The future of the GOP is much discussed lately. By now, we’re all familiar with various strands of thought articulated by folks who write regularly about politics, often from Washington D.C. or New York. But what do Republicans at the local level regard as the best way to better the country, retake Congress and challenge President Obama for the White House in 2012?
I got curious, so I started e-mailing a questionnaire to various Republican Party County Chairmen. Ultimately I hope to reach them all.
The questions I posed:
1) So long as it’s in the opposition, where should the Republican Party focus its energy?
2) What is the most worrisome part of Barack Obama’s presidency?
3) There’s been a lot of debate about the role that talk radio and cable news hosts should play on the right. Particularly controversial are Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and Mark Levin. What do you think about these folks? Do they help the right or hurt it (or is it more complicated than that?) How should Republicans interact with them?
4) One particularly fraught controversy pertains to race in America — with the first black president in the White House, some conservatives have been criticized as racists for opposing him, and some on the right have accused the Obama Administration or its allies of racism or anti-white sentiments (for example, Sonia Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” comment drew fire, as did the Skip Gates incident). As the right thinks about political strategy and policy, how should it approach matters of race?
5) Is there anything you observe locally, or that Republicans in your area of the country care about, that doesn’t get sufficient attention in the national media conversation? If so tell me a bit about the issue, and the approach you think the right ought to take.
6) Traditionally the Republican Party has been a coalition of religious conservatives, libertarians, fiscal conservatives, and national security conservatives. Is that alliance viable going forward? If so, what must be done to hold it together? If not, what alliance should the GOP try to build?
7) Is there anything I didn’t ask about that you’d like the media or the country as a whole to know?
I chose these questions because they reflect some of the most controversial issues roiling the national debate, though there were many more I would’ve included if brevity weren’t so important for getting responses. Hopefully the results will serve as a resource that better informs folks writing about the future of the GOP, and conservatism generally, about opinion within the party at the grassroots level.
Thus far I’ve received answers from 20 people — and I’ve just sent out a batch to GOP County Chairmen throughout Ohio, so I expect to be posting more very soon. You can read the answers (and if you find them a valuable resource, donate to the very time consuming project) here.
Should anyone want to contact me directly about the project I can be reached at conor.friedersdorf@gmail.com.
27 responses so far
1 Oneon1isto // Oct 9, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Conor,
I’m an avid follower of your pursuits, and I gotta say the responses you’ve put up on that blog are (with few exceptions) extremely depressing. They are the present and future leadership of the GOP machine, and their views seem so party-line, discordant, and fearful that I can’t see any quick turnaround for the GOP anytime soon. Hopefully you get more responses that are representative of a positive thinking, forward looking movement, rather than an embittered and negative one that’s circled the wagons.
Some of those responses are very, very telling.
2 sinz54 // Oct 9, 2009 at 5:50 pm
One of the responses, from Texas, said: “The Texas GOP Platform is a wonderful document in all aspects. ”
Then why has the Platform been removed from the Texas GOP website? Evidently it has, because I can’t find it anywhere! There’s a page entitled “Platform Blog,” but there’s nothing on it.
http://www.texasgop.org/
3 johnmarzan // Oct 10, 2009 at 7:45 am
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=17056&R=163811B9D5
4 Stewardship // Oct 10, 2009 at 10:28 am
I work for a national, conservative grassroots organization. During the past 18 months, we’ve witnessed even our staunchest, conservative members voice distaste for the Republican Party and its current leadership. This past week, Sen. Lindsay Graham said: “Let’s do something …. I’d like to solve a problem, and if it’s on President Obama’s watch, it doesn’t bother me one bit if it makes the country better off.”
That’s the attitude that has been missing from the leadership of both political parties for a long, long time. If the Republicans will start leading (toward solutions) and not simply being contrary or obstructionist, we will gain the trust of a vast swath of voters. Allowing conservative talk radio hosts or pundits to draw a line in the sand won’t help elect Republicans.
Just a few short years ago, we controlled the Executive and Legislative branches of the federal government–we didn’t enact our prinicples then. Why should voters believe we’d do it in 2010 or 2012. We have to be part of the solution today to prove we can govern responsibly in the future.
5 sinz54 // Oct 10, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Stewardship:
The GOP base won’t allow it. They see Obama as a Marxist who is turning America into a Marxist totalitarian dictatorship.
And if you believe you’re living under dictatorship, the moral thing to do is NOT cooperate with the regime, but engage in passive resistance.
6 Oneon1isto // Oct 10, 2009 at 5:10 pm
The base sure as hell won’t let them do this. But then, that’s what you get for playing 9 years of fearmongering, anti-intellectual, religious pandering.
We’re in the midst of a heavy-duty political realignment, and not just the kind that happens every 20 years. The kind where party identity shifts entirely across the spectrum, the kind that’s only happened like 4 times in our history. I only hope the party that comes out the other end is the one of fiscal sanity, small government and libertarian ideals. Not sure how that will happen though.
7 aDude // Oct 10, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Whenever a party is in power when something dreadful happens, it can lead to a long term shift in political power. Democrat Buchanan (the single worst president in history) fumbled the US into the Civil War, and Republicans held the White House for most of the next 70 years. Hoover mishandled the Depression and Democrats held the White House for 28 of the next 36 years. LBJ messed up Vietnam (and angered the South by pushing civil rights) and the Republicans held the White House for all but 4 of the next 24 years.
Bush mishandled Iraq, but that will rapidly become less important with each year. The economy will hurt Republicans for a while. I’m old enough to remember how Bush Sr effectively ran against Jimmy Carter eight years after Carter left office (those wonderful “I remember you, you’re the one who made me feel so blue” were perhaps the more effective political ads I’ve ever seen). But I believe the reason they worked is that the Democrats didn’t offer anything that differed from what Carter did.
So, the Republican Party needs to present a simple, coherent message: Limited government brings growth and opportunity. The Democrats walked away from banning guns, Federal wage equalization panels, 90% top tax rates, and mandatory quotas on everything from race to gender to weight. They distilled a simple message: Government provides a safety net. The Republican counter to that simple message is that a large safety net will stifle economic growth and hurt the very people the safety net is supposed to help.
All this nonsense about Marxism and Nazis and whatever else is being spewed from the nattering nabobs of negativism (see if you’re old enough to remember that one) is not helping get across the positive message of growth and opportunity. The responses from these party chairman just don’t seem to get it.
8 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 11, 2009 at 2:36 am
adude wrote: “So, the Republican Party needs to present a simple, coherent message: Limited government brings growth and opportunity . . . They [Democrats] distilled a simple message: Government provides a safety net. ”
The problem for the Republican Party is not its message, and Democrats didn’t gain an advantage because of their message. Policy and governance are what’s most important. The GOP has always had a message of limited government, but it has never produced limited government.
The GOP simply does not have any policy ideas for the problems that most Americans care about. Continually reducing taxes will not produce higher wages or job growth.
9 balconesfault // Oct 11, 2009 at 7:39 am
The responses from these party chairman just don’t seem to get it.
Well, county party chairmen don’t just appear out of the ether. They are in that job because they represent the more activist base of the local Republicans.
And the thing that is motivating the activist base right now isn’t recognizing, as you noted “Democrats walked away from banning guns, Federal wage equalization panels, 90% top tax rates, and mandatory quotas on everything from race to gender to weight”.
Rather, it is … as Sinz noted – running around screaming ” Obama as a Marxist who is turning America into a Marxist totalitarian dictatorship.”
These party chairmen are amplifying that message because it’s the only way to get attention from their own base these days. “Let’s keep building on the prosperity we grew with Bush in office” just isn’t going to cut it.
10 mlindroo // Oct 11, 2009 at 8:32 am
As always, the lack of pragmatism is baffling. The tea baggers are opposed to Charlie Crist’s Senate campaign despite the fact Crist is popular in Florida and probably a better bet against the Dems in the general election than somebody like Marco Rubio. And in New York’s 23rd congressional district (won by Obama last year), there is an open rebellion against the Republican party’s favored successor to moderate Rep. John McHugh who is resigning to become President Obama’s Secretary of the Army.
I can understand why the grassroots want candidates who are fiscal and social conservatives, but those kinds of candidates won’t win in places such as NY-23. In contrast, the Dems tend to nominate politicians such as Heath Shuler and James Webb in culturally conservative areas of the country since they want to maintain their majority in Congress. Liberal bloggers are of course frustrated when the “blue dogs” block point on the liberal agenda such as the “public option” component of health care reform, but virtually everybody accepts the party won’t survive as a majority party without appealing also to centrists and moderates.
MARCU$
11 sinz54 // Oct 11, 2009 at 4:28 pm
adude: All this nonsense about Marxism and Nazis and whatever else is being spewed from the nattering nabobs of negativism (see if you’re old enough to remember that one)
I’m old enough.
12 sinz54 // Oct 11, 2009 at 4:35 pm
mlindroo:
The lack of pragmatism is always the first reaction from a party that’s just suffered major defeats.
Since it takes time and effort to face up to your mistakes, the first easy way out is to imagine that you made no substantive policy mistakes, but you just weren’t forceful and clear enough in advocating for your ideas.
That was how the Dems first reacted after the Reagan victory of 1980: “Reagan fooled the voters because Carter tried to be too moderate and offered only a pale echo–the voters would love a real liberal.”
So they nominated Mondale in 1984, and Dukakis in 1988–and lost badly both times. It was only after they lost a few times that they decided to try something else. And men like Clinton and Tsongas moved the Dems more to the center.
Now the GOP is reacting the exact same way: “Obama fooled the voters because McCain tried to be too moderate and offered only a pale echo–the voters would love a real conservative.” So they are liable to nominate Sarah Palin in 2012, the way they’re going.
13 sinz54 // Oct 11, 2009 at 4:36 pm
mlindroo:
BTW, the same thing is true in other countries. The French Socialist Party reacted to long-term dominance by conservatives (first Chirac and now Sarkozy) by nominating a total airhead, Segolene Royal, who is the French equivalent to Sarah Palin.
14 mlindroo // Oct 11, 2009 at 5:24 pm
> All this nonsense about Marxism and Nazis and whatever else is being spewed [...]
This is slightly off topic, but I just noticed a link to this computer game. I don’t if it is a parody or not (it’s a bit like Conservapedia in this respect!), but since the ad appears on the conservative PowerLine blog website I suspect it is genuine.
http://www.usofearth.com/2011-obamas-coup-fails.php
The scenario:
———————————————————————————————————————–
“It is the year 2011. The United States has become saturated with suspicion and unrest. Since early 2010, President Barack Obama, President Felipe Calderon of Mexico, and Prime Minister Stephan Harper of Canada have been conducting private meetings with each other and various political heads of the U.N. None of the meetings are open to the media, let alone the public.”
“The secrecy of the President became an issue tacked onto the political platforms of candidates running for the Senate and Congress in the November 2010 elections. Americans, thoroughly disgusted with the socialistic programs that have been thrust upon them over the last few years, vote out seventeen of the nineteen Democrats in the Senate and 178 in Congress that were up for reelection. When asked for his opinion on this monumental power shift in favor of liberty-minded Republicans during the November elections, President Obama is quoted as saying the elections were “ultimately inconsequential;” he allowed the cryptic statement to stand alone and said nothing more on the subject until January’s swearing-in ceremony.”
” Private ownership of firearms has been outlawed, and Obama promises a new era of equality and peace. Unfortunately for Obama, Americans will not act like the sheep he has taken them for. Revolution begins. Over 20 million armed American citizens begin seizing local and federal government buildings and officials.”
———————————————————————————————————————–
The enemies supposedly include:
# Obama’s police force (Ameritroops)
# Nation of Malsi (Islamic fundamentalist troops)
# Black Tigers (black nationalist troops loyal to Obama)
# NHKS (National Honor Killing Society) Yet another Islamic army
# U.N. (United Nations) Peacekeepers
15 mlindroo // Oct 11, 2009 at 5:38 pm
“I think it’s a good laugh and momentary escape for any conservative currently mired in the reality of the consequences of our governments actions.” — Reader comment #43, http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/10/06/the-track-of-the-storm/
16 andydp // Oct 11, 2009 at 6:10 pm
I’m old enough to remember Safire’s “nabbering nabobs”. Of course VP Agnew directed it at the Democratic party. Unfortunately, it now applies to the GOP and its spokespeople like Limbaugh, Beck et al. Just to give me a modicrum of credibility; I voted for Nixon twice and except for a couple of times have always voted GOP. I’d consider myself a moderate in the vein of Rockefeller or Everett Dirksen.
Horace Walpole is quoted saying “The only thing we learn from history is that we fail to learn from history”. Let’s look at the 1968 and 1972 elections. (If you have facts and figures please add to them) This is my memory and opinion:
1968: After winning a landslide victory in 1964, LBJ decides not to run (because of the anti war sentiment) so the race is given to his VP Hubert Humphrey. The going opinion by Democrats at the time is he was too “mainstream”. HHH lost the election to Richard Nixon, mostly because Nixon said he had a solution for victory in VietNam; and the US was tired of losing its young people. (Yes there were the Chicago Riots too)
After Nixon’s election, there followed four years of strident anti war rioting and dissent. (I was in college ROTC at the time so I was the receiver of “baby killer” commentary).
1972: Nixon runs again. Since last time, HHH was too “mainstream”, the Democratic party enlists George McGovern to run. Mc Govern was the epitome of the anti war, uber liberal, granola eating, anything but the establishment Democrats. The Democratic plank was a horror show of mish mash “liberalism”. What happened ? A sitting president constantly under suspicion as having a major role in a criminal event (Watergate cover up) wins every state except Massachusetts. Mc Govern was so bad he didn’t even win his own state.
In 2008 the GOP loses the White House and Congress. The reason ? They weren’t “conservative” enough. They finally recognized their years in control were like the maniac definition joke: Red neck in a “sporting house” with a credit card. So to win more votes the GOP has to become more conservative as defined by Limbaugh, Beck et al.
Now come the elections of 2010 and 2012. The GOP solution as esposed by Libaugh and Beck: we must become more “conservative”. Because the last time we didn’t appeal to enough voters. Apparently thinking that being obstructionist, hate filled, and against whatever the Democrats are for will win it for the GOP. While nominating someone like Gov Palin will charge up the “base”; it will do just what Mc Govern did for the Democrats in 1972: insure an even longer period in the wasteland of minority party land.
Again, these are my opinions and feelings. If you have some facts and figure by all means add to the discussion. Bottom line is extremism doesn’t win, mainstream does.
17 agentprovocateur // Oct 11, 2009 at 11:22 pm
This all has the feeling of chickens coming home to roost. For years now we’ve heard Republicans/conservatives trash the government in almost any way possible. And now they want to lead that very same government? Why should anyone put the GOP in charge of something that it appears to loathe?
18 sinz54 // Oct 12, 2009 at 12:23 pm
agentprovocateur:
Their argument is that government has grown too big, and we should elect them to start shrinking back down to size. And that would be a reasonable argument–except that the American people have never bought the specifics of it.
Reagan tried and failed (Tip O’Neill stopped him cold).
Gingrich tried and failed (Clinton stopped him cold).
Americans really don’t want that social safety net dismantled. Gingrich’s Contract with America was more about reform than wholesale dismantling. But once Gingrich’s Republicans took over Congress and proposed $700 billion in cuts to domestic programs, the public sided with Clinton who said no.
19 sinz54 // Oct 12, 2009 at 12:33 pm
andydp:
One of the reforms the Democratic Party instituted after their disastrous McGovern loss in 1972, was to create so-called “superdelegates”–convention delegates nominated by the party apparatus rather than winning in primaries. This was specifically aimed at diluting the power of the hard-left activists who had come to dominate the primaries and who had nominated a guy like McGovern. It took a lot of guts to stand up to these activists, since they believed the party belonged to them (sound familiar?).
Another reform, instituted after the disastrous Mondale loss in 1984, was the creation of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), which argued that the party had to move away from left-wing extremism, and back toward the ideological center. The DLC was composed of prominent Democratic officeholders of moderate persuasions. They set up the Progressive Policy Institute, a think-tank to articulate moderate Democratic solutions to national problems.
The GOP, now dominated by right-wing extremists who insist that you have to support every ounce of the GOP platform or else you’re a disgusting RINO who should be expelled from the party, needs similar reforms today. It needs the moderates to get together and form a fighting, aggressive “Republican Leadership Council,” with its own moderate-thinking think-tank. And there need to be reforms of the primary process to enable more thoughtful citizens to participate.
Right now, I see moderate Republicans and center-right Independents under incessant attack from the Right. New Majority, while well intentioned, is no substitute for actual moderate Republican officeholders coming together and fighting back against this.
20 DFL // Oct 12, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Parties that are out of power win again because their political enemies 1) galvanize the opposition due to policies of the majority party , 2) lose their hold on the floating middle, 3) discourage or fracture its base which often happens the longer a party is the majroty party, 4) governs during a time of econimic stress and 5) governs during a time of foreign policy or military disaster. Republicans will not win so much because of their own policy initiatives but only when it becomes apparent that the Democrats have failed in running the government.
21 EscapeVelocity // Oct 12, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Stewardship
That’s the attitude that has been missing from the leadership of both political parties for a long, long time. If the Republicans will start leading (toward solutions) and not simply being contrary or obstructionist, we will gain the trust of a vast swath of voters.
—-
This is a recipe for continuous move towards the Left, as all compromise comes from Republicans and Conservatives and favors Democrats and Leftwingers.
I think that the Democrats should ditch the ultra partisan far Left and try to work with George Bush on Social Security reform….trying to shape in ways that are important to the Left.
However, that isnt what we got, because that would have been losing proposition for the Left, who favor more government social welfare programs, taxation, and centralized government control.
22 EscapeVelocity // Oct 12, 2009 at 1:24 pm
dfl, you are exactly correct.
That is why its important to have true Conservatives on the ballots, and not this simpering RINOs. So that when government does change hands, we can actually get something done.
You see the Democrats struggling with the Blue Dogs, now. RINOs will hamper the GOP and Conservatives as well.
23 sinz54 // Oct 12, 2009 at 5:45 pm
dfl:
You are incorrect.
I remember how the Republicans won in 1980 and 1994. They ran as reformers with a whole laundry list of ideas and reforms.
You can’t fight something with nothing. It was not enough that the Dems had made mistakes. Because the Republicans were proposing a major policy shift, and they had to reassure the voters that they knew what they were doing.
But as I said, this is something you’re going to have to learn for yourself.
So go ahead, nominate Sarah Palin in 2012. And back her up with a hard-right Republican platform too. Have the dream ticket you’ve always wanted, without any interference from RINOs.
And good luck to you with it.
24 pnwguy // Oct 12, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Sinz54 @ 18
Your point about what the public wants in terms of government size coincides with the analysis here in this essay, if you haven’t read it. It’s a point Bruce Bartlett has made often.
http://www.democracyjournal.org/article.php?ID=6698
One of Rauch’s best insights is this one:
“When tax cuts increase deficits (that is, when they are not balanced by spending cuts), they reduce government’s apparent cost. They put government on sale, so to speak. When something goes on sale, people want more of it, and government is no exception. Instead of reducing the supply of government, unbalanced tax-cutting has increased the demand for it.”
25 agentprovocateur // Oct 12, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Reagan tried and failed (Tip O’Neill stopped him cold).
Gingrich tried and failed (Clinton stopped him cold).
Let us not forget Bush II and his Republican Congress, neither of which even tried.
I think that the Democrats should ditch the ultra partisan far Left and try to work with George Bush on Social Security reform….trying to shape in ways that are important to the Left.
Oh please. Have you been paying attention to what has happened to the Stock Market? Oh yes, priviatizing Social Security would have just worked out so very well.
By the way, if the American people really like the social safety net, that does tend to put the conservative party behind the eight ball.
26 Dear “Hipster” Conservatives, « Around The Sphere // Jan 26, 2010 at 12:52 pm
[...] keep me housed among coastal liberals, eating arugula and making good on NPR pledges? I’ve even written at FrumForum (about my efforts to poll GOP County Chairmen all over America). Failure to “pick a fight and [...]
27 Way Out of Left Field « noot // Feb 1, 2010 at 3:40 am
[...] keep me housed among coastal liberals, eating arugula and making good on NPR pledges? I’ve even written at FrumForum (about my efforts to poll GOP County Chairmen all over America). Failure to “pick a fight and [...]
You must log in to post a comment.