can win in New England and chunks of the West Coast means that they won't be perfect Republicans on all issues.  The Democrats took a while to realise that that was worth it, if it meant regaining power.

The other part is, of course, that as the adage goes oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them.

I would add, though, that I think the Republicans are in a dodgy position at the minute.  I agree with David Frum that it's damaging for the Republican party that they've, apparently, lost among the college educated for the first time - professionals, the bourgeoisie, management should all be natural supporters for a centre-right party.  Like Frum, I think it's because the Republican's perceived 'anti-intellectualism'. 

I also worry about the effect continued immigration will have (I think this is an area were Bush had most promise and his party squandered it).  What matters is, I think, less policy and more tone.  I think it is very important that the party doesn't come accross as unwelcoming to Hispanic voters, and I think, in the past, they have.  Though I think a more Catholic tinted Republican party will change its ideological make-up; Catholics are not, despite being pro-life, like Evangelical Christians. 

Having said all that I think the Republicans can, of course, win.  They could do it very easily if Obama's a disaster - but that's never something worth betting on so much that you don't change.  If Obama doesn't then I think they really need to change their tone.  Everyone knows they don't like gay marriage and generally oppose abortion, so there's no need to talk about it.  The people who agree with you already know and I think it turns off the people who could agree but think other things are more important (I think it's similar to Tory monomania about Europe in the 90s).  And I think parties everywhere need to reframe their economic policies (though not necessarily change them).

I think it's a shame conservatives in the US are so dismissive of David Cameron because he's really shown how much can be achieved by not actually changing that much except for the message (with a couple of exceptions like gay rights).