How did we get here?

Just four short years ago, following a powerful and clear victory for President Bush, the Boston Globe reported that Bush’s win granted him “a clear mandate to advance a conservative agenda over the next four years.” The Boston Globe headline following President Obama’s election read much different: “Historic Victory: Obama elected nation’s first African-American president in a romp.” What happened? 

By any estimation, it is astonishing that a man of Barack Obama’s stature would end up holding the most significant and influential political office in the world. Having actively served only 143 days in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama is by far the most politically inexperienced new President in U.S. history. His voting record in that time was the most liberal of any candidate, placing him on the fringe of his own party and far from bipartisanship. His stated views of redistribution of wealth, increased public welfare, and nationalized health care, reflect a type of European socialism and old world Marxism not yet seen in America. Combine these factors with strong ties to terrorist William Ayres and extremist pastor and race advocate Jeremiah Wright, and the election of President Obama is, by an estimation, surprising. Given the apparent political bounty of both President Bush and the Republican Party four years ago, we must ask the essential question: How did we get here?

 

While considerations of a liberally biased media and ACORN voter fraud may be valid, they are hardly useful in effecting change. Rather, the Republican Party needs to take a hard look at its own missteps, and work to build a base deserving of political leadership:

 

• Conservative dilution: True Reagan conservatism, which once brought about the Reagan Revolution that breathed life into a dying Republican Party, rests on three essential doctrines: 1. Low taxes-the economy is best served by having money in the hands of the efficient, discerning consumer, rather than a bureaucratic, pork driven government; 2. Small government-government is meant to protect individual rights, practice fiscal responsibility, and serve the people, not guide and control public life; 3. Personal responsibility-the American dream is about an individual rising up through hard work, diligence, and personal industry, not government handouts. These conservative principles drove the party to success, but recent politics turned the focus from economic and governmental conservatism to more diluted and divisive (though also important) social issues. Combined with the controversial Iraq war, issues of abortion, gay rights, and religious conservatism painted a much different picture of the Republican Party than that of the Reagan era. If you ask the average American what the Republican Party stands for today, you will almost always hear notions of “War monger; anti-homosexual; religious fundamentalism; pro-life,” before any sense of true Reagan conservatism. 

 

• Squandered capital: The Bush Administration took office with incredible political capital, especially following 9/11 (90% approval rating). They then used this capital to wage a divisive war in Iraq, which had the net affect of diverting resources from the important fronts of fiscal responsibility, economic reform, and anti-terrorism efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Following the 2004 election, President Bush spent the better part of the first year fighting a losing battle to reform Social Security (which certainly needs reforming), the failure of which compounded political resistance to the party. Most importantly, however, the administration moved sharply from conservative values, spending wildly and increasing an already large deficit, while widening many failing government programs. Had the party used the opportunity to rally the nation against terrorism (not divide it against Iraq), unite on conservative values and low taxation, reach out to minorities (who since voted overwhelmingly for Obama), and reform the domestic Wall Street economy, the public may have embraced Mr. McCain and his party.

 

• No clear message: Marketing analysts compare Google’s success to Yahoo’s decline, and find one simple reason: Google has a clear and compelling message-everyone will always be searching for something. Their web page is brilliantly simple and clear (a search bar on a blank screen)-if you need an answer, you go to Google. Yahoo’s early web pages, by contrast, were packed with everything from shopping, to games and email, with the search bar buried beneath. With no clear message or purpose, people fled in droves to Google. This is what happened during this campaign. Obama had a clear and compelling message from the outset: Hope and Change-no more status quo. The McCain campaign, by contrast, was difficult to pin down: Energy drilling? Country first? Sarah Palin? Hanoi Hilton? Maverick bipartisanship? Spending reform? Social conservatism? It is telling that most people, including Republicans, knew more of Senator Obama’s views than of Senator McCain’s. In essence, the Republican Party fell into the same trap the Democrats did four years ago: They were voting against Bush, not for Kerry; Republicans were now voting against Obama, not for McCain. The party needs a simple, clear, and compelling message to stand on, before its many quiet voices are drowned out by a ferocious Democrat majority.

 
If the Republican Party wishes to survive, it must return to its roots in Reagan conservatism, and deliver this message with clarity and passion. Our country deserves compelling leadership that is willing to exercise political prudence and fiscal responsibility, serving a public that places such great trust in its leaders. We are in a unique position to affect history, and simply can’t let the opportunity to revive conservatism pass us by.

-Matt Benchener from TruPolitics.net