Finding the Safe Ground Between Squander and Exploitation
The other day we looked at a Salon column arguing that Democrats need to primary President Obama. Freesmith said it wasn't enough to just watch the Democrats implode but that would be emphasizing:
... facilitating and exploiting that collapse, not watching it like some sick spectator sport in which we have no interest.
I thought of that when I read Ramesh Ponnuru's very interesting Bloomberg column about how Obama's weakness could lead to Republican overreach:
In any presidential primary there’s a tension between the voters’ desire for a candidate who can win the general election and their desire for a candidate who shares their views -- between, in other words, ideology and electability. The more beatable Obama looks, the more the balance for Republican voters will tilt toward ideology and away from electability.
That doesn’t just mean they will be more likely to support candidates such as Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain, who will have trouble winning votes from independents and Democrats. It also means the terrain of the primaries will shift: The candidates will place more emphasis on outflanking one another on the right and less on showing they can win in November 2012.
Even if Obama were doing better, the Republican primary would put a heavy weight on ideology. Whenever someone suggests that a candidate can’t win, many conservatives retort that people said that about Reagan, too. (What they forget is that people also said it about Barry Goldwater, and they were right.) And much of the Republican Party has convinced itself that Bush- era compromises bred political failure, a line of thought that makes concerns about electability seem beside the point. Combine these views with the natural inclination of people to think that their ideas are more widely shared than they are, and the result is a process where electability gets short shrift. Obama’s weakness only reinforces this tendency.
I tend to think people overstate the conflict between electability and ideology. I mean, for some political adherents there might be a conflict but obviously whichever candidate wins had a base with no conflict. But more than that, I think we forget that so-called moderate candidates have a huge demotivating factor. They depress turnout. Sure, not everyone is going to vote for someone more ideologically rigorous than John McCain, but that candidate probably has a good chance of energizing the base and creating an actual movement that can, you know, win an election.
Having said all that, I think Ramesh gives solid advice. One of the things I rather enjoy about the Ricochet community is how we're all aware that our personal political views aren't shared universally.
So how best to approach this? President Obama's implosion gives right-of-center folks a huge opportunity? How to avoid squandering that without overreaching?
- Comment (21)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Jun '10
Re: Finding the Safe Ground Between Squander and Exploitation
Democrats don't know much, but they know how to win elections. They know how to frame issues to scare people. If the Republican candidate doesn't run like they're always a thousand votes behind, they are going to lose.
Apr '11
Re: Finding the Safe Ground Between Squander and Exploitation
The problem Obama's implosion really causes is this: conservatives feel like their case is being made for them, and then fail to articulate what we believe. We've done this each time the left has a spectacular failure with the exception of Reagan after Carter. Most people in America agree with the basic conservative beliefs, but are convinced that what we stand for is different because the left never stops beating the drum of propaganda even in their best of times. On the right, because we have things in life more important to us than politics, we never get the message out that well. Failing to convince people of policy failure is why after years of the left working the same angles, and all the evidence piled up against them, it is still not a given that they are wrong. And we have the same arguements over and over and over...
Dec '10
Re: Finding the Safe Ground Between Squander and Exploitation
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
I have a problem with this statement. Underlying it is an assumption that rightward views are inherently problematic in a general election. Polling from Gallup and Rasmussen both show this to be a center-right country. Democrats don't get elected by tacking left; rather, they get elected (outside of San Francisco, Seattle, and NY) by portraying themselves as much more conservative than they really are. Republicans who move away from the base fail while those who unapologetically espouse conservative principles win. I hate to use a pop culture colloquialism, but authenticity matters to the squishy middle probably more than ideology.
Aug '10
Re: Finding the Safe Ground Between Squander and Exploitation
The King Prawn
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
I have a problem with this statement. Underlying it is an assumption that rightward views are inherently problematic in a general election. Polling from Gallup and Rasmussen both show this to be a center-right country. Democrats don't get elected by tacking left; rather, they get elected (outside of San Francisco, Seattle, and NY) by portraying themselves as much more conservative than they really are. Republicans who move away from the base fail while those who unapologetically espouse conservative principles win. I hate to use a pop culture colloquialism, but authenticity matters to the squishy middle probably more than ideology. · Sep 6 at 9:28am
"...those who unapologetically espouse conservative principles win."
I have a problem with that statement. What about Goldwater, Angle, and O'Donnell? It is not a foregone conclusion.
Oct '10
Re: Finding the Safe Ground Between Squander and Exploitation
Totally agree with Sam above. The Republicans, no matter how bad Obama looks right now, can't get complacent. They need to hammer home their message. Not just what Obama has done wrong and screwed up, but how they're going to fix it.
That will resonate with the voters a lot more than just piling on the leaking Obama ship (to mix a couple of metaphors).
Nov '10
Re: Finding the Safe Ground Between Squander and Exploitation
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
So how best to approach this? President Obama's implosion gives right-of-center folks a huge opportunity? How to avoid squandering that without overreaching? ·
Elect someone as articulate and principled as Paul Ryan. I know, get over it, but I just can't shake that empty feeling that without someone who can make the arguments for what and WHY we should limit government, we are missing an enormous opportunity. Who can do it? Governor Perry? Maybe, but that remains to be seen and early indications are he may not be the most articulate voice of what may be, on his part, an incomplete ideology. No one else in the field has the voice and appeal someone like Ryan would. Perry - too "Texas"... Romney - too "managerially progressive (h/t Dr. Rahe)"... Bachmann - too inarticulate, shrill, and perhaps ignorant (she doesn't know what she doesn't know)... Ron Paul - too curmudgeonly & imprudent... Huntsman - too self-absorbed and centrist for centrist sake (e.g. global warming "science"... Prat!)... and so on.
Is it too much to hope Governor Perry finds his inner Paul Ryan Wednesday night?
We're missing an enormous opportunity... and I continue to lament.
Dec '10
Re: Finding the Safe Ground Between Squander and Exploitation
Squishy Blue RINO
"...those who unapologetically espouse conservative principles win."
I have a problem with that statement. What about Goldwater, Angle, and O'Donnell? It is not a foregone conclusion. · Sep 6 at 10:46am
I don't know enough about Goldwater and that time to make an intelligent argument. Angle and O'Donnell, however, had issues that had nothing to do with the message or principles. Both were portrayed as kooks, and both cooperated with the left's work to label them as such. I think the point stands that running to the left for the general election is not necessarily a winning strategy for Republicans.
Apr '11
Re: Finding the Safe Ground Between Squander and Exploitation
Squishy Blue RINO
The King Prawn
Republicans who move away from the base fail while those who unapologetically espouse conservative principles win. I hate to use a pop culture colloquialism, but authenticity matters to the squishy middle probably more than ideology. · Sep 6 at 9:28am
"...those who unapologetically espouse conservative principles win."
I have a problem with that statement. What about Goldwater, Angle, and O'Donnell? It is not a foregone conclusion. · Sep 6 at 10:46am
I can't speak on Goldwater as I was 3 at the time but a big weakness for Angle and O'Donnell was that people in their own party were refusing to support them. At times comments coming from the "center" were as damning as anything the left was saying. If we don't completely support the winners of our primaries, and stop flanking them for our opponents, then we will continue this meandering path to statism. This is a majority conservative nation and if we don't support conservative principles we will not have a political majority to undue the wreckage of overbearing government.
Oct '10
Re: Finding the Safe Ground Between Squander and Exploitation
Mollie Hemingway, Ed
(What they forget is that people also said it about Barry Goldwater, and they were right.)
It is far from clear that any of the Republican candidates in 1964 could have defeated Johnson, who was running as the successor to the martyred Kennedy at a time when the economy was booming and Vietnam was one of those foreign irritations Americans paid little attention to. It's almost certainly the case that Rockefeller, Lodge, or Scranton might have done better, given their greater appeal to the ruling class and media, but I think it's likely any of them would have lost to Johnson.
Dec '10
Re: Finding the Safe Ground Between Squander and Exploitation
I think what's missed about the last decade of power switching at the national level, is that it has been more one sided than the election results would admit. The Democratic congress take-over in 2006 and even the coming of "The One" were in large part, responses to fiscal mismanagement, runaway debt, and charges of crony capitalism at work at the highest levels. The same will likely be true in 2012.
In many ways Republicans were thrown out in 2006 because they were acting a lot like spend-thrift, unprincipled, scandal plagued Democrats. Up to that point, I believe they stayed in power merely by providing voters with a contrasted choice on issue of national security. That kept them in charge of congress for 12 years, and got them back the house in 2010, because the financial crisis has now become the largest threat to national security.
I think Obama was correct, when he stated the the majority of voters are not concerned about the size of government as much as it's effectiveness. If Republicans get back into power, they need to give a demonstration that small government is good because it works.
Edited on September 6, 2011 at 9:05pmApr '11
Re: Finding the Safe Ground Between Squander and Exploitation
One other aspect of this: there should be a distinction between personal failure and policy failure. While Jimmy Carter may have been poorly equipped for the job of president, the real failure of his term was the standard playbook liberal economic and foreign policies. Yet somehow after such a clear example, we find ourselves today having to make the same case again. Because while most would agree the JC presidency was a failure, it is more attributed to the man than the policy. Somehow the left is able to work the same playbook year after year, impervious to facts. But the right has to ponder if our crop of politicians should make themselves more "electable" by trying to strike a middle ground. How does one find the middle between failure and success? Even if Obama loses, if the left is able to make it seem to be a personal failure, rather than policy, we'll have the same situation again. And every time after unless the lesson is taught consistently.
Aug '10
Re: Finding the Safe Ground Between Squander and Exploitation
"Both were portrayed as kooks, and both cooperated with the left's work to label them as such".
Let's not mince words and blame the media here. They were and are kooks. Palin made darn sure O'Donnell was nowhere near her latest pep rally.
Losing the majority in the Senate and handing Harry Reid another term are a high price to pay to learn not to run kooks. But at least we have learned that much.
My idea of running to the left for the general election is to hammer the economy and jobs as opposed to feeding the media sound bites about God and hurricanes.
Since when did saying stupid stuff, or even smart stuff stupidly (treason, Ponzi schemes), become a conservative virtue and the way to tell the righteous from the RINOs?
Edited on September 7, 2011 at 3:25amAug '10
Re: Finding the Safe Ground Between Squander and Exploitation
Give Me Liberty
I can't speak on Goldwater as I was 3 at the time but a big weakness for Angle and O'Donnell was that people in their own party were refusing to support them. At times comments coming from the "center" were as damning as anything the left was saying. If we don't completely support the winners of our primaries, and stop flanking them for our opponents, then we will continue this meandering path to statism. This is a majority conservative nation and if we don't support conservative principles we will not have a political majority to undue the wreckage of overbearing government. · Sep 6 at 11:07am
"If we don't completely support the winners of our primaries...then we will continue this meandering path to statism".
Palin and DeMint abandoned O'Donnell in Delaware. They are as much to blame as those who withheld complete support for a deeply flawed candidate.
Overreaching is not only possible but likely.
Dec '10
Re: Finding the Safe Ground Between Squander and Exploitation
Squishy Blue RINO
Losing the majority in the Senate and handing Harry Reid another term are a high price to pay to learn not to run kooks. But at least we have learned that much.
My idea of running to the left for the general election is to hammer the economy and jobs as opposed to feeding the media sound bites about God and hurricanes.
Since when did saying stupid stuff, or even smart stuff stupidly (treason, Ponzi schemes), become a conservative virtue and the way to tell the righteous from the RINOs? · Sep 6 at 1:44pm
Edited on Sep 06 at 01:55 pm
Indeed. I'm still not sold on Perry's comments being too far off the reservation. They don't seem to have negatively affected him much.
Aug '10
Re: Finding the Safe Ground Between Squander and Exploitation
Mollie, here is my suggestion.
Let's get past this ridiculous expectation that every primary event has to be some kind of religiopolitical, Tea Party approved Maori Haka and let these people run smart campaigns without being punished for not out crazying each other to win the base.
The game is won on the field. Play hard and well with a smart game plan.
The pregame geek-up puts no points on the board and makes you look silly to boot. The ball is in play and we are still shouting and sticking our tongues out.
Edited on September 7, 2011 at 3:34amAug '10
Re: Finding the Safe Ground Between Squander and Exploitation
The King Prawn
My idea of running to the left for the general election is to hammer the economy and jobs as opposed to feeding the media sound bites about God and hurricanes.
Since when did saying stupid stuff, or even smart stuff stupidly (treason, Ponzi schemes), become a conservative virtue and the way to tell the righteous from the RINOs? · Sep 6 at 1:44pm
Edited on Sep 06 at 01:55 pm
Indeed. I'm still not sold on Perry's comments being too far off the reservation. They don't seem to have negatively affected him much. · Sep 6 at 1:59pm
I agree wholeheartedly with Perry that Social Security is Ponzi scheme.
I'm almost 50 so it is crunch time for me to save in a down economy. My parents are relying on their small monthly checks and their grown kids.
They don't live and breathe and politics. the debt limit brinksmanship and the treason comment both have them off voting Republican, even after I tried to reason with them.
It has not hurt him yet, but he had better tone it down if he wants to win Florida.
Feb '11
Re: Finding the Safe Ground Between Squander and Exploitation
Squishy Blue RINO: Mollie, here is my suggestion.
Let's get past this ridiculous expectation that every primary event has to be some kind of religiopolitical, Tea Party approved version of a Maori Haka and let these guys run smart campaigns without being punished for not out crazying each other to win the base.
So the base is crazy? Are we racist too?
This is the point that King Prawn and Give Me Liberty were trying to make: there is withholding support from those with whom we're not thrilled and then there is actively criticizing the candidates once they have the nomination. The first is bad enough, the second is inexcusable if we want to win with principle.
Re: Finding the Safe Ground Between Squander and Exploitation
Squishy Blue RINO: Mollie, here is my suggestion.
Let's get past this ridiculous expectation that every primary event has to be some kind of religiopolitical, Tea Party approved version of a Maori Haka and let these guys run smart campaigns without being punished for not out crazying each other to win the base.
The game is won on the field. Play hard and well with a smart game plan.
The pregame geek-up puts no points on the board and makes you look silly to boot. The ball is in play and we are still shouting and sticking our tongues out. · Sep 6 at 2:12pm
Sure. But the problem is so much less with people testing politicians than the politicians using ideology in bad faith to win people over. If politicians didn't claim to be for small government -- and then vote for all these horrible programs -- people wouldn't feel the need to put them through the ringer.
What do conservatives gain by backing off even further from determining whether these guys are halfway decent?
Aug '10
Re: Finding the Safe Ground Between Squander and Exploitation
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
If politicians didn't claim to be for small government -- and then vote for all these horrible programs -- people wouldn't feel the need to put them through the ringer.
What do conservatives gain by backing off even further from determining whether these guys are halfway decent? · Sep 6 at 5:38pm
There must be a better way for conservatives to properly vet these candidates than by expecting and defending more of same from Perry, Bachmann, Cain, Palin, and Paul. The thing conservatives gain by finding a better way is winning the White House and not just the primary.
There must be another choice. If the only choice is between going easy on politicians or alienating everyone but politicized Evangelicals and the Tea Party then we are really out in the weeds.
Maybe I am alone in growing weary of being lumped in with Olbermann, Maddow,and Mahr for not excusing and defending these Tea Party rock stars their every gaffe and shock quote. It is getting real old real fast.
If we don't vet smarter soon we could very well lose in 2012.
$1/2 B dollars shuts the memory hole.
Edited on September 7, 2011 at 9:16amFeb '11
Re: Finding the Safe Ground Between Squander and Exploitation
Squishy Blue RINO
There must be a better way for conservatives to properly vet these candidates than by expecting and defending more of same from Perry, Bachmann, Cain, Palin, and Paul. The thing conservatives gain by finding a better way is winning the White House and not just the primary.
What is it that you think that conservatives are "expecting and defending"? Are you saying something about their policy positions? Their personalities? Their inexcusable lapses in perfection when in front of cameras? What are you referring to?