Skip to comments.Political Parties Need Rebranding
Posted on 11/20/2012 5:48:21 PM PST by tankrlm
Dozens of explanations have been offered by people who think they are savvy about politics to explain why Mitt Romney lost and Barack Obama was reelected despite his many unlawful actions and the high unemployment figures. I toss into the mix my view that the two major political parties need rebranding.
Obama's massive negative TV advertising rather successfully branded Romney and the Republican Party as rich guys who can't empathize with ordinary hard-working Americans. In fact, Obama grew up enjoying a pampered lifestyle attending elite schools and colleges and now is rich, too, with his wealth and lifestyle coming from the taxpayers.
Nevertheless, when the pollsters asked the question, "Who is more in touch with people like you?" Romney lost to Obama by ten points. Why is it that Romney didn't seem to relate to middle class Americans?
We can't blame only Romney's country club persona for the psychological barrier between him and the bloc of middle class Americans whose votes he lost. We must also blame the Republican Party's devotion to policies that allowed, even encouraged, several million well-paying manufacturing jobs to go overseas, leaving behind empty buildings in crucial swing states.
Romney didn't have a message for those Americans, nor did Republican Senate candidates, nor did the Republican Party. So the people who were an essential part of Ronald Reagan's spectacular victories returned to the Democratic Party, assuming that Republicans care more about their devotion to so-called "free trade" with cheating Communist countries than to protecting good American jobs and a strong American manufacturing base.
You would think that Romney and the Republican Party would have learned a lesson from the insensitive way John McCain brushed off the suffering of those whose good jobs were moving overseas. McCain went to Detroit and callously said in debate: Those jobs are gone forever; just go to a community college.
The basic Romney-Republican economic message was cutting taxes and regulations to enable people to prosper as entrepreneurs, innovators and employers. That's fine, but it doesn't relate to the millions of men who lost $50,000 jobs and then had to take minimum wage or part-time jobs that don't pay enough to support a family.
Romney and Republicans also lost the votes of the Millennial generation, some of whom were turned off by our meddling nation building in faraway lands. Other votes of Americans that should have gone to Republicans were lost because the RINO Establishment, rather than grassroots Republicans, selected the wrong candidate.
While Republicans were proclaiming that 2012 was the most important election of our lifetime, 11 million fewer Americans than in 2008 voted for either the Republican or Democratic presidential candidate. Maybe they decided there isn't any difference between the two major parties, and on the crucial economic issue of loss of good middle-class jobs, there apparently isn't.
The Republican Party doesn't need only a change in marketing. It also needs a change in policies in order to respect the jobs of middle class Americans and the choices of grassroots Republicans.
It's time to change Republican economic policy so the party can be rebranded as the party of family, good jobs and superior weaponry that keeps America safe without war. Safe without war and Reagan-style peace through strength can help win back the Millennial generation.
The leaks coming out of the RINO establishment (which made so many 2012 mistakes) impudently trying to instruct Republicans what to do now: 1) let the RINOs select Republican primary nominees instead of letting grassroots voters decide whom they want as representatives and 2) blame the defeat on those who talk about social issues. Let's remember that it was grassroots Republicans, not the establishment, which chose winners Ted Cruz of Texas and Rand Paul of Kentucky.
The Republican establishment is also trying to make us believe that Republicans can win by offering amnesty to illegal aliens. That's a dead-end road that translates into more Democratic, not Republican, votes.
The Democratic Party should be rebranded as the party of atheism, amnesty, abortion and debt. For confirmation of those goals, just read the Democratic Party Platform adopted this year in Charlotte, N.C.
Voters should watch again that portion of the Democratic National Convention when a voice vote was taken three times on whether to include a reference to God in the Democratic Party Platform, and three times at least half the Delegates loudly voted No.
There's plenty of hope for the Republican Party because 30 of the 50 governors are Republican, and Republicans still have the majority of the House of Representatives. It's time for grassroots Republicans, with the help of our Tea Party allies, to take control of the party and set it on a winning path.
Phyllis Schlafly is a lawyer, conservative political analyst and author of 20 books. She is the co-author, with George Neumayr, of the New York Times Best-Seller titled "No Higher Power: Obama's War on Religious Freedom." She can be contacted by e-mail at email@example.com.
COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM
Schlafly: Political Parties Need Rebranding,
Both parties are controlled from the top down.
The Republicans are manipulated by the central banking complex and their tycoon transnationalists (e.g., Mitt Romney, Grover Norquist, Managed Funds Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce).
The Democrats are thoroughly controlled by the central banking complex and their other, more ideological wing, the global Marxist/fascists and their co-opted foundation money.
It is Hegelian, Marxian dialectic materialist revolution on a grand scale. And that explains why the Democrats always control the agenda and the Republicans are always the seemingly weak compromisers — thesis, antithesis, synthesis, over and over again.
Here’s one link for learning more:
(related from Arlen Williams, Gulag Bound)
I can’t honestly say that I disagree with a single word she said.
I generally agree, except that her solution (other than picking a different candidate) sounds a lot like our message this campaign. We focused solely on jobs and the economy. We focused on small business as the source or a stronger job market. We talked about peace through strength. We fully ignored social issues and always moved the conversation back to the economic problems people are facing. Romney far outperformed most of our expectations in being empathetic, controlled, and positive.
The problem is our side is getting successfully defined as something else. The same attacks we’ve been under my entire life are now more successful. We are saving entitlements, but painted as wanting to get rid of them. We are saying, the cost of American jobs is too high, we need to be competitive with the world. This is the answer. We are painted as the rich out of touch party. We have to develop better ways to get around the current news/entertainment/education juggernaut that is creating the majority public opinions. That is what is killing us. We also need better candidates...although I think we all recognized this cycle and the last was largely retreads and back benchers.
We have a lot of great, young conservatives who are articulate on the way up, and I believe the base can have more influence on getting the right ones up to the front to lead...and changing the message to a more effective message. I marry those ideas with Schlafly’s article, which is largely on the mark.
The cold hard facts are that Obama beat McCain by 10 million votes. He only beat Romney by less than 4 million!
Bush beat Kerry by 3 million.
In between those Presidential elections the Republicans saw 26 million voters just flat out disappear in 2006 which handed Congress over to the Democrats. At the same time, the Democrats lost 27 million voters themselves.
Then, the Democrats suffered the agonies of hell as 30 million Democrat voters disappeared in 2010 handing the House and an enormous number of state legislatures to the Republicans who lost only 15 million voters!
It's pretty obvious the electorate is running around like a pig on ice!
There's no sense looking at public policy developments as a guide to which way the voters have been going.
In all of those wide fluctuations it is simply never the case that great numbers of people vote Democrat one election and then Republican the next election. It's really a question of turnout, and that in turn depends on how vigorous the voter registration drives preceeding the election were.
Else, you wouldn't have the 2006 results which were about as close as election totals can get, or the Bush/Kerry and Bush/Gore results ~ again, pretty close!
I could go through all of Phylis' points for why voters didn't go for Romney and find some error in her analysis, but none of them account for wide variances ~ and you have to admit losing 30 million Democrats from one vote to the next, though a welcome relief, is not the sort of thing that really gets down there on a single issue ~ particularly not when they come back 6 million short of their 2008 numbers and vote for the very same idiot!
The French have a word for this ~ ennuie ~ the people for a variety of reasons have come to dislike the class of people in politics ~ and they are bored of the show ~ particularly Congressional and legislative elections.
But they are also showing some serious signs of disquiet when it comes to Presidential candidates. So, you got the first Negro in as President ~ and what do you do next? He's into epic failure on everything he touches. MILLIONS of his own peeps didn't bother showing up a second time. The other guy has been running for years ~ a regular modern William Jennings Bryan except he didn't get nominated time before last, and it's not likely he'll get nominated next time, but I definitely had a sense of ennui looking out over the electorate ~ they were bored, and irritated with this guy.
In the end Obama was only slightly less boring and annoying to Democrats than was Romney to Republicans ~ and there the difference between Romney, and Bush, and Kerry, and Gore, and McCain was well within the bounds of same old same old!
The voter disappearance phenomenon doesn't seem to bother the professionals one way or the other. They're looking at the spread, not the absolute differences. Frankly, if ennui is driving the people to or away from the polls, they really need to change their attitude about what they're up to. A party that can drop 26 million voters, and another that can drop 30 million, all within the space of 4 years, could up and disappear on about 2 weeks notice.
Sure, people are concerned with their job prospects ~ but nobody believes we are going to get back jobs that fell to enhanced mechanization, automation, computerization, robotics and improved work processes. They're just gone. A serious candidate might stim the peeps with speeches about THE FUTURE and how it will be better and we'll all get rich!
That's worked several times in the past ~ and is still good for another couple of passes I am sure.
The Democratic party brand is the party of immorality.
You have to really think about that for a while to explore the different aspects of it: what a thought.
They have actually changed American society so the ranks of those who want immorality institutionalized have risen dramatically.
Thus they have the wind at their backs in every election.
The Democratic party is really controlled by what has been quite aptly referred to as the Democratic Shadow Party, a term well worth researching.
Phyllis describes the Republican party fairly accurately.
Being labled the party of morality, they have the wind in their face in every election.
The underlying challenge, however, is not to change political parties, the leadership of which is a very small segment of the population. If every politician elected somehow had it in their mind to roll back all the wrong laws, for the short run they’d still have an electorate that was sliding into an immoral abyss, and about half would still cry for welfare, abortions on demand, a weakened military, etc.
Phyllis’s statement about the nomination process is where things hit home. A move away from career politicians is needed, but not towards blowhard celebrity types. Instead, that tiny controlling part of the Republican party that actually decides who will get party backing for nomination should look to draft a complete outsider who is a simple worker-type mentality of impeccable character, in the type that George Washington sought to exemplify.
But they, like the Democrats, will undoubtedly not actually do anything like that, for one simple reason. Think tanks, elites, intelligentsia, consultants - these are the people who really are devising the policies that Congress turns into law. Congressmen themselves - we actually can plainly see nowadays - really don’t even read the bills. Their legislative staffs work with lobbyists and political consultants to formulate the bills; the Congressmen simply do the horse-trading and recite the bullet points their political consultants give them.
Ive had this idea for a conservative think tank - and, in a fit of hubris, I had the audacity to suggest that regular citizens who have actually owned small businesses - should own and direct it’s work.
My theory is that a great way to un-influence the immorality so rampant in the population is by using the same methods which influenced them towards it.
If the needle started moving back towards morality and common sense out in the grassroots general public, politicians would come skampering along behind the populace, whining “me too!”
Gotta' tell you, writing rules is really boring stuff ~ at any one time there are only a dozen or so folks in the various DC agency headquarters who are IN TO IT. There are plenty of folks on the periphery ~ looking over your shoulder, harrassing you, doing busy work, asking stupid questions, tattling to your boss, and to his boss ~ all that stuff.
These are high pressure jobs, little appreciated, and some of them in the legislative end actually lose their minds ~ just totally freak out ~ Tony Weiner is a good example of a total legislative blowout. He wasn't the first; he won't be the last!
Politicians rarely do any of the grunt work.
So then once again I read an article telling me to drop the silly notion that as the Democrat Party was taken over, hijacked if you will by the radical Marxist Left, and that the Republican Party RINO leadership isn’t the clue the radical Marxist Left isn’t doing the same thing to that party?
Wondering why the RINO’s keep giving the radical Marxist Left everything they want?
I’m tired of the RINO establishment leadership of the GOP flippin’ me, and my fellow Conservatives the wee birdie. That’s exactly what they are doing. First clue IMO they are agents of the other side playing the American people for fools.
We have to put the crosshairs on each, and every one of those RINO bastards on the hill, and replace them in 2014 with true Conservatives, or we won’t get anywhere we want to go.
Face it: we had the wrong candidate this time.
And now Schafly joins the idiot list.
It's 5 million fewer votes right now, with 1.2 million votes in California alone still unprocessed.
Really? Only now? Not for the last 30 years?
I have an idea Reagan was on your "idiot list" once, and Barry before him, and Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann and Newt Gingrich afterward. Rush, too.
So who's your ideal candidate? Wendell "Me Too" Willkie? John Lindsay? Rupert Brooke? Jacob "Lefty" Javits? Nelson Rockefeller? Colin Powell? His old boss "Poppy" Bush? Ken "Back Rub" Mehlman?
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.