Posted on 12/18/2006 10:24:10 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez
By Charlie Cook, NationalJournal.com
© National Journal Group Inc.
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
For years, the foundation of the Republican Party was built upon eight pillars of equal importance. Those pillars were (in no particular order): cutting taxes, reducing the size of government, balancing the budget and being fiscally responsible, creating a strong national defense, opposing communism, emphasizing free enterprise, getting tough on crime and emphasizing social issues.
|
|
Since the last presidential election, controversies over stem-cell research and Terri Schiavo have further exacerbated this sense among secular Republicans that their party has left them. |
|
|
|
|
If you look back 30 or 40 years, there was certainly some tension between the eight pillars. And, from time to time, some of those priorities were given greater weight than others. Still, a very delicate balance was generally maintained and the party stood solid. Granted, the GOP was more successful in winning presidential elections in those days, winning four out of five between 1968 and 1988. At the same time, Democrats held the House for 40 consecutive years and the Senate for 34 out of 40 years.
However, in 1980 Ronald Reagan began putting greater emphasis on some of these priorities, while reducing the emphasis on others. Reagan's focus was on cutting taxes, building a stronger national defense and fighting, indeed virtually eradicating, communism. Reducing the size of government and balancing the federal budget were merely given lip service. While you could have a weeklong symposium to determine how much of the 1980 election results were attributed to Jimmy Carter's weaknesses or Reagan's strengths, suffice it to say that the Californian found a recipe that worked exceedingly well for himself.
In the 1990s, a number of other pillars began to crumble or disintegrate. With the end of the Cold War, the fighting communism pillar became obsolete. Bill Clinton's success in convincing his party that they would have greater electoral success if their party positions on crime were not dictated by the American Civil Liberties Union, effectively reduced the GOP's tough-on-crime pillar. And while Reagan, who as governor had signed the nation's most liberal abortion law, talked a good game on social conservatism, he delivered very little. The height of the social conservative pillar rose significantly, to the point where it became almost as high as the tax-cutting priority.
Today, we see a GOP precariously balanced on two tall pillars, one emphasizing cutting taxes and the other emphasizing social conservatism. The five other, considerably shorter pillars make up the rest of the foundation. Those pillars emphasize smaller government, a balanced budget, strong defense, anti-terrorism (which has replaced anti-communism) and pro-free enterprise. One might throw in free trade as well. If that depicts a rather wobbly party foundation, it is.
While the new emphasis on social conservatism is a logical result of conservative and populist Southern, rural and small town Democrats moving into the GOP and a rise in the number fundamentalist and evangelical Christians, it has had the effect of triggering an increasing unease among more secular Republicans. These Republicans, whom you could call "country-club Republicans," or just Episcopalians and Presbyterians for short, have begun feeling increasingly isolated from their party. Many defected to Clinton in 1992 and 1996. And while some returned in 2000 and 2004, they did so with considerable misgivings.
Since the last presidential election, controversies over stem-cell research and Terri Schiavo have further exacerbated this sense among secular Republicans that their party has left them, in the same way that many socially conservative Democrats have described their disaffection with their own party. Plus, there is an enormous amount of guilt among many rank-and-file Republicans that the party's rigorous focus on fiscal responsibility and balancing the budget has fallen by the wayside even as Republicans control the House, Senate and White House.
Movements and issue groups rise and fall. For example, the 1980s and early 90s saw the ascendancy of Moral Majority. Today, my hunch is that we are seeing early signs that secular Republicans are starting to push back, and that they are less likely to sit quietly in the party's back seat over the next few years. As we have seen in the last 40 years or so, the pillars supporting the GOP have shifted with every decade. Whether this push-back by secular Republicans has the effect of altering the foundation of the Republican Party remains to be seen.
"Movements and issue groups rise and fall. For example, the 1980s and early 90s saw the ascendancy of Moral Majority. Today, my hunch is that we are seeing early signs that secular Republicans are starting to push back, and that they are less likely to sit quietly in the party's back seat over the next few years."
CHARGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
read later
Yes, there are certainly natural tensions in the GOP base--especially between social conservatives and pro-business conservatives. But anyone who actually believes that social conservatives should be drummed out of the party--as Dick Armey practically suggested recently--cannot be taken seriously. And I don't think Charlie Cook intended to make that point.
Cook's point is simple...secular Republicans will strive to dislodge the social conservative GOP power base prior to 2008.
I agree with him, and I think Rudy will lead the charge.
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face...
Not really.
Not mentioned was political corruption, said to be important in the recent election losses.
Polls about that election revealed a shift by independents, who voted more in favor of democrats, than in previous elections. Top two issues were corruption and Iraq.
The corruption simply happened. Bush could have vetoed bills with earmarks, but didn't. Only now is he talking about it--better late than never.
Regarding Iraq, he delayed too long addressing the facts--things were getting worse, not better.
In order to win next time, the Republican message needs a pragmatic weighting of the pillars cited.
And it needs good messengers. I think McCain is too old, and not a good public speaker.
A two man race, Guiliani and Romney, unless somebody surges to the top.
The secular republican revolution begins.
Personally, I don't have a problem with that. It's like they always used to say about rolling a joint - - roll the paper up in the middle and the ends will take care of themselves.
I like Rudy, too, but it's not because I support the ACLU, homo marriage, partial-birth infanticide, "fisting" classes for third-graders, and banning Christmas trees like the Democrats and you "secular Republicans" do.
I like Rudy because I think he is more conservative than the part he played as mayor of liberal NYC, and I think he would appoint constructionist judges and attempt to continue to cut taxes.
You had better hope not--at least, if you want the GOP to win. In order to do so, it must--must--be the party of the Big Tent. There is simply no such thing as a secular Republican majority--not even if you assume a very good year, and throw in 60 percent of all self-proclaimed independents. That's right: Sixty percent of all independents plus 100 percent of all secular Republicans would still not approach 50 percent of the total vote.
Realistically, there are several reasons why the GOP got trounced in 2006. But one significant reason is this: Many religious conservatives simply sat on their hands in November. Worse, some were actually seduced by the claims of social conservatism by red-state Democrats, and voted accordingly.
If you really find socially conservatism to be utterly repugnant--as you seem to--please just say so forthrightly. But don't pretend that a Republican Party purged of social and religious conservatives could actually win. That is just wishul thinking.
Another doom and gloom article by wishful liberals. We had one bad election, largely because we didn't stay totally true to our conservative principles and the media says that we're too conservative. Bah humbug.
There is simply no such thing as a secular Republican majority--not even if you assume a very good year, and throw in 60 percent of all self-proclaimed independents. That's right: Sixty percent of all independents plus 100 percent of all secular Republicans would still not approach 50 percent of the total vote.I strongly believe you are right about this. And I consider myself a secular Republican. But I'm a secular Republican who strongly supports the Conservative Christians, and their agenda, even though I'm not one. Because most of that agenda I either agree with or can accept (even though disagreeing) and because I know the alternative: Leftist hell.
Dear Fellow Secular Republicans, we must unite with our true friends (the Conservative Christians) against our true enemies (liberals in both parties).
The only way republicans will stay in power is to become a big tent party and embrace both sociocons and seculars as well.
Democrats lie to win - Republicans are fools for buying into their lies because everybody loses when liberals win...I read those 8 pillars and Rudy Guilliani actually stands for atleast 5 of those firmly and has proven so in his jobs as prosecuting attorney, during the Reagan years, and as mayor of NYC fiscally being responsible. We've been talking about a strong poli-social conservative since 2000 and none has shown up. The hour glass is running out and we need someone to be strong enough to stand up to Hillary Clinton. All we have to do is look at this election to see the deceptive and cunning procedures they implemented incrementally state by state to realize that we need to play hardball with our best hardball guy and that guy is Rudy. If he is not afraid to tackle and beat the mob as he did as prosecutor in the 1980s, then he will tackle her. Rudy is much better at speaking plainly than President Bush and won't take crap from the media either...and, electoral votes are everything - if Rudy is the nominee, he'll take NY and how does a democrat win without all those electoral votes they've always had and still lost?
Charlie, you are a politically wise man.
I was disappointed nobody convinced General Schwarzkopf to put in a term or two as the senator from Florida; he'd make a great one...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.