So sayeth Dick Armey:
My increasing disaffiliation with the Republican Party has everything to do with the manner in which Republicans have come to be the whimpering servants of the forces of evangelical extremism. Goodness, how things have changed in the 12 years since Republicans swept their way back into power, in large part because of a little document that Armey largely wrote himself.
You might remember it. It was called the Contract with America. It helped to galvanize those Republicans fearful of the big government agenda pushed by the Clintons and the Democratic Congress. It gave the wide swath voters in the middle who vote primarily on pocketbook issues a workable alternative.
The result? A 52-seat pickup in the House. Nine seats in the Senate.
What'd the Contract talk about? A balanced budget amendment. Line-item veto. Welfare reform. Tort reform. Middle class tax cuts. Term limits. Truth-in-sentencing.
What didn't the Contract talk about? School prayer. Gay marriage. Abortion. Pharmacist's conscience clause. Terri Schiavo. Gay adoption. Applying anti-gambling laws to the Internet. You know, all the stuff that guys like James Dobson think Republicans should be shoving down our throats.
The problem with Republican leadership at the national and state level is that they've forgotten Newt Gingrich's 60% rule. It was the 60% rule that guided the development of the Contract. No item was eligible for inclusion in the Contract unless it had the support of more than 60% of the American people.
As a result, Republicans swept into power on a document that appealed to Americans in the broadest possible sense. They had an effective mandate to govern. They helped President Clinton to balance the budget and guide this nation to a surplus for the first time in decades. They kept reasonable limits on government spending. It was only when Republicans pursued non-60% issues, like the impeachment of President Clinton, that they got slapped at the ballot box. Does anyone doubt that the Clinton impeachment made the evangelicals happier than it made the fiscal conservatives?
And so here we are now. Whereas a decade ago, Republicans were serious about fiscal issues and paid lip service to James Dobson's crowd, today the tables are turned. At every corner, Republicans seem to have some new bill that the evangelicals adore. And instead of adhering to fiscal conservatism as a governing belief, they throw out gimmicks like TABOR, hoping the small government crowd doesn't notice the emptiness behind the promise. If Republicans just governed responsibly, TABOR wouldn't be necessary.
Republicans will often suggest that the reason African-Americans don't wield more political clout is that they put all of their eggs in one basket. Because blacks seem unwilling to jump the fence and vote Republican, Democrats have come to take their votes for granted. Democrats don't have to necessarily deliver on their concerns because African-Americans are too afraid to walk out.
The Republicans' problem is that the same situation is brewing within their own party. When they look at exit polls the day after the election, they're going to see a voting population that believes Democrats are better on the economy and as good or better on taxes. They're going to shake their heads and wonder what happened.
Simple. Unlike black voters, we're leaving. We don't buy your demonization of the Democrats. And even if we did, the only way you're ever going to get your act together is if we take a hike for awhile. I'll put up with Speaker Nancy Pelosi for a few years if it's the thing that helps you to get your friggin' act together.
Instead of crafting a message that will capture a 60% majority of a large portion of the electorate, you continue to peddle an agenda that is designed to squeeze every last vote out of a very narrow segment of likely voters, an agenda that simultaneously marginalizes moderates and social libertarians. Unfortunately, your turnip is out of blood.
Wisconsin may not notice this shift as dramatically because Legislative Democrats continue their legendary displays of ineptness on the battlefield. I wasn't shocked to hear that someone had discovered the Senate Democrats' campaign plan so much as I was shocked to hear that they even had one to begin with. Seriously, I think Mark Miller may have had the only copy, and I guess he lost it six months ago.
Legislative Democrats have once again failed to remember that if you want to govern, you actually have to develop an agenda to put in front of the voters, one that consists of more than "Republicans suck." At this point, I'd say they'll be lucky to pick up 1-2 seats in the Senate and 2-3 seats in the Assembly - this in a year when an effective agenda should easily double those numbers. C'mon. If Scott Jensen could pick up six seats in 1992, there's no reason Assembly Democrats shouldn't be picking up at least six seats in a year when virtually EVERY political indicator is pointing in their direction.
Okay, there's one reason. Colossal ineptitude. But I digress.
Republicans nationally are set up to lose the House, something every Republican source seems willing to concede. Their chances of holding the Senate are probably 50-50, and even if they do, they'll have an unworkable majority. And it's all because they've completely forgotten to dance with the girl they brought. We're tired of you constantly going over to the punch bowl to flirt with that Bible-thumper. We're tired of waiting.
Screw you, guys. We're going home.
“The Republicans are talking about things like gay marriage and so forth, and the Democrats are talking about the things people care about, like how do I pay my bills?"
My increasing disaffiliation with the Republican Party has everything to do with the manner in which Republicans have come to be the whimpering servants of the forces of evangelical extremism. Goodness, how things have changed in the 12 years since Republicans swept their way back into power, in large part because of a little document that Armey largely wrote himself.
You might remember it. It was called the Contract with America. It helped to galvanize those Republicans fearful of the big government agenda pushed by the Clintons and the Democratic Congress. It gave the wide swath voters in the middle who vote primarily on pocketbook issues a workable alternative.
The result? A 52-seat pickup in the House. Nine seats in the Senate.
What'd the Contract talk about? A balanced budget amendment. Line-item veto. Welfare reform. Tort reform. Middle class tax cuts. Term limits. Truth-in-sentencing.
What didn't the Contract talk about? School prayer. Gay marriage. Abortion. Pharmacist's conscience clause. Terri Schiavo. Gay adoption. Applying anti-gambling laws to the Internet. You know, all the stuff that guys like James Dobson think Republicans should be shoving down our throats.
The problem with Republican leadership at the national and state level is that they've forgotten Newt Gingrich's 60% rule. It was the 60% rule that guided the development of the Contract. No item was eligible for inclusion in the Contract unless it had the support of more than 60% of the American people.
As a result, Republicans swept into power on a document that appealed to Americans in the broadest possible sense. They had an effective mandate to govern. They helped President Clinton to balance the budget and guide this nation to a surplus for the first time in decades. They kept reasonable limits on government spending. It was only when Republicans pursued non-60% issues, like the impeachment of President Clinton, that they got slapped at the ballot box. Does anyone doubt that the Clinton impeachment made the evangelicals happier than it made the fiscal conservatives?
And so here we are now. Whereas a decade ago, Republicans were serious about fiscal issues and paid lip service to James Dobson's crowd, today the tables are turned. At every corner, Republicans seem to have some new bill that the evangelicals adore. And instead of adhering to fiscal conservatism as a governing belief, they throw out gimmicks like TABOR, hoping the small government crowd doesn't notice the emptiness behind the promise. If Republicans just governed responsibly, TABOR wouldn't be necessary.
Republicans will often suggest that the reason African-Americans don't wield more political clout is that they put all of their eggs in one basket. Because blacks seem unwilling to jump the fence and vote Republican, Democrats have come to take their votes for granted. Democrats don't have to necessarily deliver on their concerns because African-Americans are too afraid to walk out.
The Republicans' problem is that the same situation is brewing within their own party. When they look at exit polls the day after the election, they're going to see a voting population that believes Democrats are better on the economy and as good or better on taxes. They're going to shake their heads and wonder what happened.
Simple. Unlike black voters, we're leaving. We don't buy your demonization of the Democrats. And even if we did, the only way you're ever going to get your act together is if we take a hike for awhile. I'll put up with Speaker Nancy Pelosi for a few years if it's the thing that helps you to get your friggin' act together.
Instead of crafting a message that will capture a 60% majority of a large portion of the electorate, you continue to peddle an agenda that is designed to squeeze every last vote out of a very narrow segment of likely voters, an agenda that simultaneously marginalizes moderates and social libertarians. Unfortunately, your turnip is out of blood.
Wisconsin may not notice this shift as dramatically because Legislative Democrats continue their legendary displays of ineptness on the battlefield. I wasn't shocked to hear that someone had discovered the Senate Democrats' campaign plan so much as I was shocked to hear that they even had one to begin with. Seriously, I think Mark Miller may have had the only copy, and I guess he lost it six months ago.
Legislative Democrats have once again failed to remember that if you want to govern, you actually have to develop an agenda to put in front of the voters, one that consists of more than "Republicans suck." At this point, I'd say they'll be lucky to pick up 1-2 seats in the Senate and 2-3 seats in the Assembly - this in a year when an effective agenda should easily double those numbers. C'mon. If Scott Jensen could pick up six seats in 1992, there's no reason Assembly Democrats shouldn't be picking up at least six seats in a year when virtually EVERY political indicator is pointing in their direction.
Okay, there's one reason. Colossal ineptitude. But I digress.
Republicans nationally are set up to lose the House, something every Republican source seems willing to concede. Their chances of holding the Senate are probably 50-50, and even if they do, they'll have an unworkable majority. And it's all because they've completely forgotten to dance with the girl they brought. We're tired of you constantly going over to the punch bowl to flirt with that Bible-thumper. We're tired of waiting.
Screw you, guys. We're going home.
8 comments:
Thank you.
I've considered voting a straight dem ticket this year, but that would require me to vote for one of the most liberal, anti-everything, congresswomen in Washington, and that I cannot do. But other than that, it's time to blow the house down and start rebuilding in January.
They are dancing with the girl they brought. You fiscal conservatives got left home years ago and it was the bible thumper that has delivered repeatedly, most recently and convincingly two years ago. If it wasn't for the bible thumper Gore would be president and Grover Norquist would be a harmless crank.
About time you guys figured this out.
I swear, it is almost comic listening to people like Hannity try to fire up the troops with horror stories of Nancy Pelosi as speaker when most people don't even know who Nancy Pelosi is.
I agree with you completely about Sean Hannity. He's an idiot.
That said, evangelicals can only look like the heroes when enough of the fiscal conservatives stick around and vote Republican. If the GOP ran on James Dobson's American Values Agenda in 1994, do you really think Republicans would've stormed back into power? That Republicans are going to pick up 50+ seats talking about gay marriage and the Ten Commandments? That's silly.
Those issues that Dobson talks about are issues that a tiny fraction of the American electorate cares about intensely. I'll certainly grant you that evangelicals are passionate about forcing everyone else to live by their interpretation of the Bible. But without the traditional GOP base turning out, evangelicals don't have a lot of stroke.
Simply put, there just aren't enough evangelicals by the numbers. They'll probably turn out this year, just like they always do, and Republicans are probably going to get smoked in a way that they haven't been in decades. Then what position will you take? When the evangelicals turn out and the Republicans get killed, will you lay the blame at their feet as quickly as you want to praise them for a majority they weren't responsible for creating?
Regards,
RS
My impression of 1994 was that Newt had told the bible thumpers to be quiet and vote and they'd get theirs later. I don't think this was hard because the evangelicals were already fired up over gays in the military. Then, as you've noted, Newt limited the campaign debate to issues of broad popularity.
But really, the fiscal conservatives were abandoned shortly thereafter. Dole ran on tax cuts paid for by lord knows what, certainly not economic growth because the economy was already at full throttle. His loss only delayed the policy of smaller government through bankruptcy by four years. In terms of fiscal policy Bush has delivered pretty much exactly what he promised 6 years ago. He talked a lot about tax cuts, he didn't say shit about reduced spending. No one should be surprised by the bloat.
You've seen the piece by Dick Morris in The Hill, right?
http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/DickMorris/101806.html
If he's right it won't be so easy to determine the cause of a catastrophic result because white frequent churchgoers are about evenly split between Republicans and Democrats (as opposed to being heavily Republican). So if the theory is that fiscal conservatives are leaving, analysis is complicated by their having company.
The loss of evangelicals, if true, is very interesting to me. In '04 you would have thought that the choice was so stark as to make being undecided impossible. But if you went out and canvassed you saw the undecided voter. Frequently it was someone that was pro-life and against the war. If you fuck up and do something that leads to a body count that could easily surpass a million before it is done, it is something that most regular churchgoers can only blow off through denial.
I also believe that churchgoers or evangelicals will stick with you only so long- until they look around and realize Mommy has to drive 30 miles to work and gas is 2 whatever a gallon, daddy had a small business that closed and now has to work 2 jobs, including one at Wal-Mart where he makes a minimum wage that Republicans refuse to raise while granting themselves a pay raise, what- 4-5 times since they raised the min wage?, and since they both have to work they can no longer home school their kids and their schools are subpar and the daughter is pregnant.
So in that case, the furthest thing from their mind is dudes kissing and prayer in school.
Those are the voters the Republicans had the last 5 election cycles and the ones that they are probably going to lose in 2.5 weeks
I think our last anonymous commenter has made a good point, one that I think ties in with the Dick Morris column linked to earlier.
When Morris talks about the GOP base as being the "white frequent churchgoers," he's got a lot of people lumped into that group that only respond to the socially conservative agenda on a secondary level - that is, when all of the economic matters are in order. If there's a fundamental undoing of the GOP strategy, it's that they've woefully overestimated the percentage of that base that'll respond solely to those issues. Not all "white frequent churchgoers" are single-issue voters, yet Republicans seem to think that stoking issues like gay marriage and Terri Schiavo will secure all their votes.
Additionally, the GOP's reliance on evangelicals is a terrible medium to long-term strategy. Here's why. I can give you the cross-tabs on the gay marriage referendum already. The referendum will win among older voters (55+), rural voters, voters with a high school education or less, and voters who regularly attend church. The referendum will lose among younger voters (under 30), urban voters, voters with a college education, and voters who attend church occasionally or not at all.
Which subsets are growing? The ones voting no on the amendment. Which subsets are shrinking? The ones on the side voting yes. I am absolutely convinced that the GOP, in its short-term efforts to retain power by pulling the evangelical vote, is killing itself in the longer-term by turning off fiscally conservative young voters with all this social engineering claptrap.
The vast majority of Republicans under 30 that I know are remarkably indifferent to the issue of gay marriage. They could really care less about what other people are doing in bed. And at the rate the national GOP is moving, pretty soon the College Republicans can just hold their meetings during Campus Crusade, because that'll be their only audience.
Do this for another 20 years and Republicans will be the party of die-hard evangelicals while, unless a third party emerges, Democrats will be the party of everyone else.
Even though an evangelical Christian and conservative Republican, I find little to disagree with in your analysis.
I credit the balanced budget more to the boom of the 90's than any specific legislative initiative on either side. But you may be right; I wasn't as politically aware in the 90's.
I would place the blame of Republicans losing power more on an unpopular war, scandals among Republicans in Congress and a perception of corruption party-wide and a perception of a stubborn president out of touch with reality.
After all, little of the vangelical program has been enacted, just as little of the Contract with America was enacted.
Nevertheless I would urge (if they would listen to me) my conservative Christian brethren to be more concerned about "bread and butter" issues than they have been.
I grew up in a denomination that used to encourage boycotts of the Disney theme parks because Disney gave heath insurance to domestic partners. So it's not that I'm unfamiliar with the politics of the evangelical movement. It's not even that I don't share some of the beliefs. I just think that if you have a case to make that is based entirely on religious morality, you should make that case on a personal level. On moral issues, the coercive power of government is nothing but a shortcut to get people to do what they've otherwise decided they don't want to do.
Besides, most families in my church didn't have more than one or two kids. I'm guessing they engineered that somehow and it wasn't just through NFP.
Politically-active evangelicals certainly lend to the diversity of viewpoints in the political arena. I only ask the GOP to remember that white born-again Christians only make up a quarter of the electorate. And if three-fourths of them vote GOP, that gets you about 19%. You've got to find the other 31% somewhere else.
Finally, I think that as evangelical involvement in politics grows, the movement itself may be maturing and diversifying. God commands us to do lots of things. So why do so many in the evangelical community want to pick and choose what things government does on their behalf? If you're going to harness the resources of government to stop abortion and gay marriage, why not harness those same resources to eliminate poverty? God commands us to show benevolence to those who have not shared in our good fortune. Why not use the full power of government to steward and protect our land? God commands us to be good stewards of our resources as well.
Food for thought. Thanks, as always, for your thoughtful comments.
Post a Comment