“Legal immigration must be distinguished from illegal immigration at every juncture. … On social issues, there has to be some conservative touchstone, like reverence for uniqueness and beauty of individual life. … Civil unions should be seen as an avant-garde institution for novel times, while traditional marriage is reserved as a retrograde stuffy institution for the hopelessly straight. The problem with liberal notions of high taxes and big government (besides the obvious problem that they don’t work) should be that they are elitist. Those born into particular social and economic castes are frozen: the government supplies just enough subsidized housing, food, and fuel for those in untaxed lower-income brackets to remind those citizens that it is not all that bad staying there. Meanwhile, those struggling to become prosperous and leave capital behind for their children are suddenly taxed to death just as they begin to succeed – as if, once the hyper-wealthy have gotten theirs, the rules change and no one else can follow.
On foreign policy, he says, Obama’s promise of change was just rhetoric [he did say only that change needs to come “to America,” after all — Bob ;-)]. Therefore, the right has won despite the recent election results.
On foreign policy and national security, the battle of ideas is already won. A more articulate, persuasive defense of existing foreign policy, without gratuitous “they’re wimps” lingo would help. But come January, the Left will in surprising fashion emulate most of what Bush did abroad, albeit under a fuzzy, kumbaya veneer. The removal of Saddam, the humiliating defeat of Al Qaeda in Iraq, and the creation of a constitutional government in Baghdad will seem better, not worse, as each month passes in which we see little American combat violence approaching a likely 2011 withdrawal date. … They may close Gitmo (both trials and transference home of the detainees will prove a public-relations nightmare), but I doubt we will see precipitous pullouts from Iraq, repeal of the Patriot Act, or the end of the FISA accords. “Shredding the Constitution” is an opposition’s cheap slur; in contrast, when responsible for governance or in fear of rumors of another attack, such former critics will worry more about suffering another 9/11 on their watch. Should the Left dismantle homeland-security provisions taken since 2001, and embrace therapeutic approaches to radical Islam abroad – and as a result we then see a single repeat of September 11 – the credibility of the Democratic Party will be lost for a decade. For all the campaign talk of a trumped-up, constructed war on terror, Obama’s advisors – at least when they speak privately – know that keeping America safe since 9/11 was a Bush achievement rather than a natural occurrence. They also privately advise that Obama emulate Bush on key substantive foreign-policy issues (Iran really is a big threat, and can’t have nuclear weapons; current strikes on terrorists in Pakistan are necessary, etc.), while grandstanding about “being liked” again.
He concludes, “The key is not to abandon conservative positions, but to explain them in novel ways to the majority who might find them more in tune with human nature – and consequently more humanitarian than their usual caricatures of being too selfish, tough, or insensitive.”
So there you have it: there were no substantive problems with the Republican positions, just a few relatively superficial marketing issues. Call them “framing,” if you like the current buzz-word.
And that, I’d argue, is what has happened to the right: they have become divorced from reality. Even to one of their leading intellectuals, whatever that sobriquet may suggest, the issue is just how to make the pitch. Hanson needs to get out more: to take a look at just how hard it is to finance one’s education, to pay for health care, to afford a decent place to live, and to gain a measure of personal security. In fact, the Republicans as a group need to get out more.
christopher says
…the American people agreed with the Democrats this year.
johnmurphylaw says
that Victor David Hanson’s analysis is embraced by Republican Party leadership and that Democrats and the progressive agenda will continue to benefit from their cluelessness.
<
p>It strikes me that the dynamics of this election cycle, and the shifting attitudes of voters in general, have a lot in common with the forces that brought the Republicans to dominance in the Eighties (Nineties?), when Democratic leadership turned a blind eye to the public’s growing widespread dissatisfaction with government waste and entitlements without accountability.
kbusch says
the level of “framing” — and that makes some sense as it’s not as if conservative frames have moved slowly off the shelf in the market place of ideas.
<
p>(or stretched metaphors)
fairdeal says
” . . most people – who, after all, get a job, eventually buy a house and have to maintain it, have children, and respect the traditions of their families’ past – end up by necessity more conservative than liberal.”
<
p>hey conservatives, ya think that one reason you lost so badly might be because of how delusionally out-of-touch you are?
<
p>here’s a little news flash for you: liberals have jobs too. and liberals buy houses, as well. and maintain them! and on top of that, liberals often have children too. and, believe it or not, teach their children values and traditions.
<
p>and republicans; we know that you want to believe that the democratic party base is primarily northeastern latte-sipping, minority, peugeot-driving, elitist welfare queens.
<
p>but you will more quickly begin your long ugly rebuilding process when you allow yourself to face up to this painful fact; you do not represent the values and aspirations of the average american nearly as much as you imagine you do.
huh says
where “respecting traditions” means opposing evolution, choice, and gay marriage.
<
p>My brother-in-law points out the irony of Catholics in the Mass. GOP embracing know nothing philosophies.
<
p>Me, I’m just struck by the Mass GOP’s conviction that it’s not their message, it’s that they’re not getting it out effectively.
<
p>My two cents: the Mass GOP has to get out of bed with groups like the Mass. Family Institute and MassResistance (the most frequent guests on the MR radio show were members of Citizens for Limited Taxation members, for example).
<
p>On the national level, they need to admit that they were in power for 8 years and spent most of it demonizing opponents and forcing policies through by fiat. A small first step would be to admit that maybe, just maybe, the approach and policies led to their current predicament (and our current national miasma).
<
p>Here’s hoping the Obama administration doesn’t fall into the same over-reaching trap.