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:
Mar '11
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
Freesmith: 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."
... 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. · 4 hours ago
The US issues up to 480,000 green cards per year... 140K for workers alone. 30K... a number acquired from several years of enlistments... is a drop in the bucket, especially in a pool of nearly 1.5 million troops. We should reduce legal immigration for now because of the economy, but there is no more honorable way to become a citizen than to serve in the military.
Oct '12
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
Patrick in Albuquerque:
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.
Has it occurred to you that social conservatives might not be interested in proving themselves to condescending people whose top priority is not winning elections but avoiding feeling embarrassed?
Oct '10
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
skipsul
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.
True. But that means that there would be no objection, or much less of one, if citizenship wasn't being offered?
Mar '11
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
jhimmi
skipsul
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.
True. But that means that there would be no objection, or much less of one, if citizenship wasn't being offered? · 2 minutes ago
No, there is still an objection - allowing mass immigration means that I am expected to PAY for others. A nation is, to put this in Libertarian purposes, a property, and we don't have to let others trespass willy nilly. We have no obligation to just let anyone in.
We exist as a Nation, and a Nation is, like a corporation or a person, a sovereign entity and allowed to protect its own rights and property, and that includes restricting who comes in.
Jun '12
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
If GOP follows Murphy's advice, they will lose my support, utterly. This election did not have to be lost. It was lost because the methodology and ground game sucked. Period. Granted, it would have been nice if Herman Cain hadn't imploded, or if Newt didn't have so much baggage, or if Perry hadn't flamed out to see what else might have been. But Romney could have won this election, had the GOP not [expletive] the swing state ground game down their leg.
Mar '11
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
This was said much earlier in the threads, but Murphy did endorse Romney, so we've already followed his advice.
May '10
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
Murphy is half right, that is, half of each of his three points are valid.
1) We repel Latinos, the fastest-growing voter group in the country, with our nativist opposition to immigration reform that offers a path to citizenship. Tone m atters, and it's not just about Latinos. You can be sensible about immigration without being nativist- if you accentuate the positive as opposed to the screams against "AMNESTY!", you can address the illegals issues without a path to citizenship.
2) 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. Again, stop the negative talk that sounds strident regarding gays, promote secular domestic partnerships for people who can't marry.
3) And we have lost much of our once solid connection to the middle class on kitchen-table economic issues. Our side should offer specifics rather than bromides, use government to promote markets, and break up the banks and don't coddle/defend the financial sector.
Jan '11
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
Whiskey Sam
I don't have to agree to make things easier for foreigners to study and settle in the US than it already is in order to protect manufacturing jobs.
To protect manufacturing jobs from leaving the US all I have to do is support American oil and gas exploration and exploitation, and not be in favor of free trade or most-favored nation trade agreements with cheap labor markets.
I don't know what you do for a living, but would you like your government to incentivize tens of thousands of foreigners to compete with you? Or with your kids' careers?
I'll tell you one more thing: a lot of those future incentivized green card holders are going to be foreign-born physicians, brought here to keep Obamacare medical costs down. That'll be OK, right? That competition won't affect the livelihoods of American-born physicians, will it, or keep Americans from going to medical school?
Open wide.
Jul '10
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
Freesmith: Whiskey Sam
I don't have to agree to make things easier for foreigners to study and settle in the US than it already is in order to protect manufacturing jobs.
To protect manufacturing jobs from leaving the US all I have to do is support American oil and gas exploration and exploitation, and not be in favor of free trade or most-favored nation trade agreements with cheap labor markets.
I don't know what you do for a living, but would you like your government to incentivize tens of thousands of foreigners to compete with you? Or with your kids' careers?
I'll tell you one more thing: a lot of those future incentivized green card holders are going to be foreign-born physicians, brought here to keep Obamacare medical costs down. That'll be OK, right? That competition won't affect the livelihoods of American-born physicians, will it, or keep Americans from going to medical school?
Open wide. · 15 minutes ago
I work in the steel fabrication industry, and after watching those jobs leave for Mexico, China, Canada, and Brazil, I can say you have no clue what you're talking about.
Feb '11
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
Louie Mungaray (Squishy): @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.
Me too.
No, your concerns are reasonably presented, and I have no doubt they're made in good faith- as are mine.
That said I no longer believe that the political left in this country is acting in anything remotely resembling good faith. I just really wish the GOP would actually notice this, and act accordingly.
Mar '11
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
Xennady
Louie Mungaray (Squishy): @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.
Me too.
No, your concerns are reasonably presented, and I have no doubt they're made in good faith- as are mine.
That said I no longer believe that the political left in this country is acting in anything remotely resembling good faith. I just really wish the GOP would actually notice this, and act accordingly. · 39 minutes ago
You can't negotiate with someone who already declared you a mortal enemy. It's like the whole Israel vs Palestine debate - Israel wants to survive, the other side wants 'em all dead and will lie and cheat to get there.
Jan '11
Re: Mike Murphy's Diagnosis
"I work in the steel fabrication industry, and after watching those jobs leave for Mexico, China, Canada, and Brazil, I can say you have no clue what you're talking about."
Hmmm, it seems to me that the US has had free trade and/or most-favored nation trade arrangements with all of those low-wage countries for quite a few years. The same business interests who wanted those agreements now want accelerated entry and fast-track naturalization in the US for foreign technology students...for the benefit of the USA of course.
They have their priorities. Unfortunately, Whiskey Sam, you don't have yours.
Edited on December 1, 2012 at 3:49am