Looks Bad for Republicans

I have successfully predicted the outcome of every presidential election since 1960. My official predictions have never been made during the primaries and I am not thinking about changing that now. But I have to say that it does not look good for Republicans.

I agree with a point made by David Frum in his book “Comeback,” which may be the Republican response to “The Neglected Voter,” by David Kuhn. Kuhn wanted to create a new roadmap for Democratic candidates to capture white male voters. Frum attempts to tell Republicans what’s wrong with them and how to fix it. It may be too late.

Frum recognizes the huge impact Ronald Reagan had on the politics of the party. Reagan’s success became the blueprint and the preferred formula of spin-doctors and candidates. It’s old now. Discussing Frum’s view on neo-Reagan politics, Mona Charin of Jewish World Review writes, Ronald Reagan “is no longer relevant to the challenges we face as a party or a nation. He was perfect for his time. But that time has passed.”

The Republican presidential field is composed of old boys who grew their careers on Reagan political soil. It gets worse than just being old. Post-Reagan Republicanism became associated with complacency, corruption, and lack of imagination. As much as Republicans hate to face it, and will consider this blasphemous, it is part of the Reagan baggage that all the old boys carry with them.

Reagan era family law reform (a.k.a. “welfare reform”) is the best example. It literally destroyed the institutions of marriage and family. Legally, they have been transformed into huge pork-barrel government programs. Billions upon tens of billions of dollars now leak from the public treasury for every imaginable scheme; designed to do nothing but steal from the treasury. Family rights no longer exist. The power of government to intrude is now absolute. State courts had to provide new constitutional analyses of marriage, and some determined, now that marriage is formally defined as a public program, that acceptance of same-sex marriage is mandated. (Related article.)

The Democrats can get more attention these days because their race is more interesting. Front runner Hillary Clinton, who obviously could not have gotten into the race at all on her own, maintains a lead created early by her husband’s political machine. Barack Obama, who is about 40 light years smarter and more charismatic, has won some and is closing the gap nationally. They both appear to have special bonds with their constituencies that give them immunity to the problem.

Clinton’s reputation for simple-mindedness seems most obvious on the issue of government health insurance. The probability of any meaningful discussion coming from this candidate is pretty close to zero. She promises more, more, and more; to the point that it seems more a Monty Python skit than real political debate. She can express concern for the American family and in the sentences that follow explain exactly how and why she plans to further exploit and destroy it. Her followers will imagine that she’s just being “liberal.” She attracts a vast army of voters, such as government employees and program beneficiaries who directly benefit from more. Thanks to Reagan era “welfare reform” this now includes middle and upper-class women. And in the minds of many independents, accusations of dishonesty and corruption will backfire because running for president (sob, sob) “is hard.”

Barack Obama is a black man. As the Clinton machine makes race an issue it deepens the perception that Obama’s view of family issues is focused on the “black family” and issues of traditional welfare. This makes it far more likely that Obama’s discussion of family issues will be perceived in much the same way Reagan’s welfare reform was misunderstood; as a call for personal responsibility and reduction of welfare dependency. How ironic that Republican politics put a Democrat in a position to so easily trump the “conservative values” card.

Meanwhile, Republicans seem intent on maintaining a decade old debate strategy on family issues that came about because much of the public now understands the reforms with 20/20 hindsight. The issue must be avoided. They will lie, deny, blame activist judges, feign ignorance, suggest increased spending, change the subject, leave the issue (of what is now federal law) to states, suggest superficial constitutional amendments (related article), and occasionally attack their victims, and most often make a twisted Hillary face and refuse to give a meaningful response; further antagonizing and alienating the very people they need to win an election.

This entry was posted on Thursday, January 24th, 2008 at 6:25 am and is filed under Conservatism, Family, Fatherhood, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. | 37 views | Trackback | Print this page |

| More from Roger F. Gay