The Next Right: DOA

h/t The Hill's Blog Briefing Room. I know Jon Henke but if this is the type of view that's going to be advanced by something calling itself The Next Right, there might not be any "next right" at all.

Somebody recently asked me: What can Republicans do on health care? The answer is simple. They lose. In fact, for the next four years, that's going to be the answer Republicans are forced to face over and over again. So let's be blunt about what we can expect: taxes will be higher, universal health care will be imposed, spending will go way, way up, Unions will be given more power, and the government will increasingly pick winners and losers.

And there's almost nothing Republicans can do to stop it.

I guess he forgot to include that Democrats will be canceling the mid-term elections in 2010. Because I can only imagine how well they'd go for them if they are even half way down the above path by then. Obama isn't checking Pelosi's power for nothing, after all.

Putting aside the silly, if not sad defeatism, Blue Dog Democrats, some of whom will also be facing voters in 2010, and an Obama administration that has stumbled out of the gate, as well as displayed at least some moderation because he hopes to be re-elected in four years, advising people to "lose" is for losers, not someone who purports to want to help shape some next version of the Right in America.

In a new media age where, certainly not just blogs, but talk radio and even television can get Congressional and White House phones ringing off the hook in hours, not days, the notion that either party in Washington can steamroll such massive legislation as cited by Henke just isn't the case.

The Beltway is as alluring as it is powerful. Unfortunately one of its most powerful qualities is the one that somehow affixes blinders to those who are inside it. That happened to many Republicans who have been there far too long. If it starts happening too quickly to those with much less time within it, all that displays is that the answers the Right and Republicans seek and need lie outside the Beltway and not within it.

Comments

[Jon Henke]

The part you cited was not advice. It was analysis. Don't confuse my preferences with my read of the political landscape.

I think there are a great many things Republicans can and should do. Unfortunately, Republicans seem much more determined to continue doing the stuff that doesn't work, and relatively uninterested in transformative policies that could re-orient the party and bring it back successfully.

[Dan]

Fair enough, Jon. I've updated "advice" to "view." I still think it un-necessarily pessimistic in either case.

[Eric Florack]

"Republicans don't need to "get back to their principles." Principles aren't the problem. The idea of individual freedom, free markets and limited government is just fine."

You missed it.

The princiles, and getting away from them, particularly the ones you stated, is exactly the issue.

Republicans have gotten away from those ideas, and those principles... ones that supposedly, Republicans stood for, and the voters reacted accodingly. And don't tell me about how Republicans are being dragged into herding socialist programs. If their principles of individual freedom, free markets and limited government were still their motivation, wouldn't they be objecting loudly and fighting Democrats and their socialist wet dreams... fighting them tooth and nail.... the way the Democrats fight everything to the right of Castro?

Granted that there are some structual issues that lean to the left. Then again, those exist to the precise degree that Republicans have given up on those principles mentioned. Again, just so they're not seen as 'confrontational'.. so as to be seen as 'bipartisan'.
(Spit)

We have in front of us, four years worth of opportunities - teachable moments. A total of 1500 some odd days when examples of government excess and their results will be spoon fed to us. All we have to do is publicly note their passage, and point to the principles governing them. But we're not going to be able to point to such with any authority, if we so easily drop our principles to 'get along' as has happened all too often.

Our big problem now, as I see it is too many Republicans wanting to be Democrats.

[Jon Henke]

You could be right. But I think it's going to take some major policy innovation and political jujitsui by the Republican Party to stop it. I just haven't seen evidence that they can do that. Aside from the credibility problems with the public, they seem too locked into a framework of policies, themes and litmus tests that isn't likely to grab the public imagination as a viable alternative.

[Dan]

"I just haven't seen evidence that they can do that."

Unfortunately, that's where we agree on this, Jon. As a practical matter, your analysis could prove correct. As a blog matter in this new "era of hope," I'd rather argue to fight. Obama isn't wowing them out of the gate. And with his popularity, so goes his clout. I at least want to hold on to the hope that there are enough Americans who don't want the changes you listed who have access to talk radio, a blog, or a telephone, that we still stand a fighting chance.

Nationalizing health care and extreme global warming legislation could doom us all and prove to be all but impossible to repeal.

[Eric Florack]

Lemme tell you something, Jon... Good as he was, the only reason Reagan managed to get into office was because Carter was such a walking disaster. Republicans of the day weren't in any more of a position to fight the Democrats than they they are now. In many ways, in fact, they were a weaker lot. What Reagan was able to do was to point to the failures, call up the principles involved, and let the reality of it sell itself to the voter.

Obama shows every sign of making the failures of Cater look small by comparison. I suggest what's needful is someone... preferably several someones... to stand on those principles we mentioned. Given that set of conditions, the voters will understand what to do.

At that point, the trick is to keep the Repubicans within that framework of principle.

Here's the thing; Limiting power for both sides by legal means as you apparently suggest, only works so far, particularly if you lack people of principle. Witness Illinois, for a few thousand examples.

We first need people who are so principled. First. That's the only way we're going to prevent the further growth of government.

[Lala]

McCain's health insurance plan wasn't bad. But, he didn't explain it and so the Dems distorted it by saying that McCain wanted to tax their health care plans. And that's what people heard.

I pay my daughter's health insurance as she's free-lancing. It's almost 500 dollars a month here in New York. If she lived in CT, I could get her a plan for about 200 a month. Why can't I buy the CT plan? Because NY doesn't allow the buying of out-of-state insurance.

I'd be happy just to have a major-medical catastrophic plan with, say, a $10,000.00 deductible. What do people worry about? Not so much colds and broken legs. They worry about the expensive stuff like cancer and heart attacks.

[mark l.]

the 'four year' thing...

just became the 'next year' thing.

"Health-care reform may have to wait"
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/03/baucus-health-care-reform-may-have-to-wait/

'next year' being the year following a potential three trillion dollar deficit and featuring a little interlude called an election. There are enough dems left over from 93-94 who will be aware of the pitfall universal healthcare presents.

The dems will have to be in the position of believing that they can both, politically and finacially, afford to address it. I'm thinking they'll fail at both levels, but even if they are just worried about one, they won't do it.

[g50]

I think Jon is correct. Elections can be about the shifting terrain of the major issues of the day, which allows savvy politicking by the parties to shape the public's view in the election. However, that is really only the case when the parties are closely divided. Popularity of ideas drives these evenly-contested elections.

In the case of big victories, however, I don't think the back-and-forth is what dislodges changes the game. In the case of big victories, the winner generates enthusiasm for himself as a person, not as a collection of policy issues. Big victories are about popularity of people and people's emotional investment in the popular. Popularity drives these lopsided elections.

Rather than say, we are locked into this snapshot in time where we have to fight in the current context, and maybe we can win enough to narrowly dislodge in the next election, only to have a series of closer elections, the real test for Republicans is recognizing the current strategic imbalance and working toward the medium term to position the party, yes, on the issues it anticipates will be key in several years time, but more importantly, linking that anticipated framework to people who can effectively forge the personal connection between a set of ideas and their popularity.

Unfortunately, the problem with Republicans today is not the lack of popular ideas, but of popular politicians.

[Dan]

"Unfortunately, the problem with Republicans today is not the lack of popular ideas, but of popular politicians."

Amen to that.

[Eric Florack]

"In the case of big victories, the winner generates enthusiasm for himself as a person, not as a collection of policy issues. "

So, is that why the Stimulus bill Obama's pushing only has a 37% approval rating and why after only less than two weeks on the job, Obama's approval rating is down by two dozen points?

I point you to Rich Lowry's post of this morning:

"If Republican moderates in the Senate really want to have an influence on the process, they should say "no way, no how" on the current monstrosity and help take it down tonight or tomorrow. Then, if they want to try to improve it, they will have drastically increased their leverage. "

Raw numbers are great when you have them, but taking the high road on principle can be equally powerful.