The headline was inevitable: “What went wrong?”
Seriously?
Republicans plan to commence focus groups and voter-based polls to discover the mystery behind their loss. Having sat staring into space the past couple of days, they now want to get to the bottom of it.
The bubble in which most politicians and their staffs live is not just a metaphor, apparently. The answer has been so obvious for so long and in so many ways, one has to wonder what these people read in their spare time? Old issues of Boys’ Life?
If nothing else, one only had to look at the two political conventions. One was colorful, vibrant, excited and happy. The other was pale, moribund, staid and restrained. If the latter sounds like something in the final stages of life, you’re not far off.
A couple of weeks before the election, I spoke to an audience of about 450 in Florida, the demographics of which were about 80 percent male, 90 percent Republican and, oh, about 99.9 percent white.
What could be more fun than that!
Alas, the bulk of my talk was criticism of the Republican Party. If Mitt Romney loses, I told them, it will be largely the fault of the party. As I spelled out the details, nary a creature was stirring. It was painfully quiet. Even my best jokes fell flat. Hey, guys, that was funny!
It was hard to tell whether they resented the messenger or whether they were trying to digest the unpalatable truth. Truth is often painful and the days following President Obama’s re-election have been a salted slugfest. Amid the writhing, I rest my case.
Some Republicans stubbornly insist, of course, that the problem was that Romney wasn’t conservative enough. Really? In his heart, this may be true. I never believed Romney was passionate about social issues. He embraced them because he had to, but had no intention of pursuing a socially conservative agenda.
But the real problem is the Republican Party, which would not be recognizable to its patron saint, Ronald Reagan. The party doesn’t need a poll or a focus group. It needs a mirror.
The truth is, Romney was better than the GOP deserved. Party nitwits undermined him and the self-righteous tried to bring him down. The nitwits are well-enough known at this point — those farthest-right social conservatives who couldn’t find it in their hearts to keep their traps shut. No abortion for rape or incest? Sit down. Legitimate rape? Put on your clown suit and go play in the street.
Equally damaging were the primary leeches who embarrassed the party and wouldn’t leave the stage. Nine-nine-nine, we’re talking about you, Herman Cain. And Gov. Oops? You, too. And then there were Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann, who never had a real shot at the nomination and certainly could never win a national election, yet they refused to surrender to the certain nominee.
Did they have a right to persist in their own fantasies? Sure. But not if they were serious about getting a Republican in the White House. Thus, for months and months, Romney had to spend his energy and, importantly, his money to prevail in the primaries against opponents who had no chance and who ultimately hurt him. During that same precious time, Obama’s campaign was busy pinpointing specific voters, practically learning the names of their dogs, and buying ads in niche markets.
More to the point, the GOP seems willfully clueless. There’s a reason there are so few minorities in the party. There’s a reason women scrambled to the other side. There’s a reason Hispanics, including even Cuban-Americans this time, went for Obama.
The way forward is about love, not war, baby. Women’s reproductive rights need to come off the table. As Haley Barbour suggested long ago, agree to disagree. Compassionate immigration reform, including a path to citizenship, should be the centerpiece of a conservative party’s agenda.
Marginalize or banish those who in any way make African-Americans, gays, single women or any other human being feel unwelcome in a party that cherishes the values of limited government, low taxes and freedom. A large swath of conservative-minded Americans are Democrats and independents by default.
Mitt Romney would have been a fine president and might have won the day but for the party he had to please.
Kathleen Parker is a columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group. Her email address is kathleenparker@washpost.com.
Absolutely spot-on editorial.
As a registered Republican, I have decried my party and how it has pandered to backward social issues. We need to embrace equal treatment for gays and lesbians, and at least stop fighting against gay marriage (the idea of a constitutional amendment against gay marriage is demonstrably a nonstarter).
Romney was a good candidate who was hurt by the extremist wingnuts who hijacked the party platform, adopting a 1950’s era attitude that embraced complete bans on abortion without exception and anti-gay attitudes that are an affront to our Constitution’s 14th Amendment.
Sadly, it looks like my party is looking for quick fixes rather than a return to fiscally conservative fundamentals.
I don’t agree Romney was a “good candidate” but agree with the rest of what you wrote. If you have read anything about his campaign organization , you might wonder how this man and his organization could run the U.S. government. As a businessman, he and his campaign sure fell down.
Having worked for the Obama election (both times) I can tell you that they kept the “human element” very much in the forefront. Even many of Romney’s close consultants/campaign heads are shaking their heads in disbelief. When their technology fell apart election night (or before), the volunteers,etc. were trying to figure out what to do. It was miserably run. They relied too much on technology and many times left out the crucial human element (their get out the vote election day ,etc.) This has been said by more than one person who worked for Romney and the effort to elect him.
There is more than one reason President Obama was re-elected. There are a lot. In the end, more of the American people trusted our President.
I’d love to see healthy and principled opposition from Republicans, but it’s not there and it hasn’t been there. The problem lies with the politicians and Fox News. All we hear from them are these phony memes and mantras. For example, they went on and on about the debt, but then the second they get a chance to put a plan forward to address that issue, they cook up a plan that would literally explode the debt.
There are those that truly believe in small and minimal government, but when a politicians says that, it’s likely to be a guise for some other position or motivation. I think that’s unfortunate because it tarnishes and makes a mockery of principles that some do hold dearly.
I feel that playing the LIB-DEM ‘game’ based on sexism and racism only leads to further losses by elevating social issues that are divisive and primarily benefit articulate minorities….’equal treatment for gays and lesbians’ only highlights discriminating choices based on valid interactions and long standing religious and cultural differentiation. Further argument reveals how wealthy most gays are and how many lesbians are in positions of power in government and education.
There are plenty of gay conservatives, in fact there are national organizations that the media deliberately ignores….once your access to the media is denied on the basis of media discrimination and bias; then what?
‘Extremist wingnuts’ as you slander them, ‘took over’ many Republican conventions in a democratic revolution and codified their demands into platforms that were ignored or dismissed by the ilk of Snowe and Collins.
So the party divided, and a party divided can only fall. Obviously, you are part of the old Staid ‘country club’ branch of the Party; I suggest you learn more about the political dynamics of the Ron Paul factions on Maine’s college campuses….they haven’ gone away despite getting kicked out of the R’s tent.
The bright light is that the bulk of Maine voters is neither R nor D but I.
There sure are gay conservatives— I am gay and fiscally conservative!
“Further argument reveals how wealthy most gays are and how many lesbians are in positions of power in government and education.”
This is statistically untrue. Anecdotal evidence of gays in hollywood or lesbians in academia aren’t indicative of the overall status of this minority population. But the reality is that gays and lesbians aren’t financially more well-off on average. Source: http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/opeds-and-commentary/myth-gays-make-more-money-than-non-gays/
But regardless, if you’re trying to say we are not as deserving of equal rights because we make more money, that’s a pretty offensive standard for equality.
At any rate, I do agree that the bulk of Mainers vote independent. I am a Libertarian, but registered as a Republican so I could try and steer this party more toward the Snow/Collins moderate side than the Webster/Summers right wing.
I find this interesting. Each campaign year that Democrats win an election the death knell sounds for the Republican party. It did in 2008 much like it is this year. There are wails for the Republicans to change their ways and even for some Republicans to switch parties. Check the BDN editorial from 4 years ago for a local view on that very thing.
In years where the Republicans pound the Democrats like 2010 there is a deathly media silence.
You don’t think we need to “double down,” as the media says, and make the tent smaller, do you?
No. Not at all. I am just amused by the drumbeat as if it hasn’t happened before nor will again……
Now THAT is true…and always entertaining.
This is true, the pendulum swings in both directions.
It is interesting that the swing toward Republicans was so short-lived this time around though. I think that has a lot to do with the shrinking demographic “base” we keep pandering to.
Maybe. There have been all kinds of theories and scenarios floating through the media and I suppose you could have your choice of which to adhere to. Some say whites are demographically being removed by 2% per 4 year election cycle. According to reports I heard vote totals in some white areas were down… and the reason why can not be answered by demographic shifts. The Democrats on the other hand are pandering to an increasing “base” in the sense that the “class warfare” card was played to the hilt like it hasn’t since the 1930’s.
I would venture a guess that the Democrats in future elections will not be able to muster the same voter demographic. I don’t believe the Obama phenomenon is transferable. African Americans will not turn out in outsized numbers like the past two elections. That puts states like Virginia and Ohio Florida in the Republican column. Add a candidate like Rubio or Jindal in the mix and you have a real problem for Democrats.
My point is the death of the Republican party is greatly exaggerated.
As an aside and because I know it is of interest for you, I voted for question 1.
Thanks for your support of question 1— I know there are other socially liberal conservatives like myself out there :)
I think you make good points, and you are correct that the right candidate would help the Republicans greatly— Bush had a far better outreach to hispanic voters than Romney for example.
I felt that Romney was the best choice out of the bunch that was running for the nomination, which is faint praise. Santorum and Bachmann’s social views are frighteningly extreme, Perry and Cain seemed bone stupid, and Gingrich was damaged goods from the 90’s.
That left Romney and Paul. I’m closest ideologically to Paul, but pragmatically I know we need to run moderates to win— and NOT make them turn into extremists to get the nomination.
Pandering? That’s nonsense. You want to characterize it that way to cheapen it, but it’s not reality. Repeal DADT for example isn’t pandering. Ensuring equal pay and quality health insurance for women isn’t pandering. The DREAM Act isn’t pandering. Ensuring easy access to the polls isn’t pandering.
I didn’t address any of your issues in my post. Why are you making arguments against what I did not say?
Yes, you did. You said Democrats won by pandering — I proved they’re not pandering because they’re actually getting things done that matter to these groups that you accuse them of simply of pandering to.
I said that Obama was pandering with class warfare. I made no mention of your issues. That is all you and your game of re-characterizing my statements.
PLEASE! You mentioned minorities groups and base groups — then who are you talking about with pandering? More dishonesty from you. You’d rather deny you were saying what you said in order to get a jab in. Pathetic.
Pul.lease!! This was my comment regarding[pandering.
The Democrats on the other hand are pandering to an increasing “base” in
“the sense that the “class warfare” card was played to the hilt like it
hasn’t since the 1930’s.”
Anything you added from subsequent paragraphs is out of context.
Please do not make up stuff.
Then who are they pandering to? What else do you mean by “base” when you go on and on about the demographics of the vote? You’re one of the most intellectually dishonest people on here, don’t talk to me about making stuff up.
I can talk to you about making stuff up because that is what you do. In fact its pretty much all you do. You never address my points directly but simply re characterize them to your own twisted meaning.
And yet you can’t answer my question. Everyone has been going on and on about the minorities making up the base for Democrats — so again, if you’re not a coward, answer my question, who specifically were you referring to when you spoke about pandering and how? All you are is accusing me of nonsense and changing the subject. You’re projecting your own poor behavior onto me — Freud would love you as a test case, lol
Why should I respond to your questions if all you do is re characterize mine?
You are the coward in this exchange. You can’t even admit You make stuff up about my statements.
Because you’re trying to step back from what you clearly said and now you’re desperately to pull attention away from that. I’m not going to admit anything — if I’m wrong, correct me and tell me what you meant — that’s all I was asking. If you’re so desperate to dodge though, it suggests I’m not going any “re characteriz”ing.
Rubio: possibly a good candidate. Jindal: empty suit,not credible. And, no mention of Jeb Bush?
I was simply saying that there are real substantive ways to put Democrats on the defensive. In retrospect Rubio should have been the VP this year. Romney played the safe game and kept Ryan on a leash when he should have been an attack dog.That cost him as well in my opinion.
The main difference is the Dems don’t eat their young.
“Duh” does seem to come to mind when reading this.
The analogy I kept going back to over and over this past year was between this and the 2004 election. A vulnerable incumbent who was very beatable, won because the opposition played “prevent” defense (anyone who watches football knows what I mean and how frustrating and ineffective this tactic usually is.) As the Democrats in 2004 offered little more than being “not the other guy”, the Republicans did the same this year. The other parallels – dull, un-inspiring, supposedly “electable”, maleable flip-flopper from Mass politics was hard to ignore as well.
Had Romney not kept pandering to the far right and chose a moderate VP candidate, honestly, I might have considered voting for him, despite his weaknesses. More conservative is not the answer. Rick Santorum is not the answer.
Come back to center Republicans. Be the party of the right, not the far right. Let them create their own (real) party.
Romney would never have won the nomination without pandering to the religious far right in the Bible Belt. That is the only route to a Republican candidacy for President. McCain found that out the first time he ran. The next time he kissed the rings of the religious far right and won the nomination.
Do not expect the Republicans to be any more successful in 2016. They haven’t yet lost enough elections. They are still happy, through gerrymandering, to have a majority in the House, even though more voters voted for Democratic House candidates than Republican House candidates.
The Taliban wing of the Republican Party is convinced that neither McCain nor Romney were true conservatives. Expect Santorum to run again and win the nomination in 2016. Only when he is drubbed 60-40% will it dawn on enough Republicans that they have to at least fake a move to the center. Then, as the party tries to pay lip service to gay marriage, sensible immigration policy, contraception, and choice on abortion, expect the Party to implode. The 2020 Republican convention will be as raucous as the 1968 Democratic convention.
Your comments leading up to the election were appreciated by many readers. I am not surprised you turned out to be correct .
Well, I wasn’t referring to winning the nomination – rather the post-nomination period when the vote with the far right as already secured. What were the far right voters going to do if he had gone moderate and picked say a moderate outgoing female Senator for VP (even though she’s *gasp* pro-death?) Would have the evangelicals voted for Obama? Heh, no chance. Romney’s further playing to the far right after winning the nomination was a waste of time and effort…and Paul Ryan netted no new votes.
Though now that you bring up the pre-nomination – look at who won what states. Santorum won 11! Many of which were bible belt states. Santorum might have won more if he hadn’t dropped out. So, despite all the work to make people believe he was a “real” conservative, he still lost out on many of these states he supposedly “needed” to win the nomination. No. He didn’t in fact need them. In the end, they all got in line anyway, just like good partisans do.
The liberals lied and the people followed them down the rabbit hole.. Liberals don’t have the common sense that repubs have.. But if you speaking of weather or not Repubs should lie to get elected like liberals do, then I hope the Repubs refuse to do that and run on moral grounds. They would prefer to lose then sink into the mud with liberals.
So how long have you been a member of the Republican Taliban?
I’m a Democrat. Just not a liberal.
“Liberals don’t have the common sense that repubs have.” Both ideologies, and for some valid reasons, look at the other and exclaim this thought. The reason is that one ideology does not translate well into every aspect of real life. One approach may be more successful in one segment or facet but come up short in another.
In terms of any political mud resulting from lies, I think anyone attempting to the view the past decade without rose colored glasses would recognize the Republican camp had been pouring a lot of water on the dirt.
I don’t think you need to lie, but if you have idiotic ideas about women and say them out loud, THAT won’t get you elected either.
The federal reserve note, (us dollar) is going bust soon enough and I’m happy about it. The government doesn’t have any money left to support it’s liberal voter base.. You see people vote in a way that supports their lifestyle. Government money is about to go away through super inflation, in essence means the dollar value will become worthless.. When that happens all working people will become republicans.. See ya in the bread lines…
The people rushing to proclaim the inevitable death of the GOP are way off the mark. Parties win and lose elections, coalitions grow and change, and political ideologies wax and wane.
The results of the 2012 election reveal nothing new. We’ve known for well over a decade that conservatism is in a state of decline. Demographic shifts are in favor of groups that are culturally incompatible with traditional American conservatism. The typical criticisms of the GOP, that social conservatism is driving voters away and that only by embracing the more traditional libertarian style views on personal liberty, small government, and fiscal conservatism can Republicans ever hope to win another election, are absurd. I’m all for libertarianism; I voted for Ron Paul, but it isn’t a winner. The people who voted for Obama are liberal to their core. They aren’t libertarians, they’re libertines. They don’t want small government, and their interest in personal liberty extends only as far as their own immorality.
Consider how the coveted interest groups that Obama won might have responded to a more libertarian agenda from the GOP. Single women? Let’s assume that the GOP went pro-choice. But lets not forget about small government and personal liberty. Eliminate federal funding of Planned Parenthood, childcare, Medicaid, the repeal of equal pay and anti-discrimination legislation. Are these women voting Republican now?
Gays. Libertarian agenda doesn’t endorse gay marriage, but rather opposes government recognition of any marriage. Repeal laws governing hiring/firing, housing, and public accommodations. Is this really a likely win for the GOP?
Students. Hey they’re all for legalizing drugs. Libertarians don’t stop there. Legalize the drugs and eliminate the safety net that requires the rest of us to support their habits. Results: drug addicts die en masse. Doesn’t bother me, how about all of the liberals out there?
I could go on and on, but I think people get the point. The groups that Republicans now need to win are not going to vote for an agenda that includes personal liberty and limited government because they are the beneficiaries of government largesse. The dirty little secret is that a more libertarian society would be a much more socially conservative society. It might not be codified, but it would be more conservative just the same.
“They aren’t libertarians, they’re libertines. They don’t want small
government, and their interest in personal liberty extends only as far
as their own immorality.” You are entitled to your opinion but not your own facts, and to make this statement so confidently suggests to me you don’t have a very solid bevy of facts. It makes value judgments of others that you would be hard pressed to prove with anything empirical. I am for efficient govt not “big” govt, one that serves the most people for the most good; one that protects those that are vulnerable from those that would unscrupulously prey on the vulnerable. Personal liberty means what? That one libertarian businessman has the right to scheme and scam an unsuspecting home buyer into taking a mortgage they can’t afford, bundling that mortgage into a security, selling it for a profit, betting against it’s success making a profit when it does fail? The “coveted interest groups?” You mean “groups” like Hispanics, or women…? One’s ethnicity or gender makes it an “interest group?” Given your stated compassion for “drug addicts” one wonders what other social policies might come out of your “personal liberty” agenda for say, the elderly or the disabled… not much use to the society you envision and an expensive drain on “your” resources for “personal liberty…” There is a reason libertarian ideas seldom get very far… the absurd selfishness inherent in them frighten most people. And I’m glad of that.
I resent being called “liberal to the core” and “libertine”. Guess Libertarians will have to form their own, more active Party, and be relegated to spoilers.
The conservative entertainment complex is what went wrong. After shoveling mountains of toxic hype onto the airways their listeners and the politicians bought it hook line and sinker.
Excellent column.
I agree with most of this, except the idea that “Mitt Romney would have made a fine President.” She is letting him off the hook in a big way. His campaign stunk. He was the one who morphed endlessly from a “Massachusetts moderate” to a “severe conservative.” He showed himself to be a hollow shape shifter of the worst order and indeed refused to call out the most extreme elements in his radical party. He refused to show his tax returns. He doubled down on trickle down. He slandered half the country he hoped to lead and showed his true colors in doing so. In short, in the end, Romney epitomized the very deep flaws with the Republican brand that Parker cites, and the majority said NO to HIM and his out-of-touch corporatist nonsense as much as they said NO to the rest of his party.
Even the most fervent R would tell you that Romney would have worked hard to solidify special-interest control and intensify our government’s support of Israel. Sadly, the most radical members of my Party would see both as Good Things.
The writer has a point, for a party that wants government out
of their lives; they seem to want a lot of rules, like abortion, and marriage
to be national. That is hypocrisy. I never liked hypocrites.
I also could never support a party that calls themselves conservative and does not want to conserve the Declaration of Independence, and goes against the document of our national separation from England. If they are not compassionate towards immigration, then they go against this nation.
As listed in the Declaration of Independence for a reason of separation, for those who have forgotten or never read the document, “He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.” Go ahead and call those involved in the Declaration of Independence liberals, if it weren’t for them and those who fought, there would be no United States of America.
A White Stripes song once said in Icky Thump, “Why don’t you kick yourself out, you’re an immigrant too? “
It is up to congress to unify the rules of naturalization,
according to the Constitution.
“The party doesn’t need a poll or a focus group. It needs a mirror.” A coffin might be more appropriate, one in which to bury dead ideas that the Great Recession, minorities, the elderly and poor, women, and everyday people who happen to be gay or lesbian showed to be out of step with contemporary society (except in those pockets of America still clinging to their lost world of Mayberry RFD.)
Ryan’s unethical, nonsensical budget defying rational analysis as capable of doing anything but driving the country back into recession is a dead idea… It is that dead thinking behind the ignorance that created our next manufactured crisis: the fiscal cliff. These dead ideas reinforce the myths that the moochers, the deadbeats have overrun the country when any dolt that can read or count ought to be able to parse that nearly half our debt is due to two unfunded wars and massive tax cuts, and that failing to find solutions to aid recovery has been a failure of political will, not of means or precedents for what works.
Romney’s pinning-jello-to-a-wall stance on EVERY issue put before him… that too shows the failure of ideas coming from the extremist right republicans… “A fine president…” Kathleen, how could anyone know?
The republican party as it stands now ought also to jump into that coffin and be buried. Drive a stake through its heart while you are at it… just to make sure it is dead…
sorry, right and wrong will never go out of style…..but you may get that type of govt in say…eastern africa….
Well, of course I don’t expect the gop to just go away. What I hope it does is get back to some modicum of sanity, kick the extremists out, acknowledge the corrupting influence of exorbitant amounts of money in elections and politics (the dems also for that matter), and propose sound policy that benefits or addresses the issues that all of us face. The environment used to be important to the gop. There is nothing wrong with fiscal conservatism that looks out for those in need, polices against waste and fraud, acknowledges when market solutions are appropriate and when they are not. Both parties are at fault when it comes to serving corporate interests before individuals’.
What Republicans take away from this trouncing I truly couldn’t care less. Democrats on the other hand better be warned and be aware that if we fall asleep over the next two years any gains made in the general election will be moot. One thing we can count on, the extreme crew isn’t going away. We may have cut the head off this extreme Hydra this time but it will grow two more in it’s place. They will return in the form of some other ultra American cause and wrap fundamental religious beliefs in our flag and fly it to represent only those who believe as they do, you can count on that.
um….what the hell does this mean?…Are you playing an online game or were you writing a response…..
read between the lines …. the meaning is somewhere between the words “trouncing” and “you can count on that”
Especially through the debates, Obama saw what voters responded to. It wasn’t him being diplomatic and giving Romney’s lies a fair shot — it was when he called out that dishonesty and was forceful about his own beliefs. Obama’s campaign was very clear in the agenda they’d be pushing and the country overwhelmingly chose it over the bleak alternative.
absolutely, great point!
As expected, national Party leaders are coming out and saying we don’t need to change the message…we need to be “more careful” how we say it. Really? Because I think Mourdock and Akin were pretty clear. Is there a more careful way of saying that someone’s reading of the Bible–and therefore Republicans–believe gays are an abomination? “We should have run Santorum”…really?
“I don’t want to moderate my beliefs,” one said. Don’t! Believe whatever you believe. But those beliefs cannot be the core beliefs of our Party if we want to attract new members…and US demographics say we must. Besides, many of us smaller (but not miniscule) government Rs don’t believe what you believe.