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.
This week on the Ricochet Podcast, we’re joined by political consultant Mike Murphy for a look at the GOP’s future. Are demographics destiny? Is gay marriage a bellwether issue. We tackle those issues ourselves, with Mike, and later with The Transom’s (required reading around these parts) Ben Domenech, who takes the opposing view from Mike. It’s a passionate and spirited conversation about right-to-work, the future of the party, young versus old, left versus right, changing demographics, whether Steven Crowder matters, and what exactly constitutes a RINO. A great piece of audio to go over the cliff with.
Music from this week’s episode:
- The Boxer by Simon and Garfunkle
The Ricochet Podcast opening theme was composed and produced by James Lileks.
Another classic from EJHill.
Get a free audio book on us. Go to AudiblePodcast.com/Ricochet
Subscribe to The Ricochet Podcast in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
I wanted to post my own two bits on how the GOP can recover. It got too long so I sent it to the member feed.
I too want to chime in with some love for Mike Murphy. The flurry of negativity toward him may be a sign of just how much his message is the painful truth Republicans need to hear.
And for those who disagree with him, insist they won’t listen if he’s on, etc., all I can say is that when we prioritize purging heretics over winning converts, we make the whole enterprise weaker.
I hope Mike Murphy is on Ricochet often, and I’ll keep listening even when the podcast features guests who disagree with him. Or me.
I stopped 52 minutes in due to the sound quality.
And for those who disagree with him, insist they won’t listen if he’s on, etc., all I can say is that when we prioritize purging heretics over winning converts, we make the whole enterprise weaker.
Okay, granted…part of the problem with Republicans is the folks who are too eager to purge the heretics.
But the other part of the problem is the folks who are too eager to purge the orthodox. And that’s where the harmful aspects of Murhpyism come in.
Also, I understand the need for wise counsel regarding tactics, and I know that Murphy is capable of giving plenty of it. But the risk of Murphyism is that it treats the actual issues–should we be for or against same-sex marriage? for or against unlimited immigration? for or against raising taxes?–as matters of complete indifference on the moral, governmental, civic, fiscal, and even strategic levels…on every level, that is, other than the tactical and short-term.
And for those who disagree with him, insist they won’t listen if he’s on, etc., all I can say is that when we prioritize purging heretics over winning converts, we make the whole enterprise weaker.
Okay, granted…part of the problem with Republicans is the folks who are too eager to purge the heretics.
But the other part of the problem is the folks who are too eager to purge theorthodox. And that’s where the harmful aspects of Murhpyism come in.
Also, I understand the need for wise counsel regarding tactics, and I know that Murphy is capable of giving plenty of it. ·11 hours ago
I hear you. But Mike, I think, would have liked George W.’s immigration plan to have been enacted. And I can’t speak for Mike, but I’d like some kind of federalism-ish response to same-sex marriage. Because the Republican party can’t be strict about marriage and immigration but loose about, say, spending and taxes, can it? (Well, yes, I guess it can: it has been for decades….)
Keep going, Angelasg. It gets better right after that.
I’m very late to the party here, but I think the question that ought to be asked of Murphy and the rest of the establishment GOP Consultariat is, “How many times does your nominee of choice have to lose the general before we can stop taking your recommendations seriously?” Murphy in particular spent the last couple of years telling us to just shut up and nominate Loser Mitt.
All these guys get out there every four years and, with no small amount of sneering at the conservative base, push nominating “the moderate” in the primaries as opposed to the “crazy right-wingers who can’t win.” Well, two elections in a row, the GOP has done just that, and the consultant-approved moderate got spanked both times.
Just maybe the “crazy right-wingers” know something Murphy and his ilk don’t…
Just maybe the “crazy right-wingers” know something Murphy and his ilk don’t… ·4 hours ago
I agree completely.
Except that I’m not sure precisely what it is that we nut jobs know.
What we know could be: If you want to win, you’ve got to stick to your guns and give the electorate a fully-articulated, unashamed conservative message.
Or it could be: If you’re going to lose anyway, you might as well go out in style.
I find either one plausible. (And either one preferable to losing with a “don’t let’s be beastly to the Democrats” squish.)
It may be overreading from Murphy’s tone to infer that he’s arguing that every issue should be evaluated strictly in terms of its short-term tactical value. At the risk of putting words in his mouth, I think he’s asking if conservatives who oppose SSM and immigration reform think those issues are worth shipwrecking the Republican Party over, or if the overall conservative project needs to recognize that it isn’t going to get a second look from young (and soon to be middle-aged) voters or Hispanic voters unless it stops taking a tone and/or position that causes those voters to shut down.
I can respect (while disagreeing with) someone who says yes, one or both of those issues is, in fact, the hill we’re prepared to live or die on. But I think that’s the choice before us. If we alienate rapidly growing groups of voters over those issues, we’ll be reduced to waiting for Democrats to botch things so badly the country will come crawling back. That might happen, but I think it’s a terrible plan if conservatives care about, say, two dozen issues and not just those two.
This (rather nastily-written) Politico analysis suggests Murphy’s mantra of ‘you gotta appeal to the independents!’ is at best outdated. Short version: the number of actual swing voters is now so small that turning out the base–as Obama did this year, and Bush did in 2004–is more important than pandering to the consultant-beloved indies…
http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/the-disappearing-independent-85340.html?hp=t1
I think it’s a bit more complicated than that. For example, I’ve met quite a few young people whose views would fit neatly into the Republican base, but who can’t bring themselves to vote for a party that opposes SSM. And I think there are Latino voters who would be receptive to joining up with the Republican base, but who can’t even start that discussion because, as Marco Rubio said, they’re convinced the Republicans want to deport their grandmother.
On the other side of the coin, I know diehard liberals who can’t bring themselves to vote for a party they see as trying to take away their guns. (A minefield of an issue President Obama successfully avoided, for the most part, until about a week ago…)
There’s a natural tendency when people choose sides in politics to conform their views to the rest of that party’s stances, even if they do so half-heartedly, and even if those views aren’t connected by much of a natural ideological thread. So while the number of truly on-the-fence independents may look small, the number of converts to be had is bigger.
I imagine it seems really easy, for those who don’t see SSM as requiring endorsement of ontological impossibility, to say “this is a losing issue; just give up our stance on it and younger voters will come flooding in”.
Even if they did (which I doubt–why choose the party that’s but a pale imitation of the one that really fights to advance sexual libertinism?), why is there implied confidence that that is all that will be required of Republicans, in the medium or even the short term? When has progressivism ever said, “Okay, you’ve given in to what we wanted. Well done. We’re where we want to be; we have no new demands.”
The answer is, never.
Either conservatives write the secular culture a blank check–“we promise not to oppose any future marriage innovations that you may demand, ever, full stop”–or they will find themselves right back in the same position very quickly, fighting a doomed rearguard action against polygamy and polyandry, against loosening of age and consanguinity restrictions, against time-limited marriage contracts, et cetera. And the surrender wing will continue to plead “just yield on this one small matter, and…”
@Blog Goliard — There is another possibility. One might believe as I do that homosexuality is not synonymous with “sexual libertinism,” and that encouraging the bourgeois value of marriage among gay people strengthens our society in ways that are consistent with a conservative point of view.
Okay, granted…part of the problem with Republicans is the folks who are too eager to purge the heretics.
But the other part of the problem is the folks who are too eager to purge theorthodox. And that’s where the harmful aspects of Murhpyism come in.
It’s true that Murphy-ism does have that problem. We don’t want a bunch of “me-too Republicans” a la Schwarzenegger running the party. However, let’s be honest, how much power do the Murphys of the world have in the party, really?
Yes, Romney was a more moderate candidate who still lost (though I would argue that it was that other Mormon governor, Huntsman, who was the true Murphy-ite), but do you honestly believe that a Perry or Bachmann would have done better? He didn’t win the nomination because Mike Murphy and David Frum hatched some conspiracy to force him on us, he won because he was the only candidate who didn’t self-destruct.
I would also point out that Romney hasn’t actually been a moderate substantively since 2006. He didn’t endorse SSM in ’12, nor immigration reform.