Are the Republicans losing on the Leadership front?

Great Debates
1

It sure seems so.

I don’t want to debate policy here, per se, but rather let’s debate LEADERSHIP. One can disagree over specific policy issues but still agree on the tactics the majority party should use to get its policy decisions enacted. Lets look at some recent spectacular failures:

Social Security: This should be a winning issue with younger Americans at least, but Bush’s initiative seems dead before it even gets started. Why did they let the Democrats frame the debate on Social Security? The soundbites are all about “No Privatization” or “Don’t let Wall Street destroy Social Security”, when in fact the choice is completely up to the individual citizen whether or not to open a private account or stick with the present system.

Ethics and Tom DeLay: Even the conservatives pundits like Charles Krauthammer are only giving him provisional support. Paraphrasing his words: DeLay may not have crossed the ethics line, but he walks right up to the edge way too often. Reign that guy in, for God’s sake. The Congressional Leadership is the face of the Party to much of America.

Filibuster/Judicial nominees: You guys are looking like a bunch of bullies. Senate traditions are there for a reason, and changing the rules every time you don’t get your way makes you look desperate. Most people are sympathetic to letting the Senate have an up or down vote on judicial nominees, but not to the idea of getting rid of the filibuster. And, you guys are going to be in the minority again some day. Why the hell don’t you toughen things up by making the Dems actually perform a filibuster, and not just threaten one. Make THEM look obstructionist— right now you are the ones who garner that tag.

Schiavo: This has been done to death, so I won’t belabor the point, other to say WTF were you thinking? Quit taking a “Movie of the Week” approach to government. You look like a bunch of amateurs.

Maybe it’s just easier being the opposition party, but I’m giving a better grade to the Dems for how they’re handling that role than the grade I’m giving the Pubs on leadership. B- to the Dems, mainly because they aren’t proposing many alternatives, but D to the Pubs since they are squandering their solid majority in Congress and ownership of the Whitehouse.

Thoughts: What strategies and tactics should the Republicans be using to effectively take advantage of their leadership position?

2

I’m not sure how to debate this WITHOUT debating policy. For example:

Right, but since today’s SS payers are funding today’s SS recipients (and will in turn be funded by tomorrow’s SS payers), that choice doesn’t just affect the person making it.

I think the Republicans have tried to frame the debate in the method you’re suggesting, but Democrats have, rightly so, pointed out that it doesn’t work that way.

What should the Republicans do? I think they might do well to capitalize on Bush’s “Uniter, not divider” platform. Spend a fair amount of time listening to Democrats. Make a few highly publicized (and surprise) concessions to Democrats in areas that have more symbolic value–close ANWR to drilling, for example, open a summit on energy policy that invites environmental leaders to share their opinions, drop a couple of the most controversial aspects of the PATRIOT act. Make a huge deal out of doing this, while quietly pushing through the bulk of the president’s agenda.

And when Democrats keep blocking far-right judges, shake their heads wistfully and say, “We’ll continue trying to work with them for the sake of the country; we just wish they would do the same!”

That’s what I would do if I were an evil overlord.

Daniel

3

John: You’re convinced their policies are sound, but they just haven’t been marketed well. Could it perhaps be that Th’Amurkin Pipple see the policies themselves as bullshit?

SS: You say that the Bush proposal, whatever the hell it is (and you claim more certainty than Bush does) should be a winner with the young - but why? Maybe their own experiences with lack of job security make them just as anxious to have a secure future as their parents? Maybe not everyone judges every issue on the dollar value to themselves.

Ethics: “The Congressional Leadership is the face of the Party to much of America.” How about a nice big scoop of “Duh”? Of course they are - and a party which could pick and defend them gets the blame; the leaders aren’t chosen by lottery, ya know.

Filibuster: Maybe, just maybe, the judges they want to ram through really don’t represent mainstream America, which is pro-choice and is opposed to theocracy. Could it simply be that mainstream America agrees that these people don’t belong on the bench and opposes efforts to give them lifetime appointments?

Schiavo: Similar case here - couldn’t it just be that mainstream America doesn’t want the government intruding into such intensely private matters, but that the fundies controlling the GOP do?

It isn’t just marketing, no. They’ve tried to sell chickenshit as chicken salad for long enough. It isn’t working anymore. And, at some point, you have to start giving Harry Reid a little credit for being willing to fight back, while Daschle was too interested in acting in a way that the GOP no longer has interest in.

You ask what the GOP leadership should do? Start by being leaders. By recognizing that their responsibilities are to the entire country. By recognizing that the people they’re accustomed to demonizing as the “opposition” are equally American and just as interested in the future of the nation as they are. By being uniters, not dividers. By recognizing that their employers are We the People, not their corporate donors or the Southern churches. By recognizing that we’re all in this together. By starting to take balancing the budget seriously again. By ending the government’s descent into debt that the young will have to pay off. By recognizing the need for fairness in taxation. By refusing to start wars based on lies and without plans. By restoring their former interest in responsibility.

By reversing the last 10 years, in short. No shuffling of chairs is going to change the GOP’s image or success rate; they have to change themselves.

4

If the American people were good at deciphering what’s bullshit and what’s not, would Bush be in the White House right now? No, the American people believe whoever has the most effective marketing campaign at any given time.

5

Where exactly did I say the policies are sound? If you infered that from my OP, you’re wrong.

6

There is a growing awareness among moderate Republicans that the GOP has swung too far toward the right, specifically the knee jerk reaction to any demands by the fundamentalist Christian wing of the party. Also, now that Bush has been re-elected, Republicans from swing states see the '06 election looming, and they have to put their houses in order to capture enough of the middle to be re-elected. I think history shows this is pretty typical for a second-term president, though the increased polarization between the parties today probably increases the intra-party squabbling that reduces the effectiveness of the President’s message.

7

At least on Social Security, you seem to be arguing that their policy is fundamentally persuasive if only they’d make it well instead of letting Democrats frame it for them; that sounds like an argument on policy. My apologies if I’m misunderstanding you.

That said, I agree that it’s fodder for an interesting debate. As far as I can tell, Democrats are demoralized and floundering right now, without a clear message or message-bearer; Republicans have overshot themselves, chased the roadrunner right off the cliff, and are just now looking down in shock at the canyon beneath them. I’m not sure how either side is going to salvage their situation.

I think that Democrats would do best if they come up with a “Contract with America”-type document that lays out a sexy vision for America’s future in several broad areas, with both specifics and platitudes. I think Republicans would do best if they learn to give off an “I’m listening to you!” vibe: lately they’ve been acting in a fashion that comes across as very unilateral, and I think that it’s skeeving people out.

Daniel

8

Sometimes, it is just the White house shooting themselves in the foot. Like tonight, they are scheduling the President’ press conference to lay out the specifics of his Social Security plan so pre-empts Survivor in the Eastern timezone. People are going to tune in to one of the nation’s top-rated TV shows, only to find a lecture by the President. Think that will garner any support from the sheeple?

9

If I had my way, I’d scrap the whole thing, so neither party really represents my position. :slight_smile: But just because I think a certain policy should resonate with voters, doesn’t mean I personally support it. If we ignore transistion costs (and that’s a big thing to ignore), I would prefer Bush’s plan to the current system, although I’d still see it highly flawed. But I do find the transition costs pretty scary, and it’s unclear to me that the Republicans have exhausted better options for paying for the switch over.

At any rate, if you looked at the polls going into the SS debate, there was some good support among younger workers (30 and under) for partial privatization. Bush’s plan doesn’t affect those over 55, so he should have had some support from a broad demographic. Instead, he hasn’t gotten off first base, and is about to lose the whole ballgame.

Also, there’s a difference between leadership and marketing. The latter is one tactic to be used, among many others, in support of the former. Leadership is about advancing an agenda… getting things done. The Republicans seem to be tripping over themselves in the process.

10

Maybe I’m overconfident, but it seems to me that the drop in numbers has been due to people learning more about what his plan would entail. It WOULD require some pretty hefty transition costs, and though he hardly ever talks about that (we’ll see if that changes tonight), people have started learning about them. What’s the saying about dressing up a pig? elucidator?

That’s true. I think it’s largely due to overconfidence: they’ve been winning all kinds of stuff lately, and I think that they’re starting to feel both invincible and entitled, and it’s leading them to overreach. Their main job now is to take on at least a facade of wisdom and reconciliation. The Democrats’ main job now is to put forth a vision.

Daniel

11

Lipstick on a pig.

Still, the Republicans were elected as the majority party, so saying that the Republican platform isn’t palatable to most Americans doesn’t make sense. Yes, some of the policies being put forth are stupid, and some of the positions taken (eg, Schiavo) are out of the mainstream.

But the Republican Congress (not talking so much about Bush here) has a clear majority. Perhaps more of a majority than they’ll see again in the next decade or so. Stick to the agenda that got you elected, and don’t act like a schoolyard bully.

12

I would consider it a failure of the mentality that “winning elections is all that matters” which the Republicans have adopted of late. Winning an election and governing well are different things.

Enjoy,
Steven

13

I know that you don’t particularly want to discuss the issues themselves, but I speak as a citizen over the age of 55. It’s never been clear to me that the plan won’t actually affect my benefits if I am still living thirty years from now. If my benefits are a sure thing under the new plan, the Republican leadership might want to make that a little clearer.

The Republican leadership in Congress has been playing with fire regarding the Christian Right. Tom Delay’s integrity – or lack of it – continues to speak for itself, as does his lack of a grasp of 9th grade civics class fundamentals. I am bewildered by his religious ties and do not understand that kind of Christianity.

Bill Frist doesn’t strike me as ever having really been interested in the Senate. It is my belief that he has seen it as a stepping stone to the Presidency. He has a good mind and he isn’t nearly as involved in the Christian Right as he would have people think. He is an opportunist who would play one side against the other to benefit himself even though it hurts the country.

Meanwhile, the Christian Right is using the current Republican leadership as long as they are cooperative, but will steamroll them if they appear to back off from the agenda.

14

I think the congressional Repubs bought to much of thier own press after the 2004 election. emboldened by the hype that religious conservatives values had won the day for them, they’ve embraced the social conservative view on the judiciary, Terry Schaivo, etc. I think they failed to realize that while this bloc may be powerful and is certainly vocal, it hardly represents a majority of the US, or even of Republican voters. The Dems have also played into this view, since it’s a lot more comfortable for them to blame thier defeat on a bunch of “gay hating religious rednecks” then it is for them to see it as a reflection of thier own lackluster message. As a result, the repubs are pushing a political agenda that the rest of the country is uncomfortable with when formally they’d play it a little closer to the chest.

Bush, while perhaps not falling for the same mistake, also saw the election as vindication of his outlook on domestic issues, not appriciating how much of his electioral success was based on national securtiy, and forgetting how hard he had to tack to the left to get elected in 2000 (NCLB, medicare, “compassionate conservatism”). As a result he failed to couch his SS plan in the ususal rhetoric and went straight for the “ownership society” and “private accounts” thing.

15

On the SS front, it should be noted that this has been a Bush initiative all along, only receiving tepid support from Congressional Republicans as a whole. The problem, aside from any policy issues, is lack of coordination between the WH agenda and the Congressional agenda. I know it’s hard to differentiate between policy issues and leadership issues on SS, but it still shows a significant problem that Bush made this such a keystone of his adminstration’s policy w/o getting the support needed form his own party.

16

Which really raises the question of why he lactched on to SS in the first place. He pissed off social conservatives by not making his first priority a social issue, congress doesn’t seem to care one way or another, the public doesn’t seem to care, it pissed of fiscal conservatives who were already more or less alienated already by his first term, etc. I think a lot of his problem is not so much that the public doesn’t like his SS plan, it’s that it looks like he’s found the most minor and insignifigant problem facing the republic (if we don’t do something it might cause benefit cuts in…half a century) and latched on to it while a host of larger problems loom in the foreground (medicare spending, falling dollar, outsourcing, trade deficits, culture wars, divided country, terrorism, Iraq, Iran, Korea).

Of course Bush may be doing things about these other problems (or may not be able to do much about them) but by putting SS front and center, in the public eye he looks suprisingly impotent burning his politcal capital on SS. Espcially since it’s not progressing the way he obviously wants it to.

17

There’s something to be said for the Democrats actually behaving as if they have a spine. Harry Reid and Howard Dean have been significant changes, and Nancy Pelosi rounds out a strong group that has helped to change the tenor of the debate. It is nice to see folks who aren’t afraid to actually stand up for what they believe, call people out, and appear like leaders.

I know the popular message among folks on the right here is that if Democrats act forcefully, they’ll just alienate people and continue to lose elections. I have argued that people are draw to strength and want someone to champion their beliefs. I believe in part that the changes that are happening are related to Democrats doing just that.

I mean, could you have imagined anyone calling Greenspan the hack that he is before Harry Reid?

18

I think Bush is an End Times believer. I think he belives the Rapture is coming. Thus, he can make all the long term proposals he wants… we’re not going to be around to pay for it anyhow.

19

The agenda that got them elected can be summarized as “let’s git them fags”.

I thought that was pretty obvious to pretty much everyone.

-Joe

20

I think that’s (almost) exactly it. Throw in a big helping of terrorism and you have an election won.

Separate the other issues from those two, take them on their own merits, and you don’t have much…