Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
There Is No Long Game
During his excellent speech before Congress, Sen. Ted Cruz repeated a common complaint of Republican voters:
The American people were told, “If only we have a Republican majority in the House, things will be different.” Well, in 2010, the American people showed up in enormous numbers and we got a Republican majority in the House. And very little changed. […] Then the American people were told, “You know, the problem is the Senate. If only we get a Republican majority in the Senate and retire Harry Reid as majority leader, then things will be different.” Well, in 2014, the American people rose up in enormous numbers, voted to do exactly that. We have had a Republican majority in both houses of Congress now for about 6 months. What has that majority done?
While debating the possibility of de-funding Planned Parenthood the other day, a fellow Republican insisted we needed total control — a Republican president and a Republican majority in both houses of Congress — for that to happen. Appropriations are not a significant authority, apparently. Since Roe v Wade, he told me, Republicans have enjoyed such total control for only two years, under President George W. Bush. That’s two out of 40 years. In order to prevent about a million children from being slaughtered every year, I’m being asked to wait for an electoral scenario which has only happened once in my lifetime.
And what happened in those two years that Republicans had total control? Did the Republican-controlled Congress and the most pro-life President in living memory defund Planned Parenthood? Of course not. That would be too much to ask. Presumably, Congress determined that diminished support for the war could not even be risked to stop a genocide at home. Rather than employ that total authorized power with impunity, Republicans once again “played it safe.”
I am not proposing a discussion specifically of abortion. That’s merely one of many interests of Republican voters that has not been sufficiently implemented. But must Republicans have total control to accomplish anything significant? Would they even make use of that power if they had it?
Republicans have not earned the privilege of delays. They have not earned the trust required for four-year strategies, let alone 10-year, or 20-year strategies.
In addition, Republicans are fools to rely on plans that require consistent power through multiple terms. First, America’s pendulum-like electoral history does not support such hopes. Second, Democrats have proven able to demonize Republicans and misrepresent Republican positions, even without convenient gaffes, facts, or policies (e.g., the “War on Women”); evidently, laying low cannot preserve Republican electoral victories. Third, Democrats can accomplish more in an equal amount of time due to their willingness to disregard normal procedures, laws, and even the most basic moral concerns for their opponents.
Furthermore, it is easier to get into debt than to get out of it, easier to harm international alliances than to establish them, easier to create laws and programs than to eliminate or even reduce them, and so on. The deck is stacked against the side of freedom and honor, now and forever.
Republicans must strike when they can, as often as they can, as hard as they can. Playing the long game clearly doesn’t work; nor do soft steps. History does not support the timidity of reigning Republican strategies.
Act today, or your authority will be revoked.
Image Credit: Christopher Halloran / Shutterstock.com
Published in Politics
Some lurch rightward, huh?
They have also prevented more damage than you can imagine by acting as opposition to the democrats. They have stopped countless tax increases, cap and trade, single payer, and have held spending flat or reduced it while they held congress with the exception of while they were fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Wars are expensive.
With the exception of when the democrats held 60 seats in the senate, it had been ages since the democrats successfully moved the ball forward.
Get the presidency and you can get those yards back.
Point taken. However…
If I recall correctly, Bush wanted to start with Social Security reform, which was DOA. He had 2 Supreme Court openings and three nominees. (At least we got Sam Alito.) Harriet Miers overlapped with Hurricane Katrina. Tom DeLay claimed he couldn’t find fat from the budget to offset the new Katrina reconstruction spending. Iraq was getting worse and Bush waited until the election went south to change course. Democrats ran the table on the Senate races that year.
Thinking about the days during “the window” makes me depressed.
Exactly how do you think things will go once you withhold your votes from the Republican party?
You think the democrats won’t institute a VAT tax?
You think they won’t increase funding to planned parenthood?
You think they won’t go full hog single payer healthcare?
You think they won’t institute rules about what you can eat on the premise that it affects healthcare costs?
You think they won’t do every insane statist thing they have been dreaming about for decades as they have been foiled from major policy victories by the republican opposition?
Bush wasn’t a quarter of the conservative the any of the serious Republican candidates are. Hence my point that the party has been moving consistently rightward.
Very nice post. Unfortunately.
By “stopped” you mean Republicans “didn’t vote for” some Democrat proposals. Gee, that’s impressive.
Stopping Democrats would include, among other things, competent PR. Remember when Obamacare was a noose around the necks of Democrats who voted for it? A year later, Republicans had already accepted the premise that the situation we had before Obamacare was worse, thus the ACA needed to be replaced with something similar. They’re just haggling over the form now.
Of course, Republicans (usually at the state level) have done some genuine good in recent decades. But even sensible initiatives are spoiled by corruption and incompetence. Those wars began on just footing, then quickly devolved into aimless occupations without any clear and measurable win conditions… let alone the absurd rules of engagement and the deadly PC culture that enabled officer Nidal Hasan to slaughter his fellow soldiers.
Sadly, though, I feel like this takes us back to the original post. We need a window and we got a window, but you need a conservative president and on and on.
One feels like we did better in the year part of the Gingrich years, even though Clinton was president.
My compliments, Frank, on your willingness to fend us all off at once. We’re all frustrated.
Awful. But Republican power takes us to the same place by a slower road.
Honestly, I don’t see staying home during elections as a solution. Even if letting Democrats win is the only way to avoid consenting to Republicans “less bad” offer, Republicans can bet that few conservatives would employ that strategy once and even fewer a second time. Like civil disobedience, it is an action without effect unless joined en masse.
But we’re reaching a point at which Americans must decide whether it is better to endure as an ever more corrupt and chaotic society or to risk everything for even a slight chance of truly significant and lasting reform. It’s the timeless choice between comfort or justice. Republicans offer only comfort.
I am not suggesting that we stay home. I am suggesting that we back the critics of the Repub-Squishes.
To all,
Again without placing any individual blame whatsoever it is interesting to remember an historical situation that involved frustration with a foot dragging leadership.
George B. McClellan USA
MAJOR GENERAL
DECEMBER 3, 1826 – OCTOBER 29, 1885
Even a very talented and likable leader when placed in a situation beyond his capacity can frustrate even the most patient.
Regards,
Jim
And during this window we became the party of the Bridge to Nowhere.
I haven’t completely give up hope yet, but when it’s so damn hard to get enough power to do anything, yett when we finally get it not only do we not do a damn thing, we instead explode the federal budget with bipartisan pork, it gets somewhat discouraging.
To say Republicans have “at least prevented worse things from happening” is operating from defense than offense. As we have seen from this administration, rules are made to be broken, not enforced. The establishment have let us down – it is astonishing how badly and how fast. The people spoke at the mid-term elections, then the Republicans elected went silent. They don’t understand the “top down, bottom up inside strategy” currently in play. The rules are being rewritten while we argue about who has how much power. It’s become a sleight-of-hand world. But many in this country are paying attention and fed up.
There are people stepping up and facing the music who believe in this country the way it used to be – when the rule of law prevailed. We need to get behind those people and use our gifts and talents, whether it be writing, blogging, fundraising, and prepare now – not election time. I think a Cruz-Walker ticket would be a force to reckon with, with the Donald in there somewhere where a huge ego can be tempered and refined – we need all hands on deck. They both can hold their own. Thank you for this post – all good points.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/24/ted-cruz-debated-code-pink-protesters-for-24-minutes/
Thanks, Martel — it’s a silly excuse and diversion that Frank uses, isn’t it? Why don’t we all figure out what will work? The reason? People aren’t clear about the actual issue because some of us are too busy telling the rest of us that we shouldn’t do anything about things that are cast in concrete and not changeable.
Why is there such a strong obsession to obfuscate this simple observation of what the media does with us? I think that each of us wants to put forward their own clever way of solving this. I’m beyond clever ideas, they won’t work and that’s why I want put forward the idea that it is a power issue not an information one.
Guess who else is Fed Up?
Indeed. The petulant whining by the “we’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore” got old three election cycles ago. I could go on at length, but as usual, KW has already said it far better then I ever could.
I’ve become a fatalist about this; if we indifferently don’t care much about the concept of President Hillary Clinton because any Republican (and a GOP Congress) that we might put up wouldn’t be all that worse, then it becomes a self-fulling prophecy. Hopefully after 4 years of that will stop the infighting and if not, we’ll be rewarded with 4 more. Eventually, getting spanked enough by the general public will cause us to right ourselves; it’s up to us when we want that to happen.
99% of the leftist and/ or liberal folks I know, live conservatively. They understand that there are limitations to things and there are finite resources. However, democrats appeal to the emotion. The main problem with the Republican establishment is they don’t know how to appeal to the emotion. I have been able to explain to stauch New York union folks who live and die by their union and would vote however their union says, that the reason their children are leaving New York and moving to Texas or South Carolina and raising their grandchildren there and the fact that they only get to see those grandchildren every few months, is due to the insane taxes in the state to mainly pay for the pensions and benefits for the union workers, and that they have been lied to for all these years and reform is necessary, and perhaps they should stop voting for their union candidate. This argument has always been effective because it draws in their emotions and they can understand what these policies have done to their family, they don’t always agree outright but after thinking about it for a while they can see my point. The problem is too many conservative can’t articulate conservatism and don’t appeal to the emotion. I get it we’re conservatives we don’t appeal to emotion, well we’re going to have to learn. Leftist get it, they live that way, just needs to be explained to them.
I’m sure GOPe finds it to be old. Too bad for them that some of us like old things, as long as they’re good.
For what it’s worth, I’ll throw this into the mix. David Harsanyi’s piece at The Federalist, Here’s Why Republicans Hate the Republican Party:
Some of us like old things too, but Rocky was the better movie in 1976 over Network, by far :P
If it sounds like I am whining, then it is because I look for leverage over self-interested Republican “representatives” and find none. I can vote. But an assured vote is no influence at all.
The illusion of representation is all that’s holding this country together.
Boehner is on the record as opposed to the Iran deal and characterized late term abortion practices as “grisly” and “gruesome.” I’m not sure rhetorically what more can be expected other than throwing a temper tantrum which seems to be the base’s de-facto policy stance.
Did Boehner connect Planned Parenthood to the funding that he provided them?
There is a difference between simply being “on the record” and making “a compelling case.” He should be helping to set the battlefield for the 2016 campaign. He should be working public opinion.
In fact, he’s not. He flaps his gums about it to assuage Conservatives who’d give the Devil the benefit of the doubt, and then he supports the Corker bill which ensures this agreement will become law.
Watch what he does, not what he says. He’s done this repeatedly.
You can make a rational argument that the Corker Bill is not the best way to stop Obama’s Iran deal but it’s expressed intent is to at least bring some details of the bill (and this is where it gets tricky) to the floor for debate since Obama has done an end around the normal treaty process. Not sure how we get from that to “ensures this agreement will become law.”