[Promoted by DHinMI: I've recently explored the possibility that the 2008 election could be somewhat like the 1932 election when FDR was elected with a huge majority, which was the start of a Democratic electoral coalition that lasted for decades; I'll revisit the subject on Sunday. Apparently the boys over at the National Review are also thinking we could be on the verge of a big Democratic win next year.]
I actually shelled out hard-earned cash to buy a copy of the National Review today ... seduced by the cover story, The Coming Cataclysm: Why the GOP Faces One and How to Avoid It, written by Ramesh Ponnuru and Richard Lowry. How could I resist? I had to see if their analysis was right, and more to the point, if they thought there really WAS a way to avoid it. I approached with a bit of trepidation, I must admit. I was worried that they might actually HAVE a silver bullet, or some trick up their sleeve, or even some grand new vision that would save things for them.
So what's their solution to avoiding the cataclysm?
The short answer is, with a wing and a prayer. The long answer is ... well, follow me into Conservative Land, if you can bear it. (This trip will not be as bad as you might think ...)
First of all, I was surprised to find that I agreed with most of the analysis in this article (entitled appropriately The Grim Truth). The authors seem to recognize their dire straits:
The plain truth is that the party faces a cataclysm, a rout that would give Democrats control of the White House and enhanced majorities in the House and the Senate. That defeat would, in turn, guarantee the confirmation of a couple of young, liberal Supreme Court nominees, putting the goal of moving the Court in a more constitutionalist direction out of reach for another generation.
(Yess!!!, the reader whispers under her breath, with fingers crossed ....)
And horror of horrors:
It would probably also mean a national health-insurance program that would irrevocably expand government involvement in the economy and American life, and itself make voters less likely to turn toward conservatism in the future.
(And why would that be? the reader wonders ... might it be because people will LIKE such a health program, and might actually find it BENEFICIAL to their lives? Ah then, the fear is well-founded! ... But I digress.)
Much of the article is a reality check for head-in-the-sand Republicans. To wit:
Pollster Scott Rasmussen has found that the percentage of Americans who consider themselves Republicans declined steadily from 37.1 in the 2004 election to 30.8 in May of this year. ... Other polls have had more ominous numbers. In a Pew Research Center poll earlier this year that asked people which party they identified with or leaned toward, Democrats led Republicans 50 to 35 percent.
Then there's a section on how the 2008 landscape favors the Democrats, from fewer seats to defend (and "vulnerable Democratic seats are hard to find"), to the huge Democratic advantage in fund-raising.
And there is a correct understanding that the GOP is losing out on issues:
The issue terrain isn't any better. The great Republican triad of welfare, crime and taxes is worn out. Welfare reform and the dramatic decline of crime in the 1990s ended the first two as Republican "wedge issues" [reader wonders if the authors believe the former is responsible for the latter ... ], and there is little demand for more tax cuts after Bush repeatedly cut them.
and:
It's almost impossible to exaggerate the Democratic advantage on domestic issues: If it's an issue, they lead. According to Rasmussen, they lead as the party that people trust more to handle health care by 32 points, Social Security by 16 points, education by 13 points, and government ethics by 8 points. The Democratic lead extends even into traditional Republican territory. In a July Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, Democrats had a 25-point advantage over the GOP on cutting deficits, 16 points on controlling spending, 15 points on dealing with the economy, and 9 points on taxes. [cognitive dissonance afflicts the reader: these things are "traditional Republican territory"? Even after Clinton gave us a surplus and spending discipline? ... But I digress ...]
Even the improving situation in Iraq does not give the authors too much hope:
Republicans hope that progress in Iraq will bring about a dramatic improvement in the national political environment. [hmmm .. for whom?] We share that hope. But even if events in Iraq go well, we will have plenty of days of bad news. The public will continue to be impatient about our engagement there, and unhappy about how we got there in the first place. If Republicans are lucky, their national-security advantage will reassert itself. But it is unlikely to recover to its past size. [translation: the American people have wised up to us, alas.]
Even values voters have skadoodled:
That leaves the social issues, which have been a major strength of the Republican party for four decades. By themselves, however, they are unlikely to offset Republican disadvantages on foreign and domestic policy. ... In the 2004 election, "values voters" split 80-20 for Bush over Kerry. If that election had been fought over the War on Terror and health care alone, George W. Bush would have lost it. Does anyone expect either issue to work better for Republicans in 2008?
AND SO ON. This amazingly reality-based assessment does not even shy away from the likely truth about Congressional low ratings:
The Congress has even lower ratings than President Bush, which offers Republicans further hope. But that hope, too, is illusory. Some of the decline in congressional approval ratings since Pelosi's crew took over surely stems from the Left's discovery that Congress cannot stop the war (or end the Bush administration). That disillusionment will not generate any new votes for Republicans, or even keep Democrats from turning out to vote for president. ... It isn't as though hostility to the Democratic Congress has led to any public demand that Republicans retake control of it.
OK ... so now we know that Republicans (at least these Republicans) are aware of their desperate circumstances, and have a fairly realistic assessment of them. Now ... what do they intend to do about it?
Here is the heart of it:
The most plausible path toward a renewed center-right majority involves consolidating and deepening the trend of the decades before 2006: holding on to as much of the existing conservative coalition as possible while adding more downscale voters who lean right on social issues.
There you have it. The grand Republican plan to return to their former glory is to hoodwink ever more poor folk into believing that the Republican Party has their best interests at heart.
They continue:
That task will force conservatives to explain how free-market policies can address the economic anxieties of this group of voter.
Heh ... good luck with that.
We don't have to support "universal coverage" [heaven forbid!] on health care. But we ought to talk more about health care than about the budget; and when we talk about health care, we should explain how Republican policies will help people keep and control their own health care.
Oh ... you mean that program where people get to set aside a portion of their income to help pay their medical expenses? Those "health saving accounts?" I'm sure that will go over great with those "downscale voters" who are barely making it from paycheck to paycheck. Oh but I forgot -- those folks share your values! I'm sure they will find that a great comfort when declaring bankruptcy owing to overwhelming medical expenses.
I now fully realize how bereft of ideas, compassion, and good sense the Republican Party is. I feel more hopeful than ever about our chances -- not that we should take anything for granted, but listen Democratic candidates: the GOP does not have a clue. There is NO reason, and NO excuse, to be afraid of them. Get out and trumpet your ideas and your passion and your plans! The election is yours for the taking.