The Republican National Committee has released its “autopsy” on the 2012 election and outline of how to win future federal elections, and it appears to pull no punches. But I have a bone to pick with the way it is being reported, for instance by the Associated Press story linked by my AJC colleague Jim Galloway:
In calling for the GOP to develop “a more welcoming conservatism,” the report rebukes those who remain in denial about the seriousness of the problem and those who are unwilling to broaden the party’s appeal.
A just-concluded gathering of conservatives in Washington cheered speaker after speaker who urged the GOP to stick to its guns and, instead, largely blamed the 2012 defeat on Romney or the way he ran his campaign.
I don’t know whether the AP reporter was at CPAC, the “just-concluded gathering” to which the story referred, and which I attended. But that second paragraph, in my view, completely misrepresents the take-away from the conference.
To say the attendees “cheered speaker after speaker who urged the GOP to stick to its guns” is about a gross a generalization as I can think of. What does it mean? That the attendees want the GOP to ignore the kind of reforms mentioned in the report? That none of the speakers, or at least none of the ones who were “cheered,” urged any changes?
Nonsense. Utter and complete nonsense.
The winner of the CPAC straw poll for possible 2016 presidential candidates was Sen. Rand Paul, who said the GOP had grown “stale and moss-covered,” voiced support for “liberty in both the economic and personal sphere” and specifically referred to the distaste the “Facebook generation” has for jail sentences for nonviolent drug offenders. Is that sticking to one’s guns?
Or how about the loud cheers for Sen. Marco Rubio, who finished second to Paul in the straw poll and has been one of the most prominent Republicans working on the kind of “comprehensive immigration reform” the authors of the RNC report suggested? Or the fact that the members of the most prominent panel on immigration at CPAC scarcely considered the possibility of not reforming immigration in a way that includes offering legal status for most of the illegal immigrants already present in the U.S.? Is that sticking to one’s guns?
It wasn’t the lack of minority outreach — which nearly every possible presidential contender mentioned, with former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush perhaps hitting the point hardest — to which CPAC speakers and attendees were clinging. Indeed, the person who gained the most stature in the conservative movement from his CPAC appearance was probably Benjamin Carson, a black neurosurgeon from Maryland (you may have heard his recent speech at the National Prayer Breakfast) who spoke eloquently and forcefully, drawing extended ovations when he hinted at wanting to run for office soon.
It wasn’t an obsession with debts and deficits, which Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal knocked in his speech. Nor was it coziness with Big Business, which most of the aspiring candidates said the GOP must jettison.
I don’t mean to pick on the AP reporter, but such generalizations only feed the idea that conservative activists are hostile to the kinds of reforms the RNC report urges. In fact, one of my earlier blog posts from CPAC described the debate about consultants’ role in torpedoing GOP electoral chances as the one with “the most passionate disagreements” because there was hardly any disagreement about the need to make the other changes mentioned above.
Perhaps the speakers got preview copies of the report and took their cues from it. Certainly, their words last week were only that — words, still to be confirmed by actions. (The same holds true, let’s note, for the RNC report.) Obviously, the GOP since 1992 has experienced the same record of string of presidential-election difficulties the Democrats faced from 1968 through 1988, and it has to change the way it approaches the electorate in some key ways.
But the good news, if you want to see Republicans elected, is that some of the party’s brightest emerging stars are already staking out ground that moves in the direction of change. This necessary process has already begun.
– By Kyle Wingfield
414 comments Add your comment
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 19th, 2013
2:33 pm
curious – Ford pushed for air support and military aid. The liberals told him no. A focused air campaign would have crushed the north and bought the South about two more years, same as it did in 1973, to strengthen their defenses.
curious
March 19th, 2013
2:37 pm
Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
That explains why we invaded Grenada.
I believe we can take Cuba, too. Think of the tourist possibilities.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 19th, 2013
2:40 pm
“That explains why we invaded Grenada. ”
I’d hardly call Grenada an “invasion”, curious. More like protecting American lives in an unstable situation.
But feel free to hyperbolize all you want.
Drudge
March 19th, 2013
2:44 pm
I hear the constant argument that not sticking to our guns on items like gay marriage, etc, will alienate the more conservative base – i just don’t buy it. Conservatives of all flavors are not going to up and vote for Obama because their candidate was too moderate. The question is “which one more closely aligns with me” – not – “which one fits every core value of mine exactly?” It’s a fool’s paradise to allow prosperity and liberty to disintegrate because you don’t like the idea of gay marriage or reasonable immigration policies. Rand gets it, my parents don’t – it is that easy.
curious
March 19th, 2013
2:49 pm
Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
“I’d hardly call Grenada an “invasion”, curious. More like protecting American lives in an unstable situation.’
It may have been small, but every article I’ve seen referred to it as an Invasion.
breckenridge
March 19th, 2013
2:53 pm
“I would rather see SS cut slowly so everyone gets a little rather than the current generation getting fully funded and you and I only get 75%. Of course, 75% is better than nothing.”
I agree with that approach, it’s very sensible. I’m still a ways away from Social Security eligibility and there are going to be one heck of a lot of boomers retiring between now and then. It’d be nice if there is a little bit left over my age group. But I’m certainly not counting on it.
breckenridge
March 19th, 2013
2:57 pm
“I think the probability of a serious set of adverse effects as a result of our fiscal situation, if we don’t address it, at some unpredictable time is extremely high, and one of the kinds of effects it would have is a severe bond and currency market crisis. And whether that’s a year off in time or five years off in time or 10 years off in time is absolutely unpredictable.” Robert Rubin, Former Treasury Secretary, Clinton Administration, 3-14-2013.
middle of the road
March 19th, 2013
2:58 pm
“I agree with that approach, it’s very sensible. I’m still a ways away from Social Security eligibility and there are going to be one heck of a lot of boomers retiring between now and then.”
Unfortunately, as a boomer, I am VERY CLOSE to retirement age.
middle of the road
March 19th, 2013
2:59 pm
If there is not Social Security when I retire, after I have paid into it for 45 years, it ain’t gonna be pretty.
middle of the road
March 19th, 2013
3:02 pm
“Are you under the illusion that SS and Medicare are, today, self funded? They are not. Both programs now spend more than they take in.”
I know that. SS puts out somewhat more than it takes in (just started a couple of years ago). It will get worse. Medicare spends A LOT more than it takes in; that is why Medicare taxes need to be increased to cover the expenditures. Or do we just let Grandma die?
breckenridge
March 19th, 2013
3:06 pm
“If there is not Social Security when I retire, after I have paid into it for 45 years, it ain’t gonna be pretty.”
I know exactly where you’re coming from.
Another issue that concerns me, since I socked money into a Roth IRA for about 10 years and done quite well in that account, is whether Congress will actually be able to keep their filthy mitts off those tax-free dollars as promised when it’s time to claim them.
breckenridge
March 19th, 2013
3:09 pm
“If the electoral process doesn’t produce some common ground for constructive policy decisions, then I fear that, sooner rather than later, variable pressures will come to bear on monetary policy and some combination of a weak dollar and rising interest rates. Financial institutions and markets … would then again be in jeopardy.” Paul Volcker, Former Federal Reserve Chairman (1979-1987) 3-15-2013.
breckenridge
March 19th, 2013
3:10 pm
And somebody called me Mr. Doom and Gloom…………..
sailfish
March 19th, 2013
3:12 pm
middle
It seems pretty simple to me and that is this; of all the entities that our gov’t owes money to, the american people vis a vie social security, is first in line for payment. All the rest can fall in behind.