The GOP Needs to Run against the Last 16 Years

[DKW 86 6,548]

The GOP Needs to Run against the Last 16 Years

Read more at: http://www.nationalr...arles-c-w-cooke

There is no doubt that the manner in which Obama has behaved as president has contributed significantly to our present anxieties. Indeed, one can only imagine that students of political language will one day be fascinated by the gaping hole that has opened up between his campaign rhetoric and his governing prose. And yet, for all of the incumbent’s failures, it seems clear that America’s present funk did not begin in earnest on January 20, 2009. Rather, it can be dated back to the attacks of September 11, and to their various consequences. In a similar vein, it should by now be obvious to conservatives that the last American Golden Age obtained not during George W. Bush’s rather disappointing tenure, but in the mid- to late- 1990s, when the Republican party ran both houses of Congress and Democrat Bill Clinton ran the executive branch. If they are to run a successful campaign — and, crucially, if they are to capitalize upon the electorate’s present dissatisfactions — Republicans will need to acknowledge that they are not only running against the Obama administration, but against a broader national melancholia to which they themselves have contributed. RELATED: The GOP Pack’s Anti-Hillary Playbooks Perhaps the best-kept secret in modern American life is that most apolitical people do not in fact divide history into neat presidential-shaped chunks — as might a historian focused on a hereditary monarchy — but think instead about how they and their families are doing, about where the country is going, and about what they have recently lost or gained. However one cuts it, the last 15 years have been peculiar and they have been confusing. Economically, culturally, and spiritually, America is not where it was during its brief “holiday from history.” Rather, it is divided, under-confident, and lost. If the Right is looking for something to push against — and if its candidates are seeking an anxiety that it can promise to fix — it should be that general sense of malaise. Simply promising to replace Barack Obama is not going to cut it. There are Republican candidates who can do this and there are candidates who cannot, and, worryingly for the GOP, the primary among those “cannots” is the front-runner. Sure, Jeb Bush is an impressive man. But to nominate him at this moment would be to push Republicans in the wrong direction and to force them into doing something that they should really not want to do: namely, re-litigating – and perhaps even defending – the political decisions that were made between 2000 and 2008. Contrary to the myopic claims that popped up around the time of Barack Obama’s reelection, progressivism has not in fact taken hold of the American imagination. Despite his early wins, moreover, both Barack Obama and his agenda have descended into unpopularity and into fatigue. But it would be a considerable mistake to conclude from this that there is any great yearning to return to 2005. If they are offered a choice between “Clinton” — a name that evokes peace and prosperity — and “Bush” – a name that has been rather run through the mud – they will almost certainly choose the former. RELATED: Rubio Campaign Chief: Don’t Take Jeb’s Bait Instead, the conservative play should be to put up an attractive newcomer and to hope that he can persuade the electorate to turn its back on the established machine. Who should that be? Well, that depends primarily on aesthetics rather than policy. I take no pleasure in writing this: In an ideal world, our elections would be held on paper, our candidates would be expected to eschew the superficial, and the president would be heard from only if there were a war or a tsunami. Policy, and not television commercials, would rule the political roost. In the real world, however, messaging matters a great, great deal. If they are serious about winning in 2016, conservatives should make sure that they pick a candidate who is capable not only of tapping into the contemporary dissatisfaction, but of breaking with his own party’s past, too. Bush cannot do that.

Read more at: http://www.nationalr...arles-c-w-cooke

[cooltigger21 0]

The GOP needs to go back in time to 1994 and be that party again.

[Mims44 1,555]

The GOP needs to go back in time to 1994 and be that party again.

or mid to late 1800's

[DKW 86 6,548]

The GOP needs to go back in time to 1994 and be that party again.

Sorry, was editing the topic when you submitted before...

[cooltigger21 0]

The GOP needs to go back in time to 1994 and be that party again.

Sorry, was editing the topic when you submitted before...

no problem.

[icanthearyou 3,856]

The only two good GOP Presidents post WWII were Ike and H.W. The others have been disasters. The GOP continues to endorse rhetoric and ideology over intelligence and principle.

[autigeremt 5,833]

The only two good GOP Presidents post WWII were Ike and H.W. The others have been disasters. The GOP continues to endorse rhetoric and ideology over intelligence and principle.

What have we gotten from the other side? Much in the same.

We need a political game changer.

[icanthearyou 3,856]

The only two good GOP Presidents post WWII were Ike and H.W. The others have been disasters. The GOP continues to endorse rhetoric and ideology over intelligence and principle.

What have we gotten from the other side? Much in the same.

We need a political game changer.

I think we need a practical game changer. If we do not start leading the global economy rather than allowing China to lead, everything else becomes moot.

[quietfan 233]

Actually, I see this advice working well for either party. Any candidate that can convince the public he/she will change the direction we've traveled for the last 16 years will be popular with the people. Unfortunately, I don't see that person in any of the likely candidates from either party. Some of them we know up front don't have the ability to pull off such a change in direction, some will promise a change but never do it, some are more interested in continuing the current path their party is on. That's true for both Democrats and Republicans.

Primarily we need someone who can get the two sides working together again. It seems all politics is about these days is stubbornly denigrating the other side.

I was interested in the sentence of the linked article that said:

it should by now be obvious to conservatives that the last American Golden Age obtained not during George W. Bush’s rather disappointing tenure, but in the mid- to late- 1990s, when the Republican party ran both houses of Congress and Democrat Bill Clinton ran the executive branch.

I don't know if I'd go so far as to use the term "Golden Age", but Clinton and Republican leaders were able to strike the sort of compromises that seem unthinkable today. Some of that may have been due to power parity: Clinton had won big as the "change" candidate after 12 years of Reagan/Bush I, while Newt Gingrich's "Contract for America" success in the '94 election gave the Republicans the confidence to take risks. And both sides were politically savvy and pragmatic enough to know that without compromise, no one would get anything they wanted. I sort of hate to put it this way, given that the term generally has such negative meaning, but in a way Clinton and the Congressional Republicans understood the "Good Ol' Boy" philosophy: "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours, nobody crosses the line, and we'll both come out ahead." (It didn't hurt that the economy was running strong, either.)

Unfortunately, as I remember it (i.e., probably poorly) that attitude of give and take began to decay around the Monica Lewinsky era. I'm not saying the Lewinsky affair was the sole cause of the loss of civility, but the loss of civility--on both sides--was aggravated by the affair and its consequences. The increased divisiveness in Clinton's last years had begun before Monica-gate.

In any case, I don't see a viable candidate today in either party that is willing to meet someone half. It's more about appealing to your party's base and destroying the other side than meeting in the middle.

...just my rambling opinion.

[cooltigger21 0]

Itchy likes H.W. but doesn't like Reagan. That explains a lot. H.W. is most famous for agreeing to raise taxes in return for spending cuts from the democrats. Well the taxes got raised and the spending cuts, as usual, never materialized. It is a decision he came to regret politically and he has said himself it was a big mistake.

[quietfan 233]

I could have sworn H.W. was most famous for the 1st Gulf War, Desert Storm.

Or his broken campaign promise: "Read my lips, no new taxes!"

[cooltigger21 0]

I could have sworn H.W. was most famous for the 1st Gulf War, Desert Storm.

Or his broken campaign promise: "Read my lips, no new taxes!"

Well the first gulf war was indeed one of the things he was famous for. The no new taxes was what I was speaking of. He took the democrats in congress at their word that they would cut spending if he agreed to raise taxes. He made the mistake of believing them and paid the price. Reagan made the same mistake on amnesty. We got legalization but no security.

[icanthearyou 3,856]

Itchy likes H.W. but doesn't like Reagan. That explains a lot. H.W. is most famous for agreeing to raise taxes in return for spending cuts from the democrats. Well the taxes got raised and the spending cuts, as usual, never materialized. It is a decision he came to regret politically and he has said himself it was a big mistake.

Reagan's unconditional faith in supply side economics was, ignorant, naive, ultimately destructive. His application would have been much better for the economy and the country had he used a more conservative approach.

Like many, Reagan consistently confused cliched ideology with common sense.

[DKW 86 6,548]

Itchy likes H.W. but doesn't like Reagan. That explains a lot. H.W. is most famous for agreeing to raise taxes in return for spending cuts from the democrats. Well the taxes got raised and the spending cuts, as usual, never materialized. It is a decision he came to regret politically and he has said himself it was a big mistake.

Reagan's unconditional faith in supply side economics was, ignorant, naive, ultimately destructive. His application would have been much better for the economy and the country had he used a more conservative approach.

Like many, Reagan consistently confused cliched ideology with common sense.

Actually, at the time, Reagan did very very well.

He rebuilt a decimated military.

He won the Cold War with the Evil Empire.

He also jump started a huge recovery that employed millions and benefited a whole nation and most of the free world.

He policies worked back then, Post Carter.

We are not in the Post Carter World anymore.

The world has moved on.

[cooltigger21 0]

Itchy likes H.W. but doesn't like Reagan. That explains a lot. H.W. is most famous for agreeing to raise taxes in return for spending cuts from the democrats. Well the taxes got raised and the spending cuts, as usual, never materialized. It is a decision he came to regret politically and he has said himself it was a big mistake.

Reagan's unconditional faith in supply side economics was, ignorant, naive, ultimately destructive. His application would have been much better for the economy and the country had he used a more conservative approach.

Like many, Reagan consistently confused cliched ideology with common sense.

Actually, at the time, Reagan did very very well.

He rebuilt a decimated military.

He won the Cold War with the Evil Empire.

He also jump started a huge recovery that employed millions and benefited a whole nation and most of the free world.

He policies worked back then, Post Carter.

We are not in the Post Carter World anymore.

The world has moved on.

His policies would work today just as well as they did then IMO.

[icanthearyou 3,856]

Itchy likes H.W. but doesn't like Reagan. That explains a lot. H.W. is most famous for agreeing to raise taxes in return for spending cuts from the democrats. Well the taxes got raised and the spending cuts, as usual, never materialized. It is a decision he came to regret politically and he has said himself it was a big mistake.

Reagan's unconditional faith in supply side economics was, ignorant, naive, ultimately destructive. His application would have been much better for the economy and the country had he used a more conservative approach.

Like many, Reagan consistently confused cliched ideology with common sense.

Actually, at the time, Reagan did very very well.

He rebuilt a decimated military.

He won the Cold War with the Evil Empire.

He also jump started a huge recovery that employed millions and benefited a whole nation and most of the free world.

He policies worked back then, Post Carter.

We are not in the Post Carter World anymore.

The world has moved on.

So he should have utilized a more conservative application rather than a radical transformation?

[quietfan 233]

I've always had some reservations about giving Reagan too much credit for "winning" the Cold War.

True, he was president when the Soviets abandoned Afghanistan and their system began to collapse under its own weight. His increases in the U.S. military budget, including the "Star Wars" initiative, forced the U.S.S.R. into an expensive escalation of the arms race that they could ill afford. But economic collapse was the inevitable fate of the Soviet system regardless of who sat in the Oval Office since that system was based on unsound economic principles; seven other Presidents had sat in that office and held the Soviets in check since Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech; and Gorbachev deserves at least as much credit as Reagan in changing the course of the Russian ship of state.

I'm not saying Reagan doesn't deserve significant credit for the ending of the Cold War, but that end was not some great solo victory by a conquering hero as some Reagan worshipers want to pretend. The credit should be shared by many players from Truman through Reagan, including Gorbachev and the natural forces of economic reality, among others.