Latest Poll
Loading ...
Oct
20
Credibility Gap
October 20, 2008 at 12:38 PM | By Matthew Gagnon
The other day I was poking around The Next Right perusing the daily chatter - and I came across a post talking about the race for the RNC Chairmanship, who was interested, who was pushing hard for it and so on and so forth. I think, as a former Marylander, that I’d like to add Michael Steele to that list, because that guy is exactly the kind of republican we want the national party to be lead by (and no, it has nothing to do with his being an African American - the guy is a genuine future presidential contender if he wants to be). Unfortunately (or rather, fortunately - depending on how you look at it - he’ll likely run for Governor of Maryland (possibly Senator again) in 2010, so he likely won’t have any interest.
But I digress.
I stored the article away in memory - good stuff to know, after all - but today I felt the need to do something with this information. I’d like to write this article as an open letter to the next Chairman of the Republican National Committee, because regardless if it is Alec Poitevint, Chuck Yob, Katon Dawson, Jim Greer, Chip Saltsman, Saul Anuzis, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin or the reanimated corpse of the Gipper - this party has some serious “re-branding” to do, and its going to have to start with the Chairman.
So what prompted this? Well, I was on the Metro this morning reading a copy of the Washington Post, and I came across this article about democratic gains in exurbs, specifically northern Virginia (hey, remember this article?), and this particular part of the article turned the lightbulb on for me.
“The suburban dweller is saying, ‘I’ve had it, enough is enough, and I’m going to vote for a change of parties that changes everything,’ ” Lang said. “What’s damaged Republicans with Patio Man is the basic incompetence of government. . . . The Democrats don’t own these people — it’s about the state of the Republican Party.”
The lightbulb went on, because this is what seemingly everyone in the leadership elite of the republican party doesn’t seem to understand. They are so far out of whack with what the common man on the street feels about them, their party, and their method of governance that they are unable to fix themselves.
And the republicans had better hope that one of these men said to be interested in the job will be able to clear the cloud of garbage out of his head after this election, and clean house. This is going to require something different - dare I say it, “change“. Change in strategy, change in thinking, change in speaking, change in acting, change in governing, change in message, change in just about every fundamental thing that this party has been doing for years.
If Barack Obama has taught us anything, its that when somebody taps into what the electorate deeply thirsts for, even if they do not honestly have legitimate experience or solutions, they are able to frame the discussion, rally people to their banner, and drive up genuine enthusiasm for a cause - no matter how substantively vacant it is.
After I got to work, I was reading up a little bit here and there, and I found a number of classic examples of what the party and its people have been doing wrong - strategically, rhetorically and just as a matter of common sense.
These examples are statements from the fine leaders of the party at one point or another. For the purpose of making a point and not taking a stand, I’ll just deal with the statements and leave off the identity of the people in question:
Hillary Clinton wants to surrender to terrorists.
See - lets stop right here and chat about this for a moment. Put aside your partisanship and see this how reasonable, clear thinking adults hear that.
Stop arguing with me through the computer screen. Stop thinking like a republican - because that is our number one mistake. Electorally - we need to think about how non-republicans perceive us. We don’t have to compromise our beliefs, but we sure as hell need to understand how others see us, and if our point is being lost because we present it poorly, then our point won’t gain traction and we will look foolish.
That is the case with this particular tactic - not just about Hillary Clinton, but about all democrats.
Think of this statement, and think of the entirety of the electorate that is made up of democrats, moderates, centrists, moderate republicans, and even fair minded partisan republicans. Why would they have a problem with it? If you have to ask yourself that question, get out of politics right now.
This is an absurd statement, and regardless of the “truth” behind it - any reasonable person will hear that and just roll their eyes. Yes, the argument behind it is that her policies will send signals to terrorists, inviting more attack and showing weakness. Don’t make the mistake of thinking I don’t get the nature of the argument - what republican strategists have failed to understand is that red meat for the party faithful does not equate to red meat for everyone else.
Nobody in their right mind thinks that anyone in government, even pacifist liberals, honestly wants to see the United States run away from terrorists and see them win in a clash of civilizations. I mean, seriously who says that? So they immediately dismiss an otherwise decent point to be made because it sounds like an obviously absurd hyperbole.
It doesn’t matter if you think her policies would end up being disastrous for US foreign policy in relation to rogue states and multinational level terrorist cells - the case you are making has all the sophistication and logic of a five year old who just watched a war movie. You sound like a complete buffoon, and while it might make a few people who already hate Hillary Clinton pump their fists in victory at a “slam”, it loses not only votes, but more importantly credibility.
Its just THAT absurd of a thing to say. If her policies are that disastrous, then at least sound like an adult with a brain and say, “Hillary’s foreign policy would be a disaster for this country - she means well, but has a fundamental misunderstanding about terrorism, and we are prepared to take these people out wherever they may live”.
Of course, this does strike to the heart of another problem within the republican party - and that is that since George W. Bush’s first campaign to the present, it has been heavily reliant on stupid catch phrases (compassionate conservatism, war on terror, axis of evil, country first, maverick) at the expense of serious extemporaneous case making. “Surrender to terror” is just one of the newer breed of stupid catch phrases that republicans use, but don’t explain, and can’t articulate. Where have people like Newt Gingrich, who could endlessly speak off the cuff about hundreds of issues, and never once resort to a sound-bite or lame catch phrase to make his point? George W. Bush apparently killed them all.
Anyway, moving on.
“I don’t think that Barack Hussain Obama…”
SCREECH - stop right there. See, again another example of a fallacious tactic that is killing credibility with the everyday voter. While Obama is out on the stump selling his idea of America (and for the record, I probably hate his “ideas” more than you do, so please clear your head and move along with me on the analysis, okay?), republicans are busy dropping his middle name like its a fork tossed down in front of a beautiful waitress.
Just what do you think this is accomplishing again? Oh right - its identity politics, and putting the “who is this guy” question in my head. Yeah - nice strategy everyone.
Has anyone thought for one minute that this (yet again) paints the republican party as full of petulant, whiny, incoherently stupid children? At a time when the country is literally imploding, our idea of electoral politics and persuading the American people about who is the best choice for the country is to subtly jab at Obama’s middle name?
Let me clue you in - nobody’s buying it. Most republicans roll their eyes when they hear this garbage. Yes, Hussain is both a Muslim sounding name, and one that happens to also belong to a former despot - is your bringing in his middle name to the conversation supposed to prove some kind of a point? If so, what exactly is that point?
Because to me, in a time when republicans should be defending free market principles, pushing back against the fallacy of the “deregulation” argument the democrats are putting forth, and painting a picture for the American people that demonstrates a regret of former mistakes, a promise to do better, and an optimistic, mature, cohesive plan to take the country back to greatness - you are busy name dropping for something that doesn’t even mean anything.
Think about that for a minute - seriously. Is that honestly all you’ve got? Because if so, you should know that not only does it turn off a great majority of people to hear because it makes no sense - it also does the opposite of what you intend it to, and that is build sympathy for your opponant, while also giving him a weapon, allowing him to beat you upside the head as little more than a strange, out of touch, racist whacko. Again, doesn’t matter if its true or not - we’re talking about electoral strategy here, and how to sell this party to the millions of Americans who are just dying to hear from us as some kind of alternative to the democrats. As that quote I cited above makes clear, “The Democrats don’t own these people - it’s about the state of the Republican Party.”
You guys are shooting yourselves in the foot.
Now, one more.
“we should win some seats we would not win normally due to partial birth abortion and gay marriage, which are the pillars of the Democratic platform.”
Let me first just engage in a little full disclosure here. I am strongly pro-life, and I couldn’t care less about gay marriage as an electoral issue. Gays have been getting “married” without state sanctions for a very very long time now, and the world has not come crashing down - having an earnest discussion about perhaps integrating their lives into our society seems prudent since government ignoring them or being hostile has done nothing to stop their behavior, or their “marriages”. But regardless, I at least understand the republican position on that subject, and don’t particularly hold it against the party, nor do I label them homophobic.
Moving on.
Now, I’m sure many within the republican party might want to start lambasting me for calling out the party so often, and with such gusto - but before I go any further I want to tell you why I’m doing this. Somebody has to.
If you want to speak amongst yourselves with words and sentiment similar to what is written above in quotes, so be it. Private citizens are allowed a lot of latitude to vent, to descend into rediculous hyperbole, and to sound like completely inflexible, tunnel vision demagogues - so have at it. But having this kind of unbelievable nonsense spewing out of your mouth when you are speaking for your party is the very thing that is killing it.
Consider this, while republicans everywhere are focusing their strategies on disqualifying their opponents from achieving high office, the democratic party has been busy out-flanking us, and have been making their case to the electorate that they have a moderate agenda based in practical solutions. Yeah, they get in the mud a bit too - but it isn’t the centerpeice of their campaigns, that’s for sure. And do you think voters honestly respond to “the other guy isn’t qualified” as some kind of reason to vote for you?
The problem with this kind of foolish strategy, is that if your opponant has any political skill and can act and appear to meet the litmus test of “ready” or “down to earth” or “one of us” or “smart and capable” or any of the other descriptions I could come up with, then he has easily brushed aside your case, and you are left naked in the wind, with no compelling agenda. Its what the first president Bush lacked in 1992, for example - commonly referred to as “that vision thing”. And the problem with Obama is that he has met that test with the electorate.
I know what you are thinking to yourselves - “but Obama isn’t ready! He’s a radical socialist! He has blind ambition and cares more about himself than his country!” - but you have got to stop seeing elections through the lens that you view. More than 70% of this country isn’t in the republican mindset right off the bat - and half of those people aren’t exactly the most stern activist minded people out there. They’re all willing to give the man a chance to look, sound and act like a president. It doesn’t matter if he isn’t ready in reality, it doesn’t matter if he’s left of McGovern, it doesn’t matter if he is a narcisist - what matters is what impression is he giving off to the voters for that very large majority of Americans who are willing to listen to him and give him a shot.
We are dealing with a gifted politician who understands image politics better than anyone since Reagan - so setting up the “ready to lead” test was doomed from the get go. This should have been obvious enough through the primaries.
But in short, the real problem here is that the republicans have a huge credibility gap with the electorate, because of the image they have themselves chosen to portray. There isn’t an issues gap, because in terms of governance, republican ideals are a much better solution for the country (if they’re actually used) - but because of the republican refusal to behave like their rhetoric and their focus on things that don’t tap into the feelings of the right - there is a specific credibility gap between the leaders of the party, and the electorate. And not just the general electorate - between the leaders of the party and the party grassroots itself, as evidence by the vitriol with which I write about a party to which I belong.
They aren’t even credible to me, and I’ve been bleeding republicanism since I was literally 10 years old. That’s how bad this credibility gap is.
Saying the Republican party needs a makeover, and has a brand problem is just the tip of the iceberg right now. Right now, if it doesn’t change its strategy and behavior, it is doomed to electoral death.
And so, that is why i am giving this unsolicited advice to the next Chairman of the party, whomever it might be. They can’t be stuck in this same old World War One style trench, when the rest of the world has moved on to World War II.
I do not suggest abandoning the central tenets of conservatism - what I am advocating is not that republicans become some kind of moderate, wishy washy, “follow the electorate” poll driven group - quite the opposite, I feel it needs to become more ideological and push back against popular opinion on a number of issues.
But the most important way to go about doing this is to understand the people you are aiming to represent. The principles you choose to articulate, and how you choose to articulate them must be tailored to not only the people, but the moment you are in. The best example is engaging in the culture wars in the 2008 presidential election - I may be quasi-libertarian at heart, but I’m not asking the republican party to stop caring about social issues. What I want them to do is realize that the electorate has much bigger things on their mind right now, and if you understood what the people cared about right now, you would focus on other parts of your agenda with a focused, aggressive and cohesive message that has to do with what you believe and what your agenda will be to quench the thirst the American people have for solutions.
In a year such as this, hammering away at gay marriage or abortion doesn’t much matter to unemployed people who have just lost their retirement savings. Not only does divisive social issues make you look - well, divisive (regardless of how right or wrong you are, how its perceived is what is key) - but right now no one wants to hear it, even social conservatives. In 2008’s environment, a republican agenda needed to be focused on exactly what Clinton’s 1992 campaign was - the economy. Throw in some government reform and you’ve got it good.
But none the less - the message has to be clear, and as a republican who is thirsting for a change in direction, both in message and in practice, I sincerely hope the new Chairman, whoever it is, earnestly looks at what to do to reinvigorate the party, and doesn’t just lean on what has been done in the past, or what is done now, because even without the failing economy, that model isn’t working.
Time to get back to basics.
Copyright 2008 © Political Capital
Related Articles: Republican Politics > Republican Schism > Republicans > RNC Chairman Race
[...] actually addressing the problems that caused them to be so roundly defeated - as I recommended here. Perhaps its a little of [...]
[...] actually addressing the problems that caused them to be so roundly defeated - as I recommended here. Perhaps its a little of [...]
You might hate this but for the sake of dialogue I’ll offer my 2 cents:
I am supposed to vote Republican. I am a thirty two year old male, unaffiliated voter living in the mountain west. I grew up in a red city, in a swing state. My father was a doctor, a fiscal Republican. My mother was mostly a stay at home mom. The two of them dragged my sister and me to church every Sunday until we were old enough to choose to go on our own. I voted Republican when I was eighteen but haven’t since and probably won’t for a long time. Here’s why.
Republicans on the national level position themselves as Andrew Sullivan would have it, as the party of “small government, individual freedom, humble faith, balanced budgets, respect for tradition or a strong but prudent foreign policy.” But in my lifetime they have behaved as the party of religious fanatics, social intolerance, imperial ambitions, fiscal lunacy and contempt for constitutional rights.
If the right wants to win my vote in the future here is what they would have to do. They must seek to allow more ambitious, freedom loving, entrepreneurial immigrants into the country even if they aren’t white. I’ve traveled enough to know there is tremendous talent yearning to breathe free and grow opportunity in America in places like Venezuela, Iran, China and Mexico but we won’t let them in. I could vote for a Republican party that fought to defend individual rights at home before it fought for commercial interests abroad. The sort of small government I can support doesn’t find ways to invade my privacy under the guise of keeping me safe. Defend my rights, write just laws, leave the rest to me. The Republican I’ll campaign for doesn’t hide from problems. He can accept reason and scientific inquiry to find pragmatic solutions to environmental problems. Lastly, a Republican I’ll support doesn’t wrap bigotry in the mantra of tradition. She leaves issues of values to citizens not legislatures.
My friend, I have no issues with what you have said, at all. Well put.
[...] actually addressing the problems that caused them to be so roundly defeated - as I recommended here. Perhaps its a little of [...]