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.
Where Now, Republicans?
Pickett’s Charge, Battle of Gettysburg, 1863.
It reminds me of the infamous “Pickett’s charge” during the Battle of Gettysburg in July 1863. General George Pickett led his Confederate troops in an ill-fated charge across an open field in an effort to break the center of the Union line. It failed, but the Democrat’s own version of Pickett’s charge, with the artillery cover of the Capitol “insurrection,” has indeed breached the GOP middle. And how has the GOP responded? By shooting at each other.
I saw evidence of it on my now former Facebook page yesterday. Otherwise intelligent Washingtonians and anti-Trumper Republicans, the same ones who said little to nothing while over 200 cities were pummeled with violence this past summer, expect everyone to clutch their pearls and demand Trump’s immediate removal. And if you don’t, you support the insurrectionists and need to learn history (or, more accurately, “reeducation”). That all sounds familiar, and not in a good way. There is no nuance, no exceptions, and zero appreciation for history or self-awareness. With “friends” like this, who needs enemies?
Smarter, more dispassionate, and clear-eyed Republicans with some appreciation for history understand this. They know the party has been here before. After 1930. After 1958. After 1964. After 1974. After 1992. After 2008, when Barack Obama and the Democrats had a massive majority in the House and, for a time, a filibuster-proof Senate. It is time for some retrospection about events and to reengineer things for 2022 and beyond.
The path forward is not complicated, but not easy to traverse.
Let’s look at what has happened to the GOP over the past four years, from a 30,000-foot perspective.
The Republican Party has become an increasingly personality-driven party. It is the party not known widely for its successful policies and actions over the past four years, but as “The Party of Trump.” For all of Trump’s undeniable success and record of achievement, that is historically unfamiliar territory for a party that has always been, during its most successful days, an agenda-driven party – lower taxes, less government, a strong economy, safe neighborhoods, good schools, and peace through strength.
But what has America been hearing the past several months? The election is rigged or stolen. But vote Republican anyway! How did that work out in Georgia’s January 5 US Senate runoff elections? They’ve also seen Republicans shoot at each over the failure, in many minds, to give election law violations and irregularities (if not outright fraud) a fair hearing, especially by the courts. When some in Congress tried to provide such a hearing, consistent with the Electoral Count Act, the Capitol insurrection led by a few QAnon nuts and criminals undermined it and turned some House and Senate members into pariahs and targets for marginalization and outright cancelation. Ultimately, the job of exposing election illegalities fell to state legislatures, and they mostly punted.
That’s where we are. What now?
Republicans cannot allow Democrats to succeed in driving a wedge between Republicans. Republicans, for their part, need to focus their sights on two things: rediscovering their agenda (their “brand”) and combatting Democratic excesses that are sure to come. They always do.
A forward-looking, optimistic agenda that resonates with our new, emerging multi-ethnic working-class base should also help bring suburban voters turned off by Trump back into the fold. Restoring our economic strength by smartly ending the badly-implemented lockdowns; reforming and building good schools run by parents and focused on critical thinking, not indoctrination; safe neighborhoods; and military strength to preserve the peace and reign in an emergent communist power in Asia. Add “Big Tech” censorship and election reform (at the state level) to the list as well, but those may not resonate as well with voters we need to attract.
While Trump isn’t going away – Democrats hope he doesn’t, and fully intend for him to serve as an albatross around GOP necks the next four years – there is no doubt that Republicans had successes at the local, state, and US House level in 2020. Republicans need to build on those successes to capture more seats at the local, state, and congressional levels with a focus on capturing a House if not a Senate majority in 2022.
Part of that will be allowing new spokespeople and leaders to step forward. The RNC should consider naming a new lead spokesman for the party. Someone not running for President who has the respect of House and Senate leaders, as well as GOP governors. A leader or leaders with sharp minds, quick wits, and a pleasant demeanor, who don’t clearly and cleanly fall into a “never” or “pro” Trump group trap. Leave the party machinery to the estimable current RNC chair Ronna McDaniel.
Who are some of the new spokespeople the GOP should promote? US Sen. Tim Scott, R-SC. US Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-NY. Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson, R-NC. US Rep. Mike Garcia, R-CA. New US Rep. Tony Gonzalez (R-TX). That’s a younger, geographically and racially diverse group of leaders with great personal stories and inclusive messages, most of whom are also serious, articulate legislators. There are others, but those come to mind. And the leaders need not come from the ranks of the elected, but successful community activists, business leaders, educators, and elsewhere.
Lastly, Republicans of all stripes need to show some grace and stop focusing their guns on each other. Never Trumpers should stop disparaging pro-Trump Republicans, and learn to listen. Pro-Trumpers should focus less on tribalism, accept the reality of the moment, reject lawlessness, and work constructively to build on their successes of the past four-plus years. Republicans cannot afford to lose members of either camp. Both sides are guilty of shouting past each other and possessing an “either-or” mentality. How is that working out for you? Both wings of the party are needed for a successful flight.
The hard part is trying to achieve this in the face of media, cultural, and educational headwinds. The questions are, who will lead, and will anyone follow?
Published in General
Actually I’ve been getting that ever since the riot. I defended him for so long. I cannot defend the indefensible. I supported the Trump agenda. I do not support the cult of Trump.
I embrace the death. Natural selection will take care of the party in a generation anyway. Good luck getting young voters pumped up for a Cheney Dynasty.
Maybe they can put Mitt Romney on a skateboard and have him name drop Tupac.
My point is that nothing is defendable when you’re Donald Trump. The call to Ukraine was completely defensible, but Trump was impeached over it.
(And the quote attributed to me is not mine, it’s from the OP.) :)
Any political party that wants to succeed has to do the hard work of hammering out what the members of the party want. Their representatives should have clear instructions on the issues that are negotiable and the issues that are not. Then the party should stand behind that person all the way.
My first experience with this was with GW. I didn’t know much about him when he was a governor, but I did know one thing because he was pretty famous for it: he cared deeply about the fate of illegal immigrants, to the point that he was part of the group that was leaving water for them when they would cross the desert. He was quite vocal about his feelings on the plight of these people.
I don’t agree with GW on this. I think our lax border policies created the problem of the people thinking they could sneak across the border, and I think our lax policies have led to human trafficking and people working “under the table” such that they do not have the protections the labor movement won for workers and they end up in sweatshops. But I do respect GW’s opinion on this. He was sincere, and we just disagree on how best to help economic refugees from Central and South America.
He was nominated by the party in spite of the fact that half the party disagreed with him on this important issue. That vocal half of the party criticized him incessantly throughout his eight years in office.
That was mind-boggling to me. Why did the party nominate him in the first place?
I think the Republican Party is a terrible employer. I feel sorry for Donald Trump because he is just the latest in a long line of Republican presidents that half the party ends truly hating.
I wouldn’t work for the Republicans under these conditions.
Oh I apologize on the misquote. Somehow I mixed two different quotes. I was trying to quote when you said Trump could have been spitting on the sidewalk and still he would have been blamed.
Edit: @flicker I went back and put in the correct quote in my original reply to your comment.
Marci, sorry I had to cut back your comment to fit my reply. The problem with Bush was we admired the man but had doubts about some of his policies. The problem with Trump is most of us support most of his policies but find the man distasteful, and that’s perhaps putting it mildly. For all the support Trump has given to social and religious issues I find it amazing how the man is all ego, pride, derision, invective. You name it. There isn’t a Christian bone in his body. Republicans don’t usually nominate such a person. Character usually plays much more of a role in our selections. Democrats nominate “cult-like” personalities: FDR, Kennedy, Clinton, Obama. Why did we nominate Trump in the first place? We liked his pugnacity and overlooked his character deficiencies. Perhaps his character deficiencies are related to his pugnacity. That’s probably too psychological for me to understand, but intuitively I can see it. But that’s a personality characteristic, and basing one’s support of a leader on his personality is really akin to a cult following. The thing is to get back to his agenda and stop the cult following. The irony is that if people want his agenda to go forward, move on from Trump. History will right Trump’s status if his agenda takes root. The more we emphasize the Trump melodrama, the less our agenda goes forward. There are other leaders who will take up the issues. Ron DeSantis of Florida for instance.
Yours is a reasoned and balanced view of what attracted voters to elect Trump and what has led to trouble for him. I like that you didn’t list hatred of others and their views, prevalent among the far left, but you did say ‘not a Christian bone in his body’ which might not be accurate.
Is ‘going along to get along’, the defining characteristic of the Republican establishment, a cultist trait or is it just laziness? I think we know too well that Donald Trump is not lazy.
I wouldn’t say it’s going along to get along. I think the Republican Party from Reagan to Trump emphasized economic issues over social issues. It felt social issues were a loser. Internally we have been split on social issues and mostly united on economic issues. Well before Trump I argued here on Ricochet that the Libertarian element of our party was way more emphasized than actually represented by most Republicans. Trump showed that to be correct. That’s what I mean by the Trump agenda going forward. He showed us we don’t need to prioritize the Libertarian planks as part of our agenda.
I once saw an 80 men kneel together and pray wearing football uniforms. I did not think they were worshiping an inflated pigskin.
In other words, she would be an acceptable Republican Senator for a deep blue state like Hawaii, should she be so inclined.
I like her, but I’m not sure that she has a large enough constituency. Conservatives dislike her because she’s into climate change and (I think) centralized health insurance, and leftists dislike her because she’s against unfettered abortion and speaks her mind and takes down their sacred cows.
That they don’t want her on their side, might be a pretty strong indication that we should want her on our side.
And too, maybe she could replace… MAZIE HIRONO!!!
She supported the President’s push to do something about the section 230 issue that seems to be facilitating the Big Tech censorship of conservatives and she recently explained why, with all the Senate hearings and scolding nothing happens. She says it is because the Senators get money from Big Tech and they don’t won’t that stopped. Hmm.