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 '10
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
Casey Taylor
And in time of war when everyone and their mothers knew Hizbullah walked people into the country through Mexico? Cheap labor and goods trump security, though, so now we're stuck. · 3 minutes ago
This is something that always surprises me: why is the security aspect of border security almost never discussed? That's a major problem that needs to be fixed.
Mar '11
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
The realpolitik answer is "The Army wants the bodies". But the military has never required enlistees to be citizens in the modern era. They allow foreign enlistees (way back in the 80's when I was in Navy boot camp, we had a guy from Ghana that enlisted, and halfway through decided that he had enough, and asked the JAG people to get him out because "this ins't my country").
The military has also been an honorable way for foreigners to earn citizenship, though. One of the reasons so many Filipinos were in the Navy was the route to citizenship. The INS has traditionally given applicants that were vets (or on active duty) extra consideration and would often expedite the process. And if you really love America and are willing to risk shedding your blood for her, then I'm all for a military path to citizenship. We had a "Green Card Hero" in the USMC a few years back. Sgt Rafael Peralta died serving his adopted country, and received the Navy Cross posthumously. We're building a new destroyer named in his honor.
Feb '11
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
Louie Mungaray (Squishy)
I can tell you that are at least two, going on three generations of non-politicized, educated Mexican-Americans who think the La Raza/Chicano Power crowd are pathetic knuckleheads (snip)
I really really hope you're correct- of course I'm not saying you're not, not having any personal knowledge- but I fear otherwise.
As Whiskey Sam notes these folks have a good amount of official support from the democrats. That matters.
Louie Mungaray (Squishy)
We have serious lingering racial issues in this country. We talk past each other and don't even realize it.
I agree. But I also note that the political modus operandi of the politically dominant party is to shriek "racist" as loudly and as often as they can.
This seems to work for them. But for every action the is an equal and opposite reaction, and I'm getting pretty tired of being defamed as a racist because I want to enforce US law, etc.
We're on a path to ruin and civil war, and we need to get on a different path soon.
Oct '10
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
You mean like this or this?
When will the Right realize that we're talking in an echo chamber, and that the only way things will ever change politically is to change the communication paradigm? Listening to Murphy and Barro, I'm guessing "never."
Jan '11
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
Whiskey Sam:
Everything you say, which is beautifully couched in approved conservative buzz-words like "meritocratic," "entrepreneur" and "The American Dream," directly benefits foreigners and business interests and only indirectly benefits middle-class Americans.
In your world your fellow citizens have to wait for advantages to trickle down from the innovations of the foreigners to whom you give affirmative action. (That's right: Affirmative Action. You are for it for non-citizens.)
Your fellow citizens also have to wait for the high cost of education to be addressed by the people that they, not the foreign students, voted into office.
You put entrepreneurs and the interests of foreigners first, and then probably wonder why so many actual working class and middle class people don't trust Republicans and conservatives like Mitt Romney - and you.
I don't.
Jan '11
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
In all my years, never ... I mean never ... after submitting a RFP and losing a bid ... never has the Sales Department blamed the Sales Department. They always blamed the product.
Jan '11
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
Douglas:
Yes, there may be a reason why one fine man like Peralta serves in the armed forces. You got me there, my friend.
But what about THIRTY THOUSAND! If 30,000 is a good idea, why not 300,000? Then we could have 10 Peraltas. Why not 3,000,000 illegal aliens serving in our military? Then American citizens could concentrate more on being "entrepreneurs."
Please stop acting like a Democrat and telling me appealing anecdotes about singular individuals in order to justify an insane policy. In a nation of 300 million citizens there shouldn't be any non-citizens in its volunteer armed forces, especially not when there is high unemployment and education is ridiculously expensive.
You people are really going to have to start to put Americans first.
Oct '10
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
Since this seems to be an immigration thread now, I'll speak to that.
I think it would help if everyone acknowledged our immigration policy, up to this point, has essentially been a dead letter law that was not really enforced, like spitting in public. The "illegals" in this scenario had real reason to believe the law, in practical terms, on the ground, was different than the law as written. Add to this the problem of retroactively enforcing the law.
Going forward, it SHOULD be perfectly reasonable to want as secure a border as possible; however, the implication of the high voltage fence is that the punishment for trying to sneak in is death. Militarizing the border makes more slightly more sense because at least then a human might be able to distinguish between a family and a heavily armed drug gang.
That leaves current, and future, "uninvited guests". There will always be those who figure out a way to get in or overstay visas. The real question is, should the government have any say in who comes in? Should we allow in felons from other countries? People carrying communicable disease? Terrorists? Enforcement has to be all or nothing.
Mar '11
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
Louie Mungaray (Squishy): @whiskey sam,
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. · 9 hours ago
Edited 6 hours ago
I know plenty of young people who have been hurt by the discounted cost of illegal labor. You ask a teenager lately about trying to get a job in fast food or summer labor? Impossible unless you have connections - all the low skill jobs are taken by immigrants. Go to a McDonalds around here and the only American born people are the ones taking orders where English is required. Rest of the staff are immigrants.
Talk to someone in construction here and the work has gone to immigrants, frequently "off book".
This is real.
Mar '11
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
Or they blame production for not "cost cutting" enough, or they blame estimating for padding, or they blame "management" for... something, or they blame the customer for not understanding what they were being offered.
Jul '10
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
Freesmith: Whiskey Sam:
Everything you say, which is beautifully couched in approved conservative buzz-words like "meritocratic," "entrepreneur" and "The American Dream," directly benefits foreigners and business interests and only indirectly benefits middle-class Americans.
· 16 minutes ago
How is allowing a foreign student who has the credentials learn here or letting a foreign worker come here and start a business affirmative action? Affirmative action puts people who aren't qualified into a position based solely on their race. Why should we give an unqualified American a spot just for being American? That is affirmative action. Meritocratic is not a buzz-word. It means based on merit, the exact opposite of affirmative action. In fact, none of these are buzz-words, this is plain language.
Do you not want the jobs they are creating? They will go elsewhere and studies like this show they already are starting to. We need all the jobs we can create; being unfriendly to people who want to come here and create them is self-defeating. There's no reason we can't embrace them and deal with the cost of education, benefitting the middle class with more available jobs and more affordable education.
Jul '10
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
When you talk about excluding immigrant entrepreneurs, these are the kinds of losses to jobs and growth you're looking at:
Immigrant founders, who are most likely to start companies in the innovation/manufacturing-related services (45 percent) and software (22 percent) industries, employed about 560,000 workers and generated an estimated $63 billion in sales from 2006 to 2012, underscoring the continuing importance of high-skilled immigrants to U.S. economic expansion.
Edited on November 30, 2012 at 3:27pmJan '11
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
You can continue to advocate for the interests of foreigners and business. That's your privilege. But don't turn around and wonder why Americans in Middle America don't vote enthusiastically for your program. Unless you think they're dumb, of course.
I understand that a large majority of those software innovators vote Democrat. Folks like the Google founder and the Yahoo founders and the Facebook founder and 90% of the people who work for them. Gee, what do they know that you don't?
Keep advantaging mobile capital and mobile labor, Whiskey Sam, and then complain about America's lax open borders. I could use a laugh.
The reason why it's affirmative action to give special considerations for citizenship or residence to foreign students studying technology or science in the US is because it is special consideration. It is a benefit given to non-citizens. Why is that so important at a time that high unemployment and ridiculously extravagant education costs are ravaging your fellow citizens?
And if you don't think that increasing the supply of foreign applicants in science and technology classes will have a negative impact on the aspirations of Americans, well.....
Aug '10
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
@Xennady,
I hear you, I have adopted the study of the American Civil War as an avocation because I see parallels with our present age.
When politics fails war ensues. I do not believe we are doomed to that fate, but I was a little alarmed by the secessionist rhetoric that emerged after the President was reelected.
Maybe the left's continual charges of racism make it impossible for me to communicate my concerns without sounding just like them. I hope that is not the case.
I am glad to have a forum here to a least make the attempt.
Edited on November 30, 2012 at 4:10pmJul '10
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
Freesmith, then don't complain about manufacturing jobs disappearing when you tell the people who want to come here and create those jobs that they aren't welcome. You're willing to write off 500,000 jobs and then turn around and complain there aren't enough jobs? That doesn't even make sense.
Edited on November 30, 2012 at 4:13pmAug '10
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
skipsul
I know plenty people who have been hurt by the discounted cost of illegal labor. You ask a teenager lately about trying to get a job in fast food or summer labor? Impossible unless you have connections - all the low skill jobs are taken by immigrants. Go to a McDonald's around here and the only American born people are the ones taking orders where English is required. Rest of the staff are immigrants.
Talk to someone in construction here and the work has gone to immigrants, frequently "off book".
This is real. · 56 minutes ago
I know exactly what you mean, I have been trying to economize by radically cutting my rent. I would gladly move in to a smaller place, rent as if I worked at McDonald's, if you will, but those places are all taken already.
I think we can agree that we have to decide how to win elections.
We can play the short game and focus on white rural voters that could have put us over the top, maybe eek out one last Rove-ian win, or we can face the future and somehow persuade Hispanics who will be voting majorities in it.
Sep '10
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
Re Barro:
a) "wealthy Republican donor(s) --- are often delusionally convinced that the country faces imminent economic collapse." I listen to a lot of wealthy Republicans and I've never heard a one say that collapse is imminent. They do say that we've got to get our house in order; the sooner we do it the easier it will be.
b) OTOH - "I'm a businessman and I know what to do" doesn't strike any resonant chords with me, and I'm a fiscal hawk.
Re Murphy:
c) While I'm sympathetic to a lot of SoCon views, I don't think we should fall on our swords for ignoramuses as epitomized by Akin and Mourdock. In other words, SoCons need to convince me they're cleaning their house. Given the 2012 election, they need to do it publicly. That won't solve the problems; at the very least we won't be embarrassed.
d) Today we have the technical means to vastly slow the rate of illegal immigration; ie, e-verify and all that. We didn't have that in 1986. So I'm with Murphy as regards the illegals who are already here.
Oct '10
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
Does the average non-Republican voter perceive a conflict in the Republican message, where they hear "liberty", "freedom", and "leave me alone" small government on one hand, vs. using government to enthusiastically enforce immigration law, prohibit gay marriage and marijuana, and restrict abortion? (the conservative/libertarian divide).
Is there a way to reach across THAT aisle, where at least you end up with fiscal sanity? For instance, on the marijuana issue, federal legalization should have zero bearing on state and local ordinances; why should someone in North Texas care if weed is legal in Colorado?
Would it be more ideologically consistent, and appealing, if this, and gay marriage, and abortion, and even immigration enforcement, were left more in the hands of the states, within boundaries?
Mar '11
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
Louie Mungaray (Squishy)
I know exactly what you mean, I have been trying to economize by radically cutting my rent. I would gladly move in to a smaller place, rent as if I worked at McDonald's, if you will, but those places are all taken already.
I think we can agree that we have to decide how to win elections.
We can play the short game and focus on white rural voters that could have put us over the top, maybe eek out one last Rove-ian win, or we can face the future and somehow persuade Hispanics who will be voting majorities in it. · 47 minutes ago
The problem is that the Hispanic culture (gross overgeneralization I know) favors a corrupt patronage system - and I just don't see how to bridge that divide and stick to our economic principles. I also don't see to bridge the cultural divide, you can't win against a group of people who already see you as racist. That's a generational fix, like dealing with the Old South, and requires a cultural shift.
It also requires restricting the borders to allow existing immigrants time to assimilate.
Mar '11
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
1. Restricting immigration IS congruent with "leave me alone". It is right and proper that a nation be allowed to chart its own course and not accept every single person who wants to come in. American citizenship should have a value, not be given away. Otherwise you're diluting the value of me, and that's not leaving me alone.
2. Restricting Abortion is also congruent - an unborn child is still a human being, worthy of protection under the law.