The Rebuilding Process

Romney lost. It wasn't an epic loss, and people are already coming up with 10,000 excuses why he lost and how he could have been a better candidate if he had just done A, B and C.

I liked Romney- still do, and still think he would have been a better President than a candidate. But he lost, and he won't be running in 2016, and I wish him a long, happy, and healthy life.

As for the GOP, we have some serious tactical problems. This isn't like 2008, when we knew we were toast. Given the economic conditions, the voters should have thrown out the incumbent. They didn't, in large part because the Democrats made assumptions about the voters that were correct, while the GOP were wrong.

I'll leave the tactical problems to the James Carvilles and the Karl Roves and the Lee Atwaters of the world. I'm seeing that the GOP has another, more fundamental problem: What does the GOP stand for?

In the 80's, there was the Reagan Coalition- the three legs of the Economic Conservatives, the Social Conservatives, and the Foreign

Policy Conservatives. The problem is, the issues facing us in 2012 are not the same issues facing us in 1978, and what it means to be a Conservative- on any of these legs- is different now than it was 35 years ago.

One at a time:

　

Economic Conservatives: The basic concept of economic conservatism in the Reagan years was a combination of low taxes, a military buildup (which was a Keynesian plan), and a strong dollar. In the late 70's, we were dealing with high inflation and a bad economy leading to high unemployment. Reaganomics worked in that it tamed the inflation and led to an economic boom.

Well, in 2012, we still have a bad unemployment and slow economy- but inflation (as of this moment) isn't an issue, and the interest rates are already so low that there is no place to cut them. The income taxes are much lower now than in the 70s. In addition, we have a high deficit and debt, ones that are increasing rapidly.

To most voters, they associate the GOP with low taxes for the rich. I believe high taxes hurt the economy, but in terms of both philosophy and messaging the GOP needs to be associated with other economic ideas other than standing on a tax Maginot Line.

My own wish list:  I'm willing to trade higher taxes for significant spending cuts, and adopting deficit reduction as the core of our economic program. It's easy to paint the Democrats are spending our children's inheritance- but not if the GOP is as bad as they are. The problem is, any deal typically has the taxes enacted now while the spending cuts happen sometime in the future- you need some way of guaranteeing the cuts (maybe agree that the tax increases occur one years after the spending cuts are enacted?)

We cannot afford to get into a battle with the Democrats over who can provide the most goodies- it's a battle we can't win. But we can be the party of the economic adults. To do that, we need to start acting like economic adults.

Social Conservatives: In the 70's, "Social Issues" were crime and gun control. Most voters are for tougher criminal sanctions and believe they should be allowed to be armed, so "Social Issues" were in the GOP's favor.

Today, if you asked most voters about "Social Issues", they would answer about Abortion, Gay Marriage, and Birth Control (Apparently, social issues are now all about sex). These issues tend to favor Democrats. And they have successfully painted the GOP as the party of the old white male trying to prevent women from having sex.

There is a place in the party for Social Conservatives- we have some serious moral problems in this country (the divorce rate and number of broken homes are issues that aren't solved with a check). But the GOP needs to decide what social issues they want to push- and how to avoid the issues that turn off voters.

My own wish list:  Embrace federalism. Abortion, Gay Marriage, Legalized Marijuana, Gambling? These are state issues, not federal issues. If North Dakota wants to be a Puritan Utopia while South Dakota is the State of All Vices, more power to them! We're the federal government- we have enough issues to deal with. Leave this to the states.

　

　

Foreign Policy Conservatives: In the 70s, we had the Cold War. The Soviet Union and the US were locked in a titanic struggle, and every other country was a pawn to the Cold War.

Well, we won... in 1989, the Soviet Union split up.

Now what?

In a way, the foreign policy issues were simpler in the Cold War Days. The basic issue was if it was better to be aggressive to stand up to the Soviet Union or not. Now, there is no other Superpower- but a score of nations and groups, all armed enough to hurt the US, but not an existential threat like the Soviet Union was.

Sometimes we've fought back, to the point that we have invaded other countries (Iraq, Libya). Other times, we've been hands off (Syria, Iran) or tried to negotiate a peace (North Korea).

The Democrats ran on a program in 2008 of being against the tactics of the Bush administration- then adopted those exact same tactics. At this point, I don't know what voters think about either party. And I don't know if there is a clear line where either party can say "We stand here, they stand over there, vote for us."

My own wish list:  Damned if I know. Sometimes I think we need to become Isolationist, and leave the rest of the countries to their fate. Then I imagine a dozen mini-genocides in third world countries, and wonder if we have become the world's policemen, the only nation capable of holding back the Barbarians. I don't have a good answer here- I wish I did.