A clash with the future
19/11/12 22:09![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
abomvubuso.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsNow that the dust has subsided somewhat, two weeks after the election, time for a more sober look on the situation for the GOP, possibly from a detached furrinner, eh? ;)
It was Bill Clinton who famously said that elections are a decision for the future. The presumption is that when time for voting comes, the electorate would tend to be driven less by their negative feelings for the near past, but rather by what they're expecting to come ahead. This explanation which seemed to work pretty fine for the former president who achieved remarkable political victories even after some serious personal fail, seems to be working for Obama now, too. Because, despite a 8% unemployment, a sluggish economic recovery and a significant cooling off of the initial enthusiasm from the first Obama term, the majority of voters has spoken again, and has decided that he's better suited for steering the country out of the stormy waters than his contender.
The reactions from the Republican leaders are more like a confirmation of this impression. When they gathered in Romney's HQ in Boston to meet the news on election night, many of them looked genuinely shocked - and not so much from Obama's victory, but rather by the fact that they had lost at all. "Missed opportunities" were the most frequently used words in their camp, along with explanations like flaws in communication, and most of all their inability to transmit their message to millions of voters.
From their political program, to the slogans and the very technology of the election battle, the Republicans would often seem to ignore many of the dynamic processes happening in America. The demographic growth of the minorities, the increasing social gap, and America's changing role in the world, are shaking the country. And Obama looked like the more adequate candidate who was able to respond to these processes better than his opponent.
If we had to summarise Romney's campaign in some symbolic way, maybe the looks of his election HQ in Boston could be a nice starting point. Apart from contrasting very strongly to the surrounding old buildings in the historic North End, the grey rectangular building made of concrete and glass looked more like the corporate office of a large company, rather than a vibrant political hub. The video cameras on all corners, the omnipresent security, even the lack of any sign on the facade to note whose building it was, plus the special panels blocking the sight from what was happening inside - all of that somehow created an air of self-isolation.
In the modern type of election campaign, a political office has more than a mere practical function - it's the physical representation of a candidate in front of the world. So it's not the comfort of the team working inside, but the direct contact with the public and the symbolic reaching for various segments of society that should be the leading principle. And this extends way beyond architecture. Some cynic could now say that Romney's HQ was located in North End because the wealthy white voters who are a majority in that quarters, are the closest to his heart. But, like many other errors in his campaign, this one, too, was likely due to ignored political realities, rather than practical reasons.
In Boston, on election night, most analysts were arguing how much the GOP's defeat had been a result of Romney's weaknesses, and whether the abrupt right turn of the GOP itself under pressure from the Tea Party movement had rendered its victory impossible. At the end of the day, most opinions were that, although during the primaries the formerly moderate Massachusetts governor had been forced to embrace some rather fringe positions, in fact his emphasis on a marketing-like approach to political campaigning only made things worse for him. In other words, he was trying too hard to run his campaign as if it was a commercial endeavour.
The problem with the ethnic minorities, especially the largest and fastest growing among them, the Latinos, as well as women, homosexuals and young people, have been well known for the Republican strategists. What really shocked them on election night was exactly how quickly and how massively the fallout had arrived. No one had expected it to happen so soon. Most conservative voices I've heard before the election were still believing that the lack of support among those segments would probably become a problem on some of the next elections - probably in 2016 or even 2020. But when the results started coming on Nov 7 morning in the Boston HQ, the moods started sinking, and the gargantuan political oversight by both the party and the candidate's team started to become too obvious.
No doubt, the most catastrophic implosion the GOP suffered among the Latinos. While GWB got 44% of their vote in 2004, and 4 years later McCain got only 31%, now Romney plunged down to a dismal 27%. The theories are that even Texas, now a firmly red state, could become a swing state by 2016, and these claims might not be looking so preposterous any more. And without the 38 electoral votes of Texas, no conservative candidate would have any chance to even sniff the White House from a mile. Such a prospect may've become frighteningly real now, since even Rupert Murdock sent a tweet on post-election morning, saying "Must have sweeping, generous immigration reform, make existing law-abiding Hispanics welcome. Most are hard working family people". Wow.
For many conservative strategists who believe that they're the party of values, Romney's campaign may've left a bitter taste of political cynicism in particularly large quantities. The fact that Romney himself was initially mostly a centrist and pragmatist, has additionally aggravated the many discrepancies in his campaign. The situation came to a point where the sociologists were telling the party leaders what people's expectations were, and the campaign was being shaped around those lines, often swinging between one extremity and another - which I'm sure you'll agree has nothing to do with espousing "values". What's very telling about the unprecedented level of political chameleonism is that some of the staunchest conservative thinkers have said that throwing ideas into the political battle without even having the slightest idea how those would eventually be turned into governing decisions, had been insane and stupid.
Imagine that Romney was somehow elected president. A country in a dire situation needing moderate decisions built around bipartisan consensus and unity, would have a president who'd be torn between his practical necessity for working together with his opposition, and his own party virtually being held hostage by the Tea Party's demands for no compromise with the centrist approach. The Tea Party would revolt against him the very moment he attempted to sit on the table and work with the Democrats. And thus, there'd be another stalemate situation, just at a time when that's the last thing the country needs. Even now, Obama is racing against time to reach an urgent agreement with the Republicans before the fiscal cliff is eventually reached on New Year. We may witness a situation similar to the debt ceiling drama.
The apparent reluctance to face some tough truths at a time when more and more Americans are feeling insecure about the future of their country, has made the GOP and their candidate Romney look particularly inadequate. But what's worse is that they often sounded out of date and out of tune with the time. Being designed with the purpose to activate the disillusioned anti-Obama vote, the slogan "Let's Take America Back" created a sense of fixation on the idealised past. Problem is, large groups of voters like women and minorities don't hold very nice memories about that period of US history, so why would anyone want to go back there, is beyond me.
Instead of getting actively involved in the debate about the growing gap between the wealthy and the rest (which has often been the root source of social and political turmoil throughout history), the Republicans preferred to attack the very mention of the problem, with accusations of class warfare and some kind of attempt for restoration of socialism (as if it ever existed in America in a real shape or form). Not to mention Romney's reluctance to directly confront the extreme conservatives who are constantly bashing abortion. As well as other social issues which are being automatically branded insignificant, and outright shunned for the sake of promoting the eternal "Jobs, jobs" slogan. All in all, as Politico summarised it, the GOP "ran a 20th century campaign in the 21st century". And that ultimately cost them the election.
In soccer terms, this was something like a red card, shown by the voters who are the ref. But the good news is that, while a red card may be a severe punishment, it still doesn't have a permanent effect. So now what comes for the Republicans is the slow and painful process of reconsidering their whole agenda. And the signs are still not good. America does need a strong, adequate and influential right, one that would serve as a counter-balance to a strong, adequate and influential left. And until the conservative half of the political landscape finds its identity, one that would match the new realities of the epoch, they'll keep suffering, and they'll suffer ever more severely. Which is not good for the country as a whole.
Looking at the faces, moods, statements and conclusions from various conservatives after the painful defeat on Nov 6, I saw that some were finding it difficult to believe what had happened; others were angry and bewildered, or ready to resort to passive-aggressive butthurt, or various crazy conspiracy theories, or blaming their leaders for failing them in some mysterious way. Few were willing to do a somewhat deeper introspect and dig into the problem for real. But despite all that drama, I'm confident they'll find the inner strength to actually make that real debate happen. The debate for the future of their party, of their ideology, the sober assessment of all the mistakes, and a choice of the road ahead. The time is ripe for that. What's more, it's urgently necessary that they find the intellectual capacity to forge a new type of conservatism, one that would again be winning elections with a clear message that resonates with the populace.
This election could be the catharsis that would lead the conservative party to the road to its meeting with the future of America, and its own future. Or it could be the beginning of their demise. The time is ripe for either transformation, or sinking into obscurity. The choice is theirs. I wish them good luck. Because they're needed.
It was Bill Clinton who famously said that elections are a decision for the future. The presumption is that when time for voting comes, the electorate would tend to be driven less by their negative feelings for the near past, but rather by what they're expecting to come ahead. This explanation which seemed to work pretty fine for the former president who achieved remarkable political victories even after some serious personal fail, seems to be working for Obama now, too. Because, despite a 8% unemployment, a sluggish economic recovery and a significant cooling off of the initial enthusiasm from the first Obama term, the majority of voters has spoken again, and has decided that he's better suited for steering the country out of the stormy waters than his contender.
The reactions from the Republican leaders are more like a confirmation of this impression. When they gathered in Romney's HQ in Boston to meet the news on election night, many of them looked genuinely shocked - and not so much from Obama's victory, but rather by the fact that they had lost at all. "Missed opportunities" were the most frequently used words in their camp, along with explanations like flaws in communication, and most of all their inability to transmit their message to millions of voters.
From their political program, to the slogans and the very technology of the election battle, the Republicans would often seem to ignore many of the dynamic processes happening in America. The demographic growth of the minorities, the increasing social gap, and America's changing role in the world, are shaking the country. And Obama looked like the more adequate candidate who was able to respond to these processes better than his opponent.
If we had to summarise Romney's campaign in some symbolic way, maybe the looks of his election HQ in Boston could be a nice starting point. Apart from contrasting very strongly to the surrounding old buildings in the historic North End, the grey rectangular building made of concrete and glass looked more like the corporate office of a large company, rather than a vibrant political hub. The video cameras on all corners, the omnipresent security, even the lack of any sign on the facade to note whose building it was, plus the special panels blocking the sight from what was happening inside - all of that somehow created an air of self-isolation.
In the modern type of election campaign, a political office has more than a mere practical function - it's the physical representation of a candidate in front of the world. So it's not the comfort of the team working inside, but the direct contact with the public and the symbolic reaching for various segments of society that should be the leading principle. And this extends way beyond architecture. Some cynic could now say that Romney's HQ was located in North End because the wealthy white voters who are a majority in that quarters, are the closest to his heart. But, like many other errors in his campaign, this one, too, was likely due to ignored political realities, rather than practical reasons.
In Boston, on election night, most analysts were arguing how much the GOP's defeat had been a result of Romney's weaknesses, and whether the abrupt right turn of the GOP itself under pressure from the Tea Party movement had rendered its victory impossible. At the end of the day, most opinions were that, although during the primaries the formerly moderate Massachusetts governor had been forced to embrace some rather fringe positions, in fact his emphasis on a marketing-like approach to political campaigning only made things worse for him. In other words, he was trying too hard to run his campaign as if it was a commercial endeavour.
The problem with the ethnic minorities, especially the largest and fastest growing among them, the Latinos, as well as women, homosexuals and young people, have been well known for the Republican strategists. What really shocked them on election night was exactly how quickly and how massively the fallout had arrived. No one had expected it to happen so soon. Most conservative voices I've heard before the election were still believing that the lack of support among those segments would probably become a problem on some of the next elections - probably in 2016 or even 2020. But when the results started coming on Nov 7 morning in the Boston HQ, the moods started sinking, and the gargantuan political oversight by both the party and the candidate's team started to become too obvious.
No doubt, the most catastrophic implosion the GOP suffered among the Latinos. While GWB got 44% of their vote in 2004, and 4 years later McCain got only 31%, now Romney plunged down to a dismal 27%. The theories are that even Texas, now a firmly red state, could become a swing state by 2016, and these claims might not be looking so preposterous any more. And without the 38 electoral votes of Texas, no conservative candidate would have any chance to even sniff the White House from a mile. Such a prospect may've become frighteningly real now, since even Rupert Murdock sent a tweet on post-election morning, saying "Must have sweeping, generous immigration reform, make existing law-abiding Hispanics welcome. Most are hard working family people". Wow.
For many conservative strategists who believe that they're the party of values, Romney's campaign may've left a bitter taste of political cynicism in particularly large quantities. The fact that Romney himself was initially mostly a centrist and pragmatist, has additionally aggravated the many discrepancies in his campaign. The situation came to a point where the sociologists were telling the party leaders what people's expectations were, and the campaign was being shaped around those lines, often swinging between one extremity and another - which I'm sure you'll agree has nothing to do with espousing "values". What's very telling about the unprecedented level of political chameleonism is that some of the staunchest conservative thinkers have said that throwing ideas into the political battle without even having the slightest idea how those would eventually be turned into governing decisions, had been insane and stupid.
Imagine that Romney was somehow elected president. A country in a dire situation needing moderate decisions built around bipartisan consensus and unity, would have a president who'd be torn between his practical necessity for working together with his opposition, and his own party virtually being held hostage by the Tea Party's demands for no compromise with the centrist approach. The Tea Party would revolt against him the very moment he attempted to sit on the table and work with the Democrats. And thus, there'd be another stalemate situation, just at a time when that's the last thing the country needs. Even now, Obama is racing against time to reach an urgent agreement with the Republicans before the fiscal cliff is eventually reached on New Year. We may witness a situation similar to the debt ceiling drama.
The apparent reluctance to face some tough truths at a time when more and more Americans are feeling insecure about the future of their country, has made the GOP and their candidate Romney look particularly inadequate. But what's worse is that they often sounded out of date and out of tune with the time. Being designed with the purpose to activate the disillusioned anti-Obama vote, the slogan "Let's Take America Back" created a sense of fixation on the idealised past. Problem is, large groups of voters like women and minorities don't hold very nice memories about that period of US history, so why would anyone want to go back there, is beyond me.
Instead of getting actively involved in the debate about the growing gap between the wealthy and the rest (which has often been the root source of social and political turmoil throughout history), the Republicans preferred to attack the very mention of the problem, with accusations of class warfare and some kind of attempt for restoration of socialism (as if it ever existed in America in a real shape or form). Not to mention Romney's reluctance to directly confront the extreme conservatives who are constantly bashing abortion. As well as other social issues which are being automatically branded insignificant, and outright shunned for the sake of promoting the eternal "Jobs, jobs" slogan. All in all, as Politico summarised it, the GOP "ran a 20th century campaign in the 21st century". And that ultimately cost them the election.
In soccer terms, this was something like a red card, shown by the voters who are the ref. But the good news is that, while a red card may be a severe punishment, it still doesn't have a permanent effect. So now what comes for the Republicans is the slow and painful process of reconsidering their whole agenda. And the signs are still not good. America does need a strong, adequate and influential right, one that would serve as a counter-balance to a strong, adequate and influential left. And until the conservative half of the political landscape finds its identity, one that would match the new realities of the epoch, they'll keep suffering, and they'll suffer ever more severely. Which is not good for the country as a whole.
Looking at the faces, moods, statements and conclusions from various conservatives after the painful defeat on Nov 6, I saw that some were finding it difficult to believe what had happened; others were angry and bewildered, or ready to resort to passive-aggressive butthurt, or various crazy conspiracy theories, or blaming their leaders for failing them in some mysterious way. Few were willing to do a somewhat deeper introspect and dig into the problem for real. But despite all that drama, I'm confident they'll find the inner strength to actually make that real debate happen. The debate for the future of their party, of their ideology, the sober assessment of all the mistakes, and a choice of the road ahead. The time is ripe for that. What's more, it's urgently necessary that they find the intellectual capacity to forge a new type of conservatism, one that would again be winning elections with a clear message that resonates with the populace.
This election could be the catharsis that would lead the conservative party to the road to its meeting with the future of America, and its own future. Or it could be the beginning of their demise. The time is ripe for either transformation, or sinking into obscurity. The choice is theirs. I wish them good luck. Because they're needed.
(no subject)
Date: 19/11/12 20:24 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/11/12 20:33 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/11/12 20:35 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/11/12 20:37 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/11/12 20:39 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/11/12 20:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/11/12 20:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/11/12 20:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/11/12 20:52 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/11/12 20:55 (UTC)1) The GOP appealed very strongly to a very narrow constituency which it did get out to vote in large numbers.
2) The GOP only does well with low turnouts, when this actually crosses the barrier to win elections.
3) There was high turnout.
4) Thus the Democrats won by virtue of securing their own votes in multiple categories and being able to benefit from another poor slate of GOP candidates, whose low quality is ultimately because GOP politics is steadily becoming an echo chamber where there's one person talking to themselves in a padded room. Changing this factor is going to be neither simple nor quick, but if Democratic turnout is low, the GOP will still be able to win in elections with the constituency they have now for a few more years.
(no subject)
Date: 19/11/12 20:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/11/12 21:09 (UTC)We're pretty much the farthest away from any elections right now as possible. If the GOP wants to lighten up on abortion, compromise on immigration, and completely change its views on gay rights - now would be the time to do it. Yes, dems and lefties and the media will give them shit for it - but they'll be better off the more time they put in between that change and any election.
(no subject)
Date: 19/11/12 21:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/11/12 21:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/11/12 22:00 (UTC)It's not like the conservative side doesn't have its good deal of intellectual power, visionaries and strategists, and good decent guys of integrity who would be able to articulate the new messages, whatever they are. They're as smart as their counterparts on the left. I just don't think these things could happen overnight, and certainly not artificially, like a package of decisions dropped from above. "Here guys, from now on we believe in this and this, and not in that and that". No, it has to happen from the bottom up.
(no subject)
Date: 19/11/12 22:52 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/11/12 23:03 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/11/12 23:06 (UTC)astroturfgrassroots manner? How does that fit into the "GOP is trying to induce apathy" narrative?(no subject)
Date: 19/11/12 23:20 (UTC)So Romney works with the Democrats, gets most of them on board along with the moderates in the Republican caucuses, and then things get done and the Tea Party are left screaming on the sideline.
Thus, a Romney presidency would have been good at getting things done, bad at moderating the Republican Party (since the Republicans Romney would work with are already pretty close to being DOA as is). Is the alternative a win in this scenario?
I think you've taken a lot of the "common wisdom" and assumed it to be realistic - I don't agree with nearly any of your conclusions here.
(no subject)
Date: 19/11/12 23:23 (UTC)Even if the former was true, the latter was not. The Republican GOTV effort was the worst it's been in a while.
2) The GOP only does well with low turnouts, when this actually crosses the barrier to win elections.
Except in 2004 with Bush, 2010 with Brown, 2012 with Walker...
The GOP does well with high turnouts of its own constituency. The issue, as of late, has been the GOP's inability to get its own constituency on the ground to get the vote out. That's a bigger problem than any demographic issue.
3) There was high turnout.
This isn't really true. Turnout looks to be significantly down from 2008 on a whole.
4) Thus the Democrats won by virtue of securing their own votes in multiple categories and being able to benefit from another poor slate of GOP candidates, whose low quality is ultimately because GOP politics is steadily becoming an echo chamber where there's one person talking to themselves in a padded room.
The former is true, absolutely. The Obama GOTV operation, as telemann re-linked, was tremendous.
The latter is simply a fantasy.
(no subject)
Date: 19/11/12 23:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/11/12 23:26 (UTC)Yeah, because their base doesn't want to vote for them anymore.
(no subject)
Date: 19/11/12 23:29 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/11/12 23:29 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/11/12 23:30 (UTC)