So the latest rock-star from the tea party knows what's wrong with the republicans. It's---wait for it--it's about "winning the argument, and explaining their message harder". So basically he's using the Erik Eriksson argument.
Anyway, since Ted Cruz is a "very serious person" and since with his background to be fair, he's not an "anti-intellectual", it's worth seeing what he has to say. In this diary I also explore some of what it means to be a liberal at very basic levels, but it's still interesting to think about once in a while.
The article is here at the Washington post, but we can look at some of his arguments below the fold.
He starts on the 47%:
Nothing better illustrates that failure than “47 percent.” Not the comment itself nor the good and decent person who uttered it, but, rather, the overall narrative of Republicans. Voters were convinced that the GOP is the party of “the rich” and that Democrats are the party of everybody else.
That characterization is false, but as long as a majority of Americans believe that Republican policies do not benefit them, Republicans will continue to lose.
And far too many Republicans believe it as well.
So let me suggest an alternative course: opportunity conservatism. Republicans should conceptualize and articulate every domestic policy with a single-minded focus on easing the ascent up the economic ladder.
But it's not just that the GOP is seen as the "party of the rich". I think it's that Obama successfully put across that they're basically about "you're on your own". This is something Obama did very well during the campaign. This is something that minority communities especially will not be comfortable with. The GOP will have to do some deep soul searching to get around that challenge. Denying that you're only about the rich is an easy denial to make. The other forces an introspection of what the entire philosophy of conservatism is all about.
As for being about opportunity--isn't that Paul Ryan's supposed premise? It's not like they haven't tried to go the opportunity route before.
The other thing about the 47% was the dripping contempt for "them" for "those moochers". That repels people. This is not really that hard.
If the GOP wants to think the 47% problem was only about a perception of being pro-rich, they don't get it.
That does not mean adopting the wealth-redistribution policies of the left. Among other problems, collectivist approaches to our economy simply do not work.. They fail to produce economic prosperity or to improve the material conditions of the populace. And they lead to bankruptcy and economic collapse, as Europe demonstrates daily.
........
And yet, as Democrats work to move the United States further toward the failed economic policies of European social democracies, our economic mobility has diminished. Without fail, when government controls the economy, opportunity dries up.
When people talk about collectivists and wealth-redistrubtion, I just can't connect it to the US Democratic Party. Obama is pretty friendly with corporate types. He's hardly a socialist warrior, this shtick from them is getting old. Also it is intellectually lazy--he might as well have said moderates and liberals = communists.
On the bit about Europe, how is sudden and drastic austerity working out in the world wherever it's been tried?
Under the Obama administration, the unemployment rate climbed above 10 percent among Hispanics last year and to 14 percent among African Americans. Yet Republicans never talked about this.
They didn't? Remember "food-stamp" president? And also that's rich of him to infer that the Obama administration is hazardous to hispanic and latino communities yet they want to take an axe to medicare, and to repeal universal healthcare.
Dependency is corrosive. Ask any abuela if she wants her grandchildren dependent on government. Dependency saps spirit and diminishes self-respect.
This is a question to readers here. How do you feel about this statement, and do you beleive that that is what progressivsim is about? I'm actually sympathetic to warnings against dependency. I'm huge on personal responsibility, and taking ownership of your life. I don't beleive in handouts either. Yet, I'm convinced that:
1. An advanced society takes care of their disadvantaged.
2. Given the choice between erring on overhelping the undeserving, or not helping those that need it, I'll err on making sure those that genuinely need help are covered. I think conservatives prefer to err on making sure nobody ever gets an undeserved handout even if it will inflict hardships on many that should be getting assistance.
Anyway, he ends on a familiar call to action:
Republicans ought to view, and explain, every policy through the lens of economic mobility. Conservative policies help those struggling to climb the economic ladder, and liberal policies hurt them. If Republicans want to win, we need to champion opportunity.
But they have and it didn't work! Tired and stale. We need better (less dangerous) Republicans that can challenge Democrats, because if this is the best they can do my fear is that liberals might get complacent or that our politicians might stop offering bold new progressive ideas.
If the thinking of people like David Frum (on domestic issues, not foreign policy), Huntsman, became mainstream there could be an interesting debate in US politics.