What the Bailout Might Mean for the GOP
October 1, 2008 6 Comments
Over the last couple of months I’ve posted quite a bit from Ross Douthat, senior editor and writer at The Atlantic. I enjoy his daily blog on the topics of the day and I also have become more and more enamored with his pro-family conservatism that I would dare say closely resembles my own Progressive Conservatism.
In the coming months, once this election is behind us and with a President Obama more than likely sitting in the Oval Office, it is my sincere hope that the voices of moderates/centrists (Progressives?) will be key in a ‘rebranding’ of the GOP that almost everyone believes is on the horizon. Even if John McCain pulls off an underdog win, this rebranding is sure to take place, though with him at the helm of the Republican Party he will certainly have a louder voice than he would as a defeated Presidential candidate.
Some have suggested that with the proper amount of spin/storytelling the current bailout crisis-fiasco-mess-etc could be hung around the necks of the Democrats to position the GOP as a more populist party. This would be a role reversal that hasn’t been seen since the Dixiecrats were folded into the GOP in the 1960′s. It’s possible, though unlikely and Douthat has a good idea why:
Barring a massive, massive economic collapse that seems to result from Congressional inaction – Tyler Cowen’s worst-case scenario, in other words – I imagine that opposition to the bailout will probably be a political winner within the Republican Party over the next couple of election cycles, though anti-bailout sentiment seems more likely to translate into a straightforwardly libertarian populism than into the pro-family conservatism that Pethokoukis mentions, and that I’d obviously like to see. (I think a fusion of the two is possible, but that’s topic for another day.) It’s harder for me to see the bailout being used as a political weapon by Republicans against the Democrats, though, because it doesn’t feel as though the Dems have sufficient ownership over the current bill, and the current mess that’s produced it, for the national GOP to profit from any future anti-bailout backlash. Even if it ends up passing with way more support from Dems than from the GOP, I think this is George W. Bush’s bailout more than it’s Nancy Pelosi’s or Barney Frank’s, because, well, this is still George W. Bush’s economy. Republicans who think the public will blame the Democrats, and specifically a President Obama, if the bailout is massively unpopular come 2010 or 2012 are almost certainly kidding themselves. Whether it succeeds or fails, the bailout seems likely to be remembered as the last great fiasco of the Bush Era, not the first big-government fiasco of a new liberal moment, and there’s very little the Republicans can do to change this.
I continue to lament that the truth behind the origin of the subprime lending crisis is not being told often enough for the general public to pay attention, but it seems that ‘blame’ is taboo these days. So I remain unsure about how things will progress after November. My biggest fear that John McCain’s unique brand of leadership will be criticized if he is defeated which would be unfair and unwise. If McCain is defeated it will be a repudiation of his campaign strategies and the GOP in general, not so much his specifc ideals which remain sound.
I can’t imagine how the Republicans can skate away from this one. They are going to own this, I might add, as I think they should.
Again, I’m not cheering for either side but the truth of the matter is that throughout this administration, they have pretty much gotten to run it their way and it’s not turning out so well. It reminds me of Czar Nicholas II’s big error in taking direct command of the army. When things went to hell, it was he who bore the blame and the consequences.
The effect here is much the same. The Democrats have been a bunch of gutless wonders who have apparently had their backbones confiscated by security at the airport. I have no love for them, but because they have been such lapdogs to this administration (at least for the first 6 years), they will be less easily blamed for the misfortunes of our country. They will come out on top, if not looking heroic, at least not covered in scorn.
The argument that always gets my eyre is the, “It’s not our fault, it’s the previous guy’s” one. The blame that’s been leveled by the Republicans at those who warmed various seats of power prior to what ever calamity is befalling us at the moment is just such a lame cop-out. How’s this for an idea? FIX IT NOW! The blame-passing is just epic and all it does is make me want to slap them unconscious. It’s an excuse for not doing a good job. It’s an excuse for pandering to lobbyists. It’s an excuse for not wanting to be the one to risk ending a political career by doing something that they actually know is right and believe in.
That is why I think the Republican party will smart from this election for a very, very long time.
-Turkish Prawn
the Republican party will smart from this election for a very, very long time.
I don’t think so.
I think it’s mostly that the Republicans have proven to be so adept at re-inventing themselves over the years.
And I’m not so sure that Obama is distant enough from the far left of the Democratic Party for America.
I can explain to you the Democratic plan for America in two words:
Fruitcake Central.
People understand that. The people of Cape Girardeau know that West Hollywood is there if they want to live in West Hollywood, but they prefer to live in Cape Girardeau. They don’t want Cape Girardeau to be like West Hollywood.
They’re not out to stop West Hollywood from being West Hollywood, but the Democrats can’t accept Cape Girardeau as being Cape Girardeau. They want it re-shapen into West Hollywood.
I work on a union job site (Bechtel), and there are 2700 men on the day shift (and I say ‘men’ because a job does not “person” up…). I was standing in front of a group of men the other day, most of them (self included) with “Building Trades for Obama” stickers on their hard hats.
I said, “The way I call it, the Democratic Party has betrayed the working man.”
I got a lot of agreement, and not one dissenter.
The focus on the West Hollywood social agenda will doom Democrats soon enough.
Were they to stick to an economic agenda, they would do well. But that’s not where the money that’s driving the Democratic Party is at.
Bottom Line:
The Democrats are set to falter as soon as they win.
PT, TP,
I certainly go and back and forth myself on how I think an Obama presidency will fare. Liberals are more than likely going to get exactly what they’ve been wanting in November. Conservatives will have to endure a lot of gloating. It’s going to hurt a bit, but I firmly agree with PT that the GOP strength has always been that we are very good at ‘rebranding’ and learning from our mistakes. A second term for Obama is not a guarantee.
i was thinking about that a bit…
I believe that with Limbaugh, Coulter, and Malkin serving as the voice of the Republican Party, most people will see them as pathetic and disturbed.
Gingrich makes a much better spokesman. Or Douthat. Pat Buchanan.
But in all fairness, with the Democrats insistence on focusing on social issues, the ball is in the Republicans court.
The Republicans really need to get over the lionization of Reagan.
I have a lot of respect for Ford for refusing to be on the same ticket with him, and for calling Reagan a radical.
Sorry, but I missed something important.
Liberals are more than likely going to get exactly what they’ve been wanting in November.
I don’t think so at all.
Obama is black. And those minority Democrats tend to be a lot more conservative than other Democrats. Think muslims, hispanics (Catholics), and remember that an awful lot of blacks are baptists.
I know a fellow, a polsci prof, who has been studying conservative rhetoric over the past 50 yrs. A devoted Democrat, but he’s a great source of information on those older conservatives before my time. He’s read that stuff.
Anyway, he called Obama as a conservative a long time ago. Almost got banned from Kos for saying so.
No, the liberals are in for some heartbreak should Obama win. For all you might see on the ‘net, most Democrats are conservatives.
Think southern Illinois. They reliably vote Republican for the national elections, and even more reliably vote Democrat for state and local elections.
But they’re voting for a certain type of Democrat. Once some Dem comes along wanting to turn West Frankfort into West Hollywood, they will stampede like nobody’s business.
Another clue: Obama rejecting campaign funds from the traditionally Democratic groups, like NOW.
He’s not beholden to them. They didn’t put him in power.
I expect him to remind them of that.
Good points PT. I think you’re most likely right. The problem is that we keep associating Republicans with conservatism and Democrats with liberalism and it just aint so anymore. This batch in the White House now are anything by conservative and a lot of us who wear that moniker with pride feel very, very, VERY betrayed.
-Turkish Prawn