Conservative voters largely remained loyal to the party: self-identified Republicans shifted only 1 point toward the Democrats, and declined as a percentage of the electorate by only 2 points. What doomed the GOP was that it lost independent voters by 18 points—a 15-point swing from 2004. In other words, the GOP lost because it alienated moderates. Pushing more cuts to Medicaid or farm subsidies would hardly have helped.
He continues:
On the two issues that voters most cared about, according to exit polls—Iraq and corruption—Republicans have made few concessions to the country’s desire for change. Even more remarkably, on the underlying issue of the proper size and role of the federal government, they’ve reacted by choosing, consciously and deliberately, to double-down on the brand of small-government ideological purity that once energized their movement but has lately led to its decline.
In a mind-blowing interpretation of history, Ross believes that the Democrats have changed their positions since the 1930's and have done amazing things!
During the 1980s and ’90s, prompted by a series of electoral defeats, Democrats eventually came to acknowledge that the era of their supremacy, which had begun in the 1930s with FDR’s New Deal, was over. Gradually, an increasing number of voices in the party began to challenge some of the basic precepts that Democrats had long held as close to sacrosanct but whose value for addressing the major political and policy questions of the day had declined: that government programs by definition help the poor; that crime can’t be brought under control without first addressing its root causes; and that overseas military interventions are bound to end, like Vietnam, in a bloody quagmire. This journey was long and often painful, but it turned out to be crucial to Democrats’ ability to win back the trust of voters and govern effectively. Without it, the party probably couldn’t have balanced the budget, reformed welfare, or liberated Kosovo.
Now, to understand this we have to believe that Democrats now believe that fewer programs are good, that they once believed in crime prevention by stronger enforcement, and that they are for extending our military power overseas. THEN we have to believe that the Democrats balanced the budget, reformed welfare and liberated Kosovo in a clear and easy method. Wow, talk about revisionist history and clouded judgment.
He then spills a lot of ink over the idea that the Iraq War being the primary problem in the 2006 election. I think he is way off base here, and will show that shortly. He then turns to corruption and arguing that the conservatives believe that the cause of the corruption was tied to losing the small government message. I haven't heard anyone make that connection. They treat them as two different messages, both of which are important.
Here is a link to a study done just prior to the 2006 election in many of the highly contentious races including several here in Indiana. Here are a couple of the results:
Which pary is doing a better job at reducing wasteful spending in Washington?
24.6% Republicans
39.1% Democrats
30.3% No Difference
6.00% Don't Know/Refused
Which party is the party of Big Government?
39.3% Republicans
27.9% Democrats
16.3% Both
9.3% Neither (?)
7.4% Don't Know/Refused
But later in the survey, the questions were asked what the subject's opinions were on tax policy and the results were overwealmingly (about 60% to 24%) in favor of extending all of the Republican passed tax cuts.
The races involved included 9 seats that were lost to Democrats and 6 seats that were held by the Republicans.
In short, the survey shows that: First, the population, at least in these districts, is largely conservative in economic philosophy. Second, the Republicans were perceived in these districts as being for large government and less effective at dealing with reducing wasteful spending. In other words, they are less fiscally conservative than their Democratic opponents.
The conclusion of the Washington Monthly article includes the following gem:
But the GOP’s renewed zeal for cutting government won’t help the country either. A philosophy that believes only in the power of the private sector simply can’t offer serious solutions to the major domestic problems—health care costs, growing inequality, economic insecurity caused by global trade, even the coarsening of the culture—that Americans will look to Washington to address over the next few years, and that will all require a strong role for the federal government.
This is why we need Fred. We need someone who will be able to communicate the idea that Conservatism (Federalism, in particular) WILL solve these problems! The market actually works! The government is usually inept, not because the Republicans are running it, but because that is its nature!
No comments:
Post a Comment