Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Charting the recovery of the Republican Party, part I
One of these days -- maybe even today -- I am going to join the chorus of bloggers and other pundits who are fretting over the future of conservativism and/or the GOP. Until then, you could do a lot worse than reading Patterico and Cassandra.
9 Comments:
By 
, at
Wed Nov 12, 08:49:00 AM:
Here in Connecticut we are well on our way to becoming a one-party state like Mass. However, the future of the GOP is visible. One of the stars of the election was a local cop who had been an energetic state rep and now was elected to the state senate. He was forced into a primary by one of the traditional suburban GOP "Demo Lite" types but one.
I call it the Palin effect. If you ask the question, who values individual rights and opportunities you come up with people that don't work for big companies, big unions or big government. You do find small town cops, plumbers, small businessmen, small firm lawyers, etc. People who take pride in their competence, because senority is not a factor in their line of work. Starting here, the GOP can recapture the original frontier optimism Lincoln had.
By 
Cassandra, at
Wed Nov 12, 05:22:00 PM:
I find the reaction to Palin fascinating. I'm still not sure what I think of her, largely because she was never (contrary to the efforts of the media to portray her that way) a candidate in her own right.
Progressives hate, hate, hate her. That is just over the top and frankly strikes me as borderline hysterical. Even after months of media battering, they still cite reasons which have largely been debunked (the rape kits thing comes to mind), all the while accusing her of fear-mongering.
Can you say "projection" boys and girls? I knew that you could. I don't mind a legitimate objection but let's be fair. Andrew Sullivan's obsession with her uterus bordered on the insane.
OK. It was insane. But what else is new?
I think what Palin captured was people's growing frustration with the size and complexity of government. They liked the idea that an "ordinary American" of extraordinary ability (and contrary to the way she has been portrayed, no one who has actually met her doubts she's formidable) can still rise through the ranks and succeed in America.
I am still agnostic on the question of whether she's "all that". But clearly she tapped into something powerful in the American psyche - no less so than Barack Obama did. The visceral reactions to her on both sides show that.
I just wish there had been a bit more light and less heat.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Wed Nov 12, 08:16:00 PM:
I am somewhat socially conservative, and have the impression that every election some Republicans complain about the prominence of same and how they feel uneasy and unwelcome. Then the Republicans get elected and ignore us, not them. It has been the social conservatives who have held the line best on spending, taxes, and deregulation (I do sense that is changing, but that's a different debate). I suggest that is not accidental. Social conservatism does train one to endure having unpopular opinions. I make no claim that we are the only ones - any minority opinion can provide the same training - but what has been, has been, and can't be rewritten. Libertarians may be more staunch on spending, at least in rhetoric, but they have been less staunch in party support.
I can understand anyone who looks at their party and speculates "I think we'd get more votes here than there." I'm not the least offended by those questions (though offensive things are often added to the base statement). I do notice that people tend to look at only one side of the balance sheet when they do that. "We would have had Jimmy voting with us if we hadn't..." Yes, but you would have lost John and Sue.
I would half-seriously suggest that we don't vote for lawyers. Attorneys are fine, but the ones who run for office tend to be cut from a different, highly interventionist cloth. I also think we need to be the party that embraces technology.
By , at
Thu Nov 13, 08:03:00 AM:
Andrew Sullivan's obsession with her uterus bordered on the insane.
Don't be laying Andrew Sullivan at the feet of the Democrats. He's a conservative who turned against the war (one of many) but tha that hardly makes him a liberal.
By , at
Thu Nov 13, 08:35:00 AM:
I just wish there had been a bit more light and less heat.
Actually, I think there was too much "lite" and not enough heat, confirmed further by the post-electio Victory Tour she's on (eight "exclusive" interviews in as many days). How is it that one person can speak so many words and say so little?
She would do well to return to the great state of Alaska and be a good governor instead of giving "shout outs" on Larry King to John McCain. *cringe*
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Thu Nov 13, 09:59:00 AM:
That's right syd, because not offending you socially is so much more important than being right.
By , at
Thu Nov 13, 10:30:00 AM:
because not offending you socially is so much more important than being right.
Huh?
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu Nov 13, 10:46:00 AM:
"It has been the social conservatives who have held the line best on spending, taxes, and deregulation (I do sense that is changing, but that's a different debate)."
You mean like President Bush and Trent Lott and Elizabeth Dole?
"I do notice that people tend to look at only one side of the balance sheet when they do that. "We would have had Jimmy voting with us if we hadn't..." Yes, but you would have lost John and Sue."
And I think that's a problem with the electorate, really. I attacked this issue about a week ago, using General Petraeus as an example. 'I won't vote for a pro-choice candidate, no matter how intelligent, successful, or awesome he is,' and other such concepts are recipes for defeat after defeat. It places ideological purity over practical success and, like it or not, that ideology is a minority.
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu Nov 13, 11:00:00 AM:
Here's a somewhat more sophisticated analysis(though only 2 pages). Since it reinforces my position, I think it's great.
