National Review is unleashing a potentially excellent series of articles on a middle class agenda for the right, with this forward:
Conservative success over the years--through welfare reform, tough anti-crime policies, and the income-tax cuts of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush--has reduced the salience of the old triad. Conservatives have yet to fill the gap. In fact, the situation throughout the 1980s, when the Left mired itself in old orthodoxies while the Right addressed the country's problems, has been almost exactly reversed. Now it's conservatism that often feels trapped in amber, wishing it were still 1983.John McCain's inability last year to address middle-class pocketbook and quality-of-life issues wasn't solely due to the ineptitude of his campaign. It reflected a larger lack of interest in doing so on the right, and a lack of consensus over how exactly to go about it. In a disturbing post-election survey, the polling firm TargetPoint Consulting found that people overwhelmingly identify the Democrats with the middle class. If Democrats can keep that advantage, they will be in the majority for a long time.
The first of the policy proposals the magazine will be discussing is on enhanced savings opportunities for the middle class.
What this amounts to is formulating an actual agenda that matches the needs outlined in Grand New Party, an excellent read that nonetheless did more to identify a problem - addressing the concerns of America's working middle class - than solve it.
Republicans got shellacked in 2006 and 2008 in part because they were seen as devoid of ideas (see John McCain's "Economic Agenda" [no laughing, please]). In order to be a relevant opposition, the party must be constantly striving to offer alternative policy solutions, not just a resounding "no."
That applies both in Washington, DC and Olympia. Rejecting much of the Obama agenda, or especially that of Congressional Democrats, will not be tough for Republicans. Likewise for the GOP, chastising Democratic solutions to the $7 billion budget shortfall here in the Evergreen state that owes much to the majority party's over-spending won't exactly be difficult.
The next step will be offering a compelling agenda, addressing the concerns at the forefront of voters' minds. The National Review's series should be a good read accordingly.
Posted by Eric Earling at February 03, 2009 08:16 PM | Email ThisThe GOP has to deal with the trade deficit. The GOP has pretty much taken the attitude "free trade at any cost." If there is a trade deficit, do not be afraid to deal with it by addressing it with other countries, even if that means redoing trade agreements. Do not let the Prime Minister of Canada or the President of Mexico make determine trade policy. When those leaders are whining, it usually means that their countries might get a bad deal, they could not give a hoot how things affect Americans. And get out of the WTO, that organization should not be fining the United States for responding to bad trading practices by other nations. Besides, the US Constitution says that "Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations," (Article I.8.3), not the WTO. And whatever regulations are required of American products and businesses, require the same of foreign businesses and products. John McCain simply did not want to address trade policy, Obama at least did (whether he actually meant it, is another thing).
Regarding foreign policy, the GOP needs to advocate a humble foreign policy, not looking for monsters to slay abroad. Whether it's the case or not, when the GOP is eager to ship troops abroad, it gives the impression that our military is full of toys that are disposable, not precious lives. Parents worry about their kids being drafted for a future American conflict, so for some, Obama is the only safe bet (McCain was seen as a continuation of Bush's foreign policy). Furthermore, if those troops die, become disabled or have mental difficulties, it affects families, and the GOP becomes the one to blame.
I think this last election was more a rejection of stubborn thinking within the GOP rather than a rejection of the principles of limited government and fiscal responsibility. When Republicans are not open to viewpoints other than "free trade at any cost" and "neoconservativism at any cost," then we have problems.
Posted by: Brian on February 3, 2009 09:59 PMSuggesting conservatives should offer an alternative to Global Warming is only to give snake oil salesmen credibility. It is time to point out that the King has no clothes. Whoops, must have clothes as it is very cold in some places.
Point of fact, since 1998, Earth's temperature dropped. And we may very well be heading into global cooling.
Posted by: Snuffy on February 4, 2009 04:18 PM