Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
At the behest of the Blue Yeti -- who'd like you to know that Mike Murphy will be guesting on an upcoming episode of the Ricochet Podcast -- I offer for your consideration Mr. Murphy's diagnosis of what ails the GOP, courtesy of his latest entry at Time's Swampland blog:
The Republican challenge is not about better voter-turnout software; it is about policy. We repel Latinos, the fastest-growing voter group in the country, with our nativist opposition to immigration reform that offers a path to citizenship. We repel younger voters, who are much more secular than their parents, with our opposition to same-sex marriage and our scolding tone on social issues. And we have lost much of our once solid connection to the middle class on kitchen-table economic issues.
A debate will now rage inside the GOP between the purists, who will as always call for more purity, and the pragmatists, who will demand modernization. The media, always culturally alien to intra-Republican struggles, will badly mislabel this contest as one between “moderate” and “right-wing” Republicans. In fact, the epic battle we Republicans face now is a choice between two definitions of conservatism.
One offers steadfast opposition to emerging social trends like multiculturalism and secularization. The alternative is a more secular and modernizing conservatism that eschews most social issues to focus on creating a wide-open opportunity society that promises greater economic freedom and the reform of government institutions like schools that are vital to upward social mobility.
Over at Bloomberg, Josh Barro dissents:
The Republican Party's key electoral problem doesn't come from social conservatives or nativists. It comes from the economic policy demands of the party's wealthy donors. Murphy allows that Republicans "have lost much of our once solid connection to the middle class on kitchen-table economic issues." But his prescription won't do anything to fix that problem.
What are the "kitchen-table" economic concerns of the middle class? They're high unemployment, slow income growth, underwater mortgages, and the rising cost of health care and higher education. Democrats have an agenda that is responsive to these concerns. Republicans don't -- and they don't because the party's donor class specifically doesn't want one.
Have you spoken with a wealthy Republican donor in the last few years? By and large, they are outraged about Obamacare, easy money and stimulus spending -- that is, at policies aimed at easing middle class families' economic situations. They are often delusionally convinced that the country faces imminent economic collapse. What they believe will prevent that collapse is tight money, spending cuts and continued tax cuts for the rich. And so long as Republicans pursue those goals, they will be the party of anti-middle class economic policy.
Now, both Murphy and Barro are not exactly known for towing the standard conservative line. But everyone seems to agree that something needs to be done. How perceptive do you find the analysis here? What are they getting wrong? And what alternative strategies might you propose?
- Comment (132)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (13)
Comments:
Jul '12
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
I think it's time we elect a new people.
Aug '10
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
@whikey sam,
I am not pro illegal immigration.
My ancestors here in Los Angeles lost a war to white illegal immigrants six generations ago, so I don't think it is a good thing.
I don't look at illegal immigrants as simply invaders. I see them as people like my grandfather. My grandfather caught a break, first with the Bracero Program and then with service in Navy during the war. These folks aren't catching those breaks.
Describing them as merely illegal dehumanizes them. There is a lot more to these people than their legal status.
Recognizing their humanity, and recognizing echoes of my own heritage in their situation, is not tantamount to advocating for illegal immigration.
In fact it is a good first step toward finding a solution to this problem.
Edited on November 30, 2012 at 4:08amMay '12
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
Well, I am. Mainly because I saw how similar dynamics played out in the UK by the refusal of all the major parties(Lab-Lib-Con) to deal with unchecked illegal immigration. In 2001 47,000 people voted for the BNP. In 2005, 192,000. In 2010, 564,000+. That's the result of the major parties ignoring the issue. And yes, I get that Red States aren't pure as undriven snow on this issue.
I don't want anything remotely similar to happen here even though I suspect it is.
And I don't think breaking up some of the 'Identity' politics and group-think among Latino's will be that hard. Start by asking them the following question every time:
"Do you want to recreate the same dreadful economic conditions in the US that forced you and your families to flee Mexico?"
If the answer is "Yes" or "Si", then you can say 'Ok, then vote Democrat" and explain why. It's not that hard.
If the answer is "No", then that's where the real conversation begins.
Edited on November 30, 2012 at 9:20amJul '10
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
Louie Mungaray (Squishy)
@whikey sam,
I am not pro illegal immigration.
My ancestors here in Los Angeles lost a war to white illegal immigrants six generations ago, so I don't think it is a good thing.
I don't look at illegal immigrants as simply invaders. I see them as people like my grandfather. My grandfather caught a break, first with the Bracero Program and then with the war. Describing them as merely illegal dehumanizes them. There is a lot more to these people than their legal status.
Recognizing their humanity, and recognizing echoes of my own heritage in their situation, is not tantamount to advocating for illegal immigration.
In fact it is a good first step toward finding a solution to this problem. · 0 minutes ago
If they are here in violation of the law, they are here illegally. That's what the word means. That is not dehumanizing. It is a literal description of the circumstances. What term are we supposed to use to indicate that they are here in violation of the law that is not dehumanizing?
Jun '10
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
Whiskey Sam
When has anyone advocated mass illegal immigration in the GOP? Advocating more open borders, easier access to work visas, new classes of work visas for Mexicans, and amnesties for illegals already here, do not count. · 1 minute ago
Every agricultural state in the country has been doing it for years, usually led by lobbying from their respective Ag. Depts. and CoCs. Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, Alabama... they've all advertised in Mexico for a lot of years, either openly or by paying industries to do so, in order to recruit workers. Pilgrim's Pride, Tyson Chicken, Dalton Carpets, Domino Sugar, the Florida Orange Growers' Cooperative, et al.
Do some search engine queries for last year's spate of immigration law proposals in the Southern states. It's eye-opening. You'll see that, as more states have adopted "Arizona-style" immigration laws -- GA, SC, FL, AL, OK, in particular -- the loudest objections to the laws have come from traditional Republicans in the agriculture and construction industries. I know firsthand that was the case here in Georgia, and I know anecdotally from family and friends that is was so in the other states. Lexis-Nexis helps, too.
Aug '10
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
Whiskey Sam
Louie Mungaray (Squishy)
@whikey sam,
If they are here in violation of the law, they are here illegally. That's what the word means. That is not dehumanizing. It is a literal description of the circumstances. What term are we supposed to use to indicate that they are here in violation of the law that is not dehumanizing? · 1 minute ago
Refusing to consider anything about them other than their legal status is dehumanizing.
I don't care what you call them.
I am saying that if the only thing they are or can ever be to you is criminals, then you should not expect their children, grandchildren or people of their same ethnicity, or of similar ethnic heritage to ever join you in a political coalition.
I am not asking you to relinquish your convictions, I am telling you that refusing to see these people as anything more than criminals has consequences on election day.
Edited on November 30, 2012 at 4:25amJul '10
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
Louie Mungaray (Squishy)
Refusing to consider anything about them other than their legal status is dehumanizing.
I am not asking you to relinquish your convictions, I am telling you that refusing to see these people as anything more than criminals has consequences on election day. · 2 minutes ago
Edited 0 minutes ago
I'm sorry, but this makes no sense to me. Maybe we're talking past each other. The entire debate on immigration centers around people who have come here in violation of the law. If they were here legally, there would be almost no discussion of immigration at all. Except for people on the extremes, no one is saying to end immigration. If wanting the law enforced is going to cost us votes, then this is an irreconcilable topic. I don't understand how stating the rule of law should be respected is dehumanizing. Saying that we can't refer to someone who is here in violation of the law and is breaking the law as illegal or criminal strikes me as Orwellian and dishonest.
Jul '12
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
Troy,
You have a broken link in your article for the text "his latest entry at Time's Swampland blog"
It links to
http://ricochet.com/%20http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/28/can-this-party-be-saved/#ixzz2DeT5X6Cf
The %20 symbol in a URL represents a space, so I'm guessing you hit space somewhere along the line when putting the link in.
correct link is
http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/28/can-this-party-be-saved/
Sep '12
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
The fact remains that if Romney had received in 2012 the same number of votes that McCain received in 2008, Romney would have won. Personally, I held my nose and voted for the big-government-establishment-Republican candidate because I believed that re-electing Obama would be even worse.
A lot of other voters chose not to make that compromise. If the Republican Party follows Mike Murphy's advice, I will go the same way.
Aug '10
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
Whiskey Sam
I'm sorry, but this makes no sense to me. Maybe we're talking past each other. The entire debate on immigration centers around people who have come here in violation of the law. If they were here legally, there would be almost no discussion of immigration at all. Except for people on the extremes, no one is saying to end immigration. If wanting the law enforced is going to cost us votes, then this is an irreconcilable topic. I don't understand how stating the rule of law should be respected is dehumanizing. Saying that we can't refer to someone who is here in violation of the law and is breaking the law as illegal or criminal strikes me as Orwellian and dishonest. · 8 minutes ago
I am not advocating against calling them illegal. I never said you cannot or should not call them illegal.
Call them what you please.
I am advocating against reducing their entire existence to that word.
You are free to think of them what you will.
And I am free to my opinion of those who will not acknowledge that they can be any more human than the word illegal implies.
Edited on November 30, 2012 at 8:13amJul '10
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
Louie Mungaray (Squishy)
I am not advocating against calling them illegal. I never said you cannot or should not call them illegal.
Call them what you please.
I am advocating against reducing their entire existence to that word.
You are free to think of them what you will.
And I am free to my opinions of those who will not acknowledge that they can be any more human than the word illegal implies. · 1 minute ago
But that's just it, nothing I have said in any way says they are less human than anyone else. There is no implied meaning in the word illegal. It means "in violation of the law", and it is a factually, accurate term to describe people who have not come here through established, legal means. If stating a fact elicits such a strong negative response, how can we discuss this in a way that does not? It seems apparent from our conversation that the language used itself is part of the problem. What is your preferred response from a GOP candidate in how to address the influx of people who are bypassing normal immigration procedures? I am sincere and not being snarky.
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
captainpower: Troy,
You have a broken link in your article for the text "his latest entry at Time's Swampland blog"
57 minutes ago
Fixed. Thanks for the heads up.
Jan '12
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
I am still trying to figure out which policies Mr. Barro is referring to when he says that the Democratic party has plans to address the rising cost of education. Democratic party policies most assuredly exacerbate the problem (student loan forgiveness, reducing the cost and increasing the amount of student loans, etc.). It is an absurd thing to say. He may have a point if he said that they have plans that "appear" to address the issue but, since he did not, the statement is bunk.
Jan '11
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
The US currently accepts 16,000 legal new residents per week. Per week. This during a period when we have 8.1% unemployment. How does this insane policy address the kitchen-table economic issues of the American middle class that Mike Murphy and Josh Barro referred to?
Jan '11
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
As of today the United States has approximately 30,000 illegal immigrants serving in our armed forces. Thirty thousand. Why do we have one non-citizen serving in our military?
Feb '11
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
Louie Mungaray (Squishy):
Two-Fence Giant Mexican Bug-Zapper Cain was a non-starter. Both were shameless panderers on this issue, but Romney was merely off-putting whereas Cain was seriously off-pissing. ·
I'd like to know- is there any measure of border security you'd accept?
Because I think the GOP would have been able to accept amnesty for illegals already here as long as the border was secured.
I found it interesting that you took time to condemn to condemn Joe Arpeio. This seems typical in this sort of discussion in that the wrongs only go one way.
That is, Americans are always in the wrong for objecting to illegal immigration or favoring border security, Mexicans never in the wrong for belonging to racist organizations such as "The Race" or wishing for the partition of the United States in a Mexican version of the reconquista.
I'd venture a guess that the would be a lot less hostility towards illegal immigrants if this wasn't the case.
Aug '10
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
@whiskey sam,
Now we are getting somewhere. I know you sincerely believe that nothing you have said in any way says they are less human than any one else and that there is no implied mean meaning in the word illegal. I do not doubt your sincerity at all.
But I hear something very different.
The word illegal is not confined to your definition. It is also a root for the word illegitimate, a synonym for bastard, and I mean the true sense of the word.
The problem we have on our hands now, as a nation, is that our policies, our enforcement failures, and our thirst for cheap labor have left us with a bastard population of immigrants.
Everything was cool when we were booming, Bush or Clinton, they built our exurbs, served our burritos and mowed our lawns. Come the bust things got dicey.
We, as a nation, are like randy NBA stars, beleaguered baby daddies beset with multitudes of costly bastards.
I realize many want out of this analogy, claim innocence and believe it is true. I only ask that you consider, answer honestly, have you ever benefited from the discounted cost of illegal labor?
I have.
Edited on November 30, 2012 at 8:14amJan '11
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
Many conservatives support giving automatic green cards and easy routes to citizenship to foreigners studying engineering, technology and the sciences in our institutions of higher learning. Business interests favor that policy, but won't it depress the numbers of Americans could otherwise take those same classes? And how does a legislative policy that aids foreign students appeal to middle class American students and to their families?
Jul '10
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
Louie Mungaray (Squishy): @whiskey sam,
Now we are getting somewhere. I know you sincerely believe that nothing you have said in any way says they are less human than any one else and that there is no implied mean meaning in the word illegal. I do not doubt your sincerity at all.
But I hear something very different.
The word illegal is not confined to your definition. It is also a root for the word illegitimate, a synonym bastard, and I mean the true sense of the word bastard.
The problem we have on our hands now, as a nation, is that our policies, our enforcement failures, and our thirst for cheap labor have left us with a bastard population of immigrants.
I only ask that you consider, answer honestly, have I ever benefited from the discounted cost of illegal labor?
I have. · 0 minutes ago
This may be a regional difference then. I haven't knowingly benefited from discounted labor. People around here mow their own lawns or pay a neighbor's kid to do it. Wait staff at restaurants are usually high school or college kids. And I wanted the border addressed under Clinton and Bush, too.
Jan '11
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
If you believe that we need to import more science and technology grads from other countries to keep America competitive, tell me why you prefer that approach to encouraging and rewarding young Americans who are already here, your fellow citizens, to go into the fields of science and technology. Is it because one way is easy and the other way is hard?