Republican economic conservatives now blame social conservatives for losing the elections. Hawks blame President Bush for not executing a drive-by war in Iraq. The ends are blaming each other for not being the middle, and the middle blames both ends.
The Republican rout of 2006 was not about ends or middles. It occurred because the party ran on symbolism, having sent substance packing years ago. I have warned the party repeatedly this would happen and precisely why it would happen [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] [10], [11], [12] . The key to the loss: Republicans blew the family values mandate that put them in power, blamed it on social conservatives, and then kicked them out of the tent.
Republicans did not listen, and 2006 rolled out exactly as I predicted. In fact, election night was so predictably boring that I nearly did not bother to attend Senator Jim Talent’s election-night campaign party to witness the stunned faces and see him give his concession speech. He deserved the loss: he personally told me that the things we want are “not federal issues”.
To date, not one overpaid professional pundit has called the election post-mortem correctly. It seems that political horse-flies might not be worth the salaries they earned riding the party into the electoral disaster they now do not wish to talk about. Cats never stray far from the food bowl, either.
The moderate and conservative social grassroots base is shocked because they have been increasingly locked out ever since Congress enacted the Personal Responsibility and Work Act of 1996.
Even Town Hall has it wrong. Town Hall stopped publishing serious social policy articles a few months ago. It even cancelled the logins of at least two social conservatives I know to make serious social issue thinking invisible. Town Hall views social policy as a mere culture clash between feminists and the Christian Coalition. It has not yet learned that moral wrestling matches have nothing to do with creation of sensible social policy. Discarding scholarly policy thinking into the “Faith and Family†section (or not publishing it at all) prevents the development of intelligent moderate policy that would migrate America from the misery of welfare to the success of marriage.
Socially-motivated voters simply gave up on the party. This is one hell of a lot of voters, my friends. Many did not feel comfortable voting the “party line†that RNC-controlled internet mouthpieces told them to. They went elsewhere or did not vote at all. A few I interviewed voted a straight Democratic ticket because they were so incensed over insolent Republican ignorance on core social issues. The take-away from this election cycle: the internet is a very powerful electoral tool, but it will not work if you run it like the Chinese media.
Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman lead the party into this primordial tar pit. Ken even admitted to me that he does not know enough about social issues to even make a comment. Everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Don Rumsfeld argued day and night that the war was the right thing.
It was a fatal tactical mistake. War is a long slog. The gory details distract most people from intelligent thinking about anything except the gory details. A few scandals, mostly dicey and minor in nature, were wrassled endlessly in the trenches, adding more drag on Republicans.
The 2006 platform was a doomed campaign of externals.. Not one major item in the platform agenda leading up to the election directly affects a majority of voters in their homes and pocketbooks. Even a first-year political intern knows that if voters don’t have something selfish to vote for, they vote on the externals. Pete Russo knows that you can’t win the World Series without a good offense. Republicans literally took the plate without a bat in hand.
Party leadership developed no buoyant issues for Congress to work with — issues of magnetic import to focus voters on their own personal interests (the personal is the political, before anything else). Since voters had no reason to vote Republican, they didn’t. It is so simple, folks.
What could possibly be a “buoyant issue� Party leadership forgot that “family values†powered the landslide of 1994. “Family values†speaks to all voters, resonating with what most voters know: marriage is on the rocks, and it directly hurts them and a lot of other people. They want reform and relief (which the reactive Personal Responsibility and Work Act of 1996 [PROWA] clearly did not accomplish).
“Family Values†are just as magnetic today as they were in 1994. While many voters hold opinions about the war, nearly all are predominantly invested in things that affect their lives every day. Republicans failed to serve this very powerful constituency, and hurt it by enacting PROWA. In classic “Abilene Paradox†form, Republicans single-handedly defeated themselves.
Dick Armey has all the wrong reasons for claiming that Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, and James Dobson are “elephants in the roomâ€ÂÂ. All three still improperly blame the feminist revolution on men, and would take PROWA to the next unimaginable level (as would some radical Democrats).
If there are any men to be blamed, the responsibility rests squarely on the shoulders of congresspeople who enacted feminist-inspired laws expanding destruction of the countless husbands they subsequently blame. They forgot one thing: lots of women, grandmothers, and young adult children are upset about it too.
Expansion of the Great Society under PROWA is why the budget cuts and tax reforms that Mr. Armey dreams about are so unaffordable. Health care, social security, and medicare will additionally remain mired in the swamps of feminism until Congress listens to the legitimate marriage movement.
Republicans accidentally did do the right thing ejecting much of the so-called “Christian Right†from the tent. Ralph Reed, Dr. Dobson, and even Promise Keeper’s president Paul McCartney told them that men were somehow responsible for the results of the radical women’s sexual liberation movement. We see here that the religious right is just as dangerous as feminist radicals when they idiotically utter biblical remonstrances blaming men for what the National Organization for Women wrought.
Unfortunately, Republicans also walled off the grassroots base. Washington does not listen to anybody lacking a congressional pass and a big fat check. Much of the grassroots knows better, and took great offense after having worked feverishly to set Congress straight for the past decade. Throwing this baby out with the bathwater cost them the elections.
That Republican leaders failed to listen to the legitimate marriage movement and the true-blue grassroots is entirely their responsibility. Nothing has negatively impacted more Americans over the past twelve years than the “New Great Societyâ€ÂÂ. While few voters understand the laws and bureaucracies involved, they do know that federal policy is the problem.
The size of this motivated voting block is tremendous. I have previously estimated that it is at least 65% of voters. A new survey “The Changing Shape of the American Familyâ€ÂÂ, proves the existence of this diaspora, which in fact may be substantially larger than my earlier estimate:
“Nearly nine in ten (88 percent) of U.S. adults say divorce has a negative impact on maintaining a stable American family life. In comparison, 53 percent feel that way about same-sex couples, and 50 percent say dual-career households negatively impact families. Virtually all U.S. adults (99 percent) acknowledge that families have changed over the past generation, and 70 percent say those changes have been for the worse”.
In the survey, 85% of Americans say they have little or no knowledge about basic family law issues. While most Americans might not be lawyers, they do know they don’t like being run over by big-government garbage trucks, or left standing on the end of the single-parent family gangplank they were shove on to.
Jonathan Rausch points out how Republicans flattened their tires all by themselves: “The rise of interest groups has made American government utterly dysfunctional. Washington is unable to trim back — let alone eliminate — virtually any government program, no matter how obsolete.â€ÂÂ
A portender of the future: The Republican party has not yet cleaned house of 2008 presidential contenders who still blame men for the feminist revolution, which means they do not dare to bring up family values, because they know they cannot fool the social voter base again. This leaves Mitt Romney the only viable candidate. Since Romney will not tag the nomination, Republicans have already lost the 2008 races, no matter what else they do.
The above reveals the political dilemma faced by Republicans and Democrats. Voter desires have clearly not changed in this regard. If neither party steps up to this plate, a viable third party working for the voters will inevitably develop and wallop the other two.
The 2008 elections depend decisively on a vibrant social re-awakening. This holds true for both Republicans and Democrats. The re-awakening must refocus on goals that brought about the 1994 landslide, but this time focus on proper policy changes.
Another winning policy change I am calling for: the vast majority of those dealing with a chemically-dependent spouse want (and need) intervention assistance to help get that person into treatment. The last thing a spouse wants (or needs) is the nasty divorce guaranteed by the Violence Against Women Act. Why wreck families while denying spouses powerful tools that will save lives and marriages?
Washington must now look to the legitimate marriage movement to frame solid social policy reforms. The primary goal must be to migrate from the entitlement-driven-divorce-state towards a natural state of heterosexual marriage as the civil norm. We must replace expensive anti-family programs with far-less-costly programs that positively help spouses work through the normal problems and processes of marriage and aging — when they ask for help. We must expect marital responsibility and economically penalize behavior irresponsible to marriage.
A true merger between thoughtful moderates and the legitimate marriage movement will deliver what most Americans want and need – leaving radicals at both ends of the spectrum to argue their never-ending culture war to the death.
Many rewards will result from this plan. A 10% decrease in the divorce and illegitimacy translates painlessly into a $50-billion dollar budget savings. Then we can choose between cutting taxes, robustly controlling immigration, fighting the war on terror, or funding strategic alternative-energy research – all on a balanced budget or better. Any politician can understand the tremendous import of these relationships.
A word to the wise: The party that fails to take ownership of a renewed, vigorous pro-family policy initiative in time for the 2008 elections will find itself listed in the Who’s Who of political idiots and has-beens. The social voter base is energized, up for grabs, and it means serious business. The first party to step up to the plate and do the right thing has already won a landside victory in 2008. And, I will be the first policy analyst in line to help them accomplish it.
————————————————-
