For GOP, Tea Protests Offer An Alluring, But Risky, Lifeline

The tea bag protests that marked tax day on Wednesday represented an opportunity and a risk for the Republican Party. Opportunity because they offered a jolt of energy for a battered party after two dismal elections. Risk because they supplied at best only a partial answer to what ails the GOP. Fueling anger is not a strategy.
There was certainly a sense of deja vu to the demonstrations. Was it a faint echo of 1978 and the Proposition 13, anti-tax movement in California that helped bring Ronald Reagan to the presidency two years later? Was it the first sign of revival of the leave-us-alone, anti-government coalition that sprang up in the early 1990s and helped bring Republicans to power in the House and the Senate in 1994?
Those movements helped propel Republicans to new heights. Reagan cemented what turned out to be a long period of conservative ascendance in American politics, one whose roots were in Barry Goldwater's loss and Richard M. Nixon's victories but that did not begin to reach political maturity until the Gipper was elected.
The 1994 landslide took the party further, reshaping the Republican coalition and altering the balance of power. Though the South had been trending Republican in presidential elections, it took Newt Gingrich and his brash leadership to drive those voting habits down to House races. The 1994 election consolidated the South in GOP hands. Over time, the region became the party's geographical and ideological heart.
Once again, however, Republicans are in the wilderness. In the four years after George W. Bush won his second term as president, Republicans surrendered power in the House and the Senate and then gave up the White House. Their numbers have fallen not just in elected officials but among the rank and file; fewer people now identify themselves as members of the Grand Old Party.
The party is in decline, and the Southern-based conservatism that it projected has fallen into disfavor elsewhere. Beyond President Obama's electoral map, which turned red to blue in some surprising places, the Democrats' success in congressional and senatorial elections in 2006 and 2008 also speaks to the decline.
Four years ago, political analysts talked about Republican inroads in rural America and the exurban counties outside big cities in describing the party's strengths. Today, the Democrats' coalition looks to be the more robust.
Democratic success in the suburbs (and in some of those same exurbs), particularly outside the South, has for now trumped those earlier Republican advances. Add to that the reversal of Republican gains made among Hispanics early in Bush's presidency, and the portrait of GOP retrenchment becomes even more vivid.
The Republican Party's road back requires reassembling its conservative base, which was badly fractured during the final years of Bush's presidency. But real success will require a new effort to reach beyond that base to disaffected moderate Republicans and especially to independent voters who have moved decisively in the direction of Obama and the Democrats.
The tea party protests offer the GOP an appealing lifeline, an energized cadre of indeterminate size. They may be a one-time phenomenon or the start of something larger. The potency of the Republican prescription of tax cuts and small government has lessened with the failures of the Bush years and the scope of the economic crisis. Can it be restored? Much depends on the success or failure of Obama's economic policies.
Republican leaders are gambling that Obama is making sizable miscalculations on the public's appetite for bigger government and bigger deficits. For now the president and his policies remain popular, but it is early in the experiment. Obama must be mindful of overreaching, a problem that has affected winning parties in the past. Republican leaders have seized on the tea protests as a sign that he is doing just that.
Given the state of the GOP, any sign of life in the coalition is alluring. The question is what Republicans have learned from their recent failures. How much do they acknowledge the limits of an anti-government message? How much do they acknowledge that the country that elected Obama president and gave Democrats their majorities in Congress has changed culturally and demographically from the one that gave Republicans their victories a decade ago?
Gingrich got his party partway to power in 1994; Bush took it the rest of the way there in 2000. But as a presidential candidate, Bush had to distance himself from the Gingrich wing at times to make himself acceptable more broadly. That was an early sign of the limitations of the coalition that emerged in the 1990s.
In power under Bush, Republicans struggled to adapt their anti-government, culturally conservative philosophy to the practical demands of governing and to a changing country. The party split internally over spending and immigration, and lost the confidence of independents and moderates over Iraq and cultural issues.
Steve Schmidt, who was a top adviser to  John McCain in the presidential campaign, said Friday that the party must rethink its opposition to same-sex marriage to appeal to voters, especially outside the South. His decision to speak out reflects a concern among moderates that the party has become too culturally conservative to win national elections.
For now, standing back and saying no to Obama may be enough. But opposition to the president's policies represents an incomplete message for a party seeking to regain power. Republicans still must confront larger questions of how they can appeal nationally and how they will govern if given the opportunity again.

In my opinion this is a very


In my opinion this is a very pertinent and sensible GOP site.

One of the great things about Ronald Reagan that seems to have been lost in popular history (certainly in terms of ultra-conservative glorification of what he represents to them) is that, both as Governor of California and as President, Reagan was a very practical leader. He understood how to work the room and present his vision, but he also had an intuitive understanding when to compromise, and when to tac a little with the wind. He knew government wasn't well suited to manage the economy, and he knew government was the worst sort of problem solver, but he knew when it could give things a little kick, both with his tax cuts of 1981 and his adjustment of 1982. In short, he wasn't captured by ideology, he adapted to the facts of the situation and, well, led.

What makes me nervous is that Obama (and Congressional Democrats) are digging a hole so huge that no amount fix will ever be enough. I fault Obama's leadership for not reigning in his party in Congress, or being more forceful in holding their feet to the fire over necessary stimulus versus plain, old fashioned, pork. I had hoped for something a little better, but there it is. I fault Congressional Democrats for treating their majority as a license to plunder the public trough.

People are tired of extremism, because they recognize that extremists of both the left and the right don't see people, they see numbers. They live in a world centered on broad, idylic concepts and seem oblivious to the effects that their concept driven polciies have on ordinary people. In that vein ideology has failed because it just doesn't live in the real world. It seems to me that some of the teabaggers are reacting to that. They're tired of being turned into poll numbers, focus groups and "values voters" when they are flesh and blood human beings with real concerns and problems; problems that politicians seem loath to address except with the tired old formulas of the left and right (spend and tax cut).

Two of the greatest lies that we have been sold over the last decade are that you can spend without needing to save (i.e. that economic growth is endless and without a down side, so go shopping) and that life should be painless (i.e. sacrifice is out of date, or someone elses responsibility). Neither point works in reality, and we are living today with the result.

I suspect if Ronald Reagan were in the White House now (and younger than 98) we would be seeing a little more common sense and a dose of well deserved medicine. We wouldn't be getting this spending spree at the worst possible time to be running up endless debt.

I believe that the Tea Party


I believe that the Tea Party demonstrations were successful at showing discontent for a Presidential spending plan that rivals, if not surpasses, his predecessor's. At the same time, demonstrators have been called 'racist' (which, of course is ridiculous) by liberal talking heads (that's about the nicest I can speak of Janeane Garafolo). I believe that the GOP needs to distance itself from it's more radical elements and focus, instead, on the more important things which affect this country such as financial responsibility and the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. When I was a teenager, Ronald Reagan was President. What impressed me about him was that his administration seemed to have a common sense approach to business and foreign policy which has been lacking of late. The public is growing very tired of extremism, from both sides of the political fence, a more, moderate, common sense, approach would bring voters back into the fold. As a moderate, I was attracted initially to the Democrats but, after the November election, radicals from the left have been turning on moderates and are working hard to remove them from the party. It would be beneficial for the Republicans to embrace these moderates (such as Arlen Specter) if they intend to win back the nation's confidence.

'For now, standing back and


'For now, standing back and saying no to Obama may be enough.'
No, if the GOP isn't grown up enough to take it's element of responsibility for the last few years of the Bush administration - especially it's role in the credit crunch - I think it will bode very badly for the GOP.
Obama wasn't the choice of many Republicans but he was the choice of some of them voted for - if America was at war the GOP would stand united with Obama - the credit crunch is a war and the GOP would do itself a favour in standing by Obama at a time of crisis.
Once the crisis is behind us the GOP can stand firm one more...

What kind of a GOP site is


What kind of a GOP site is this?

It is a GOP splinter group


It is a GOP splinter group that is home to liberals. masquerading as Republicans.

Typical comment of the right


Typical comment of the right wing controlling the party. Agree with them, or they label "liberals. masquerading as Republican". If the current trend continues, the right wing will continue to dominate the party, and the Democrats will continue to win the general elections. Do we need to forfeit the old Republican party, letting the Democrats take over, as the only way to minimize the power of those right wing voices who want make the rest of us conform to their ways of thinking? Maybe so.

Post new comment
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

audiovi_ual:

In Your State

Find out what the RLC-PAC is doing in your state!

User login

alphabetica_: