That’s Sir Humphrey Appleby in the art up there – the comic civil servant from the classic British political series, Yes Minister. In Sir Humphrey’s world, policy always went through four phases, as in this legendary exchange…
Sir Richard: Standard Foreign Office response in a time of crisis. In Stage One we say that nothing is going to happen.
Sir Humphrey: Stage Two, we say something may be going to happen but we should do nothing about it.
Sir Richard: Stage Three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there’s nothing we can do.
Sir Humphrey: Stage Four, we say maybe there is something we could have done, but it’s too late now.
I’ve been thinking about Sir Humphrey a lot recently as I listen to Republicans and conservatives debate the way forward. I am beginning to see our own four-phase path to recovery.
Stage One: we didn’t really lose – it was all a communications problem!
Stage Two: OK, we lost – but that’s because the voters are idiots.
Stage Three: OK, maybe the voters aren’t total idiots – but there’s nothing we can do to woo them, we have our unchanging principles.
Stage Four: Hey – maybe there IS something we can do.
As I see our mission here at FrumForum.com, it is to help Republicans and conservatives arrive at Stage Four as rapidly as possible.
18 responses so far
1 RightNow09 // Jun 7, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Here, here! Lots of good articles here on NM addressing this topic lately. Good thing, too.
2 Churl // Jun 7, 2009 at 11:34 pm
This posting reminds me of another gag from “Yes Minister”:
“We must do something. This is something. Therefore we must do this”.
I wish that the strategic brains at NM would get around to specifically identifying what their idea of “this” is.
If there is a coherent set of policy ideas here, I have yet to detect it. Could someone clearly and concisely state what these folks are getting at?
3 gibberish // Jun 8, 2009 at 4:36 am
If New Majority’s mission is to bridge the gap between stages 3 and 4 – presumably to find new voters wooing ideas that adhere to steadfastly held principles – then perhaps we could have an explanation of the point of various postings here which seem strangely irrelevant?
I’m thinking of the curious interest in Conrad Black. Dr Gratzer’s childish postings regarding the vital issue of healthcare or the nit-picking piece of pedantry re Obama’s reference to Buchenwald…
4 midcon // Jun 8, 2009 at 6:00 am
In my view one of the key things that NM and the GOP can do is to PROPOSE instead of OPPOSE. The issues of the economy, health care, immigration, etc. are not going away and in the absence alternative solutions, the Democrats ideas are the only game in town. Rather than trying to disect what is wrong with their ideas, I would rather articulate what is right with the GOPs ideas.
Perhaps one way to do that is to invite recognized leaders to articulate a GOP position on each of the major issues. Who is the GOP whiz on health care? What possible solutions make sense for America? Why will it work? Why is it a better idea? How much will it cost? Where will we get the money?
I would prefer this to the silliness about whether Obama visited the correct former concentration camp or whether Reagan or Buckley was the right kind of conservative. While intellectually stimulating, it doesn’t do anything for the cost of medecine.
5 Chekote // Jun 8, 2009 at 6:01 am
“I wish that the strategic brains at NM would get around to specifically identifying what their idea of “this” is.”
Amen. I got tired of asking the same question for weeks.
6 ottovbvs // Jun 8, 2009 at 7:00 am
Actually Sir Humphrey’s dictum was:
“Sir Humphrey: Stage Four, we say maybe there is something we could have done, but it’s too late now”
There’s a new reality out there but there’s little evidence Republicans are ready to recognize it yet. Mind you it’s early days. How quickly conservatives recognize this new reality and adjust to it will determine how soon they return to political relevance. Midcon makes a fundamental point:
“In my view one of the key things that NM and the GOP can do is to PROPOSE instead of OPPOSE.”
….The problem with it is that many of the conservative ideas that exist either don’t address the problem (eg. Healthcare) or even if they do (immigration reform) would be deeply divisive for their own party.
7 gibberish // Jun 8, 2009 at 7:02 am
I don’t think we can expect David to step down with “this” carved on tablets of stone for us to respectively admire.
but posting up possible contenders or competing ideas for “this” does happen here – just needs to be increased from about the 20-30% of posts that get drowned out in a tide of dross
8 gibberish // Jun 8, 2009 at 7:04 am
respectfully – I meant
9 sinz54 // Jun 8, 2009 at 7:12 am
ottovbvs: Divisiveness shouldn’t be a concern for New Majority to propose principles at this early stage.
David Frum left National Review and created New Majority because he dissented from the direction that conservatism had taken. In that sense, New Majority is already “divisive” because it has critiqued Limbaugh and Palin and such. David Frum has implied a different philosophy than Limbaugh and Palin and RedState.com would like (for which RedState has denounced him).
So NM is already divisive. It might as well state Frum’s specific principles which have led to the divide.
10 sinz54 // Jun 8, 2009 at 7:18 am
midcon: The best sources of conservative ideas on issues like health care are the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute.
However, I don’t know which of those ideas David Frum agrees with. I wish he would have spent more time discussing such ideas than attacking personalities like Limbaugh.
In the Senate, the moderate GOP girls from Maine have proposed a “trigger” for a public health care plan. That is, private insurers would be given a fixed amount of time to demonstrate that they can control costs. There would likely be a government mandate for all Americans to have insurance. If these steps prove inadequate and there is no demonstrable improvement, only then would the “trigger” fire and a public health care alternative go into effect.
I support this concept. It gives the private insurers time to show that a public health care alternative for the uninsured and underinsured is unnecessary. It’s a national test of a concept, something we rarely do with social legislation before enacting it. With my engineering background, I find this an appealing proposition.
11 midcon // Jun 8, 2009 at 8:44 am
sinz, That alternative does have some appeal. Wonder why it is not getting more visibility on various sites?
The Heritage Foundation does advocate a model similar (or as part of the) the FEHB (Federal Employees Health Benefits). As an FEHB enrollee, I can tell you the attraction of that model is it allows me to choose between PPOs, HMOs, and high and low option plans. Open Season every year causes me headaches because of the choices, but at least I have those choices. The system is somewhat unequal in that those federal employees (such as postal workers) pay considerable less than non-union employees.
I do find Heritage to be stronger than AEI in articulating solutions (here’s how instead of that won’t work). The problem remains that their work continues to be drowned out in the morass of quibbling that we see, fairly moderately on NM, and to the extreme on conservative talk radio and places like Red State.
Somehow these ideas need to get more visibility. You been a strong and continued advocate of the serious work performed by Heritage and AEI, but you are pretty much the Lone Ranger here. I can count on one hand how many times I have seen someone other than you mention either organization – including the contributors on NM!
12 sinz54 // Jun 8, 2009 at 9:36 am
midcon:
The trigger is getting plenty of play on liberal forums like the NY Times and DailyKOS, where they’re strongly opposed to it. DailyKOS and Robert Reich and other liberals are working hard to kill the trigger. Because they know that it would prevent the public health care option from becoming a single-payer system by stealth, which is what they admit they really want.
As for “open season,” the idea of a national public health insurance exchange has bipartisan support–even Robert Reich doesn’t mind it–and so it will likely survive in any bill that gets passed. The exchange would enable those who don’t have insurance to purchase it at group rates, essentially forming a “group” of their own. (For me, that would represent a saving of thousands of dollars per year.) And just like group insurance from your employer, insurance purchased by you through the exchange could not disqualify you for a pre-existing condition.
The right-wing blogs like RedState and Spectator don’t support either of these ideas, since they’re just opposed to any health care reform passed by Dems. They’re still at the stage of “No Socialized Medicine!”–any reform instituted by Obama has to be bad, they say.
13 dendup // Jun 8, 2009 at 11:33 am
When political parties are not just out of power, but diminished in a significant way, and their opponent is robust, they need a Big Idea and a Great Leader to coalesce around.
A Great Leader can sometimes arise startingly fast. Or as Ralph Ellison says more or less in “The Invisible Man” “the people throw up their leaders.”
In that case the Great Leader is likey to cpaitalize on something that is already in the air for his Big Idea.
So what are possible Big Ideas for the GOP?
I think the Dems are likely to set the parameters of the debate on health care, so this is probably not it.
David would, I think, like the Big Idea to be creating a Greater Israel with borders something like Alexander the Great’s empire. Probably a long shot.
Taxes – right now pretty much “been there – done that” but who knows, If Barry has to really raise taxes….
Palin seems to be test marketing State’s Rights in a version we haven’t seen since before the Civil War. I won’t even hazard a guess about this one.
That’s all I can come up now. Any more Big Idea nominations?
14 sinz54 // Jun 9, 2009 at 7:33 am
dendup: The Big Idea that I can currently envision, is the stagflation that Obama is igniting, and how we conservatives can fix it. This may become more apparent by 2012 than it is now.
15 Bulldoglover100 // Jun 9, 2009 at 7:56 am
Still looking backward for answers David? yeesh no wonder we are worse off now than 12 months ago.
The world is passing our party by while we sit and try to apply rules and logic that worked a long time ago….how totally inane.
16 dendup // Jun 9, 2009 at 8:07 am
Stagflation, if it were to occur, would set the stage certainly. My sense is that nobody really understands why stagflation occurs so I agree its a possibility.
The ’70’s example is as confusing as it is instructive. The cumulative policies of Nixon, Ford and Carter do suggest that government can make it worse. The various commodies price shocks (not just oil) make other mechanisms plausible too.
The world economy is now much more integrated than in the 70’s but how that will effect a stagflationary scenario is unclear.
But in any event, it certainly suggests that arguing against big deficits makes sense for the GOP. It fits with its historic stance and has current relevance.
Any strategy has risks, and the risk here is that the stimulus gets things going and Obama can thread the needle and put on the breaks at the right time.
So all you need now is a Great Leader. With this Big Idea, Newt, Sarah and Morning Joe come to mind.
17 barker13 // Jun 9, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Re: Churl; 6/7/2009 11:34 PM –
(*THUMBS UP*)
(*CHUCKLE*)
Re: Midcon; 6/8/2009 6:00 AM –
“In my view one of the key things that NM and the GOP can do is to PROPOSE instead of OPPOSE.”
Why not do both…??? Surely we’re all capable of walking while chewing gun at the same time.
Also… just to point out… no need to reinvent the wheel as far as “expert advice” is concerned. Go to Heritage.org or any number of conservative Think Tanks and the “ammo” is there for the requisitioning.
(*SHRUG*)
Re: Sinz54; 6/8/2009 7:18 AM –
“The best sources of conservative ideas on issues like health care are the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute.”
(*GRIN*) Great minds think alike. (*CHUCKLE*)
“However, I don’t know which of those ideas David Frum agrees with. I wish he would have spent more time discussing such ideas than attacking personalities like Limbaugh.”
Yep. That is an ongoing problem with this site.
Part of the reason you and I lock horns so often, Sinz, is that we both tend to be very specific with our proposals as well as our critiques. Frum should be more like… er… us. (*WINK*)
Re: Sinz54; 7:33 AM –
Yep. Stagflation is a’com’n. (*SIGH*)
The Bush administration started it’s assault on the dollar early in Bush’s first term and as with Bush’s spending and deficit record, Obamanomics seems to be Bushonomics on steroids with a Leftist tinge.
(Yes, yes… granted… Bush, Bernanke, and Paulson started bailout mania.)
We need to strengthen the dollar. We need to increase domestic energy supplies. We need to slowly increase interest rates. We need to get back to economic basics on the math of home ownership and income vs. expenditures.
We need to face up to entitlement reform – and by “reform” I mean slowly lessening and even backtracking on entitlements. (For example, upping the retirement age – at least as far as benefit collections go. Not this minute, not while unemployment is still rising, but we’ve got to explain to the American People that in the next few years this drawback process must begin.)
Anyway… just a few basic truths. (*SHRUG*)
Re: Dendup; 8:07 AM –
Don’t forget where it started, Dendup – with Johnson’s “Great Society” and his administration’s guns AND butter policies.
Oh, sure, Nixon aggravated thing, particularly with wage and price controls, abandonment of the international gold standard, depreciation of the dollar, etc., but never forget Johnson’s role.
In addition to reversing the Bushbama disastrous monetary policies, as I’ve noted time and again, the GOP must reexamine it dogmatic doctrinaire “Free Markets/Free Trade” policies and perhaps go back to a more traditionalist Republican economic tradition of “America First” with regard to “Fair Trade” policies and even not so fair policies… as long as these not so fair policies are not so fair TO OUR ADVANTAGE.
Again, the deindustrialization of America is an employment, social, and national security nightmare. We must reverse course. And in doing so we would no doubt in part rebuild the old “Reagan coalition” inclusive of blue collar Dems voting not just out of economic self-interest, but out of national pride and hope for their children’s future in an “American” America, not a “Euro-America.”
BILL
18 Jim Pier // Jun 11, 2009 at 12:16 pm
I agree, and here is stage four: I believe we need to appreciate that ideas gain ascendancy over a period of time. If the idea is right, we need to advocate, with civility and respect, even though at first it is unpopular or worse. Reagan hammered away for decades. He was right all along, and his ideas won the day. Conservatives need to ditch the namby pamby opposition to Obama’s strident liberalism, and go ahead and be bold with ideas. At 46, I have always been aware that Social Security would not provide for my retirement, and I know I am part of a large cohort which has lived with that awareness for 25 years. So lets call a spade a spade, put it out there that these entitlements are transfer (welfare) programs, and attack them root and branch.
You must log in to post a comment.