Still, the politics that move this country have me thinking and so there may be minor flood of posts with the "politics" tag that thus far has been used sparingly.More to the point are the ideas advanced by Frank the Tank in his call for change within the GOP. I was also moved by the lengthy and well-reasoned response in the first comment that runs nearly as long as the post itself.
Still, it's not a stretch to say that the Republican party is seen as less inclusive as the Democrats and that is a pretty strange point to arrive at when you begin with Abraham Lincoln as the first Republican president.
I tend to view the parties through a strange prism of what the average voter sees, and by that I tend to weigh the consensus more heavily than the actual nuts and bolts of of each party's political machine. For example, in discussing McCain taking the fall for GOP leaders and their place in the economic crisis with Frank, I can understand that the blame shouldn't fall directly on the Republicans, but unless they could effectively sway voter perceptions, it's a moot point.
Call me uninformed or blind to the fleecing at the hands of a liberal media - a major sore spot for me - but really, if you can't realistically take the pulse of the electorate, you're essentially arguing policy in a vacuum.
With that out of the way, I think it's safe to say that Democrats are seen as the warm, fuzzy candidates and while recent history bears out that people don't always want that quality in their candidate for office, it makes things difficult for GOP candidates courting votes in low-income areas or with the nation's various minority groups.
It also highlights one of the major trains of thought I've had since Tuesday and especially with regards to a few discussions with Frank. (It's worth noting that he is my main source of dissenting opinion because he can carefully formulate articulate arguments without using the words "liberal media," "idiot," "hippie" or "Fox News said." Also, he eats the same garbage food I do when our wives aren't watching, so we are able to plow through all sorts of strange political topics over breaded steak sandwiches at Ricobene's.)
In a few discussions this fall, Frank has repeatedly pointed out that he is fiscally conservative and socially progressive - in short, that he supports many pieces of the Democratic platform when it comes to social issues but can't get behind their economic policy.
To be totally honest, I don't think that I could accurately (much less gracefully) explain the Democratic plans for the economy if I was spotted an hour in the library and a cabinet of top-level advisors. I don't imagine that I'm alone with my donkey-loving brothers and sisters.
And therein lies a major question for me in the polling data - how many of those people who voted Democrat on Tuesday did so because of the party's social agenda and how many did so based on their economic policies. (It's worth noting that for the basis of what follows here, I'm effectively ignoring McCain specifically, who was polling better than "Republican Candidate X" and suffered from an odd campaign stricken by amnesia that presented the candidate in a different light than what got him to that point. Tuesday night is much more suspenseful if McCain runs his campaign with the same tone set in his concession speech.)
A major problem for the GOP, as outlined by the post that I've linked, boils down to the reality that the party needs to focus on both sides and loses voters if they push too far one way or another. I assume that the average Democrat would back an economic stimulus package based on buying a truckload of Powerball tickets if it meant supporting a candidate who would pack the Supreme Court with pro-choicers and proponents of gay marriage.
Personally, I'd have more difficult decisions to make if the GOP held the line with less government interference - because really, who wouldn't want lower taxes - when it came to those issues. Still, for the party that preaches a more hands off approach, they have the hardest lines on who you can marry and what decisions can and cannot be made by a pregnant woman.
I may not be listening well enough, but I rarely hear complaints about what something will cost from the Democratic voters, as long as they support the ideas driving it. They'll pay for universal health care, welfare and other programs as long as they think it will help (which I know is seen as a weakness by some) but I think it illustrates a major division between the voters for the two sides. It's not just what they vote for, but how they vote as well.
In short, the GOP must cater to socially conservative voters who want to ban abortion and gay marriage (and a host of other issues, but those two make for nice shorthand) as well as those who want to keep a sober eye on the bottom line, while the Democrats can focus all their attention on their social stance and not worry about losing too many voters because of the economic road map.
Personally, while I checked out Obama's tax and health care plans just to know what they entailed before I voted, there wasn't a significant chance I'd vote McCain because of the party platform. I doubt the GOP was afforded the same luxury.
And so, Frank's call for a party that loosens up a bit on the reigns and becomes a more welcoming place for a diverse block of voters isn't falling on deaf ears from either side of the aisle.
He wrote:
The Republicans have the opportunity to either perform a make-over to become a true majority party that invites intellectual debate or alternatively could choose to be a vocal minority that only cares about ideological purity. Is the party going to opt to grow and attempt to expand its base by adopting a libertarian platform in light of substantial demographic trends, even in the traditionally Republican strongholds in the South? Or is the party going to look to protect its evangelical core because they are the loudest and most activist group?
It's time for a makeover - someone has to keep the hippies in line. I saw that on Fox News.
(Image from: GOP.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment