Bio
Publishes Mamalogues® and is a talk radio host. Blogher contributing political editor; also contributes to Mamapop, Imperfect Parent, Momversation, an...
 
 
 
 

Most Popular

How to Regroup the Right?

  • Share This Post
  • Pin It
  • 24
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

The next two months will decide the fate of the conservative movement, and also, the Republican party, which is currently suffering from a personality disorder. If I had to give an answer right now as to whether or not I think the conservative ascension to its former prominence is a guarantee, I must honestly answer: I don't know. If I had to make a guesstimate based upon the past several weeks, I'd lean towards no. It's a reason why I'm careful in separating the titles "conservative movement" and Republican party: they are not the same. As I've written previously, this is why John McCain is now prostrate before President-Elect Obama. The GOP is still hemorrhaging.

One ways the conservative movement and Republicans will rebound within the next four years: identifying and avoiding those who surrender their identity and placate those with opposing means as a way to hang on to a shred of relevancy. Those now willing to verbally fellate those against whom they spoke so ardently during the election will neuter themselves completely.

I came across an op/ed called "Giving Up on God" from Kathleen Parker, and quite honestly I found her degree of stereotyping and her half-hearted attempt at intellectualism positively offensive:

"Religious conservatives become defensive at any suggestion that they've had something to do with the GOP's erosion. And, though the recent Democratic sweep can be attributed in large part to a referendum on Bush and the failing economy, three long-term trends identified by Emory University's Alan Abramowitz have been devastating to the Republican Party: increasing racial diversity, declining marriage rates and changes in religious beliefs.

... Suffice it to say, the Republican Party is largely comprised of white, married Christians."

I find this amusing and completely ironic, considering that the same base which she marginalizes was indisputably the very reason McCain even remained relevant, it was the reason he surged in the polls after adding Palin to his ticket. It was the reason I had about 110-some-odd emails in my station inbox saying that they voted for Palin first and McCain second and that the GOP was too moderate. It's also the party which has promoted more women and minorities to positions of power. Bush's cabinet looked like a United Colors of Benneton ad, for crying out loud.

I happened to read the Anchoresses' reply soon after and was comforted:

"Later she talks about having her “last cigarette,” because obviously, the Religious Right - all of whom look and act exactly like Carrie White’s mother - will destroy her for speaking out against what she perceives as the unhealthy dominance of religious expression within the GOP.

Parker may actually be making a point worth considering when she argues that the Religious Right is a bit louder than it (or any distinct interest) should be in a political party - and that their exuberance may be off-putting to secularists and those who practice a quieter sort of worship - but she discredits herself, and her argument, in the way she makes it, which is by calling such people gorillas and lowbrows."

People like Parker, people like Jed Babbin (who's now joined the homoerotic pile-on of George W. Bush), David Frum, and others, people who like to market themselves as stalwarts of conservatism, people who are eager to chuck their convictions out the window and purse their lips for backsides so as to gain Democratic favor. They're fair-weather conservatives. I imagine that they, much as John McCain tried to this past election, think that they only have to grovel a bit to be re-validated by the base. Sorry, but I and others are not going quietly into this good night. There needs to be a bigger disparity between the two parties because Democrat and Democrat Lite don't cut it. We've already taken the advice of disenfranchising the righty-right voters and moving the party centrist and the result was a big, giant, epic FAIL.

Another way the movement and party won't gain ground is to ignore the up-and-comers in the party, many who, contrary to Parker's sentiment, are younger, female, black, Mormon, et al. As I said earlier, out of the two parties it has bee the GOP who historically has appointed more women and minorities to upper echelon positions within the political sphere. However, those are "safe" positions. Those positions won't put the person holding the title into the role of

  • 24
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
Mamalogues 5 pts

@Kate - Barf. Don't use Pat Robertson or Fred Phelps as spokesmen for Christianity. It's akin to using Jeremiah Wright as representative of all black churches. They totally give me the willies.  

@Heather - "The reason the Republicans lost the election was they have not been true to their conservatism roots." SO true. Great comment. 

A person belongs in a party if they, the person, shares the same beliefs in policy. Conservatism and sex or race aren't mutually exclusive things. People act as though there aren't women or minorities in the GOP - Alan Keyes, Antoine Members (who ran for Obama's former seat), Shamed Dogan, Bobby Jindal, Michael Steele, Condoleezza Rice ... the list goes on. To say otherwise is simply encouraging a stereotype as a way to neutralize the party's relevancy. Granted, the GOP needs to do better to elevate TALENTED people - regardless of genitalia or skin color or religion - to leadership positions within the party, but the face of the GOP is changing and has been for some time. 

Dana Loesch
Mamalogues.com ( http://www.mamalogues.com )

Host and executive producer, "The Dana Show" ( http://www.971talk.com/dana/index.aspx )
on Fox News KFTK 97.1 FM Talk

amamasblog 5 pts

So the first African-American woman Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, does not represent you? I suppose Alberto Gonzales, the first Hispanic Attorney General does not either. There IS diversity in the Republican party- but the diversity is written off, because they are not Democrats.

Have you ever been to Republican event, or are you just relying on what the media chooses to show on TV or in the papers? I went to a campaign stop this past election season, and saw a TON of diversity. I saw diversity at the RNC as well, when I watched it on C-SPAN.

I am not saying that the GOP doesn't have white people in it, but there are African-Americans, Hispanics, and Asians who are Republican, just as there are in the Democrat party too. Let's see how many minorities are appointed in Obama's cabinet, when it is all said and done. It should be interesting.

If you don't agree with the Republican/Conservative ideals, fine- but there is diversity there. I guess it depends on where you look for it.

Interesting how people can see through the "fear based" campaign for President, and they voted for Obama, but can't see through the "fear based" Prop's campaigns, and they ended up voting for those.

Heather
* A Mama's Blog ( http://www.amamasblog.com )

Norma156 5 pts

If ACORN was so blameless, why were their offices raided in multiple states? Hmmm?

I asked if you knew Republicans who scream and yell about gays, not the religious right (although I don't hear them scream and yell).

I could be wrong, but I haven't noticed any social services being cut. Have you?

Policy is fine, but I still say to look to a person's willingess to make a personal sacrifice on behalf of others for the true measure of a man or woman. By that measure Obama ain't nowhere as big as you'd like to make him out.

Norma156 5 pts

I said "landslide." I'd certainly go with "decisive."

Kristy Sammis 5 pts

I come from a long line of liberals, despite having grown up in a very wealthy and Republican part of the country. My family's anti-Republican sentiments stemmed from what I believe is still the underlying basis of the GOP.

What I mean is, to this day, I am happy to get into a real, issues-based discussion about liberalism v. conservatism. I long for thoughtful debate about the kinds of things this country used to debate about, like:
- Free market capitalism
- Social welfare
- The Bill of Rights (First and Second Amendments especially)
- Big gov't v. small gov't / states' rights v. Federalism
- National security
- Environmentalism (which I do believe began on the Republican platform)

And all the many subjects that fall under these broader topics. These are the kinds of things most surface-level debates are really getting at, anyway.

But we've come sooooo far from these topics.

In my view, the "roots" of the Republican party have nothing to do with Palin or Limbaugh or the hateful, easy rhetoric they spew and provoke. But theirs is the image I have of the Republican Party's "platform" now: Christian, white, anti-gay, pro-war, pro-gun, anti-choice, anti-civil rights.

(And this image is NOT because the Republicans have sided with Dems or watered down their beliefs. This was borne of something else entirely.)

I do agree that moving away from THAT image, and re-embracing the things that made the Republican party a great (Grand?) foil for the left -- well before Regan -- would make strategic sense.

Being conservative once meant being fiscally conservative, and pro-free-market (anti-monopoly and anti-oligopoly), pro-environment, and espousing small government that believed in a separation of church and state (even if it did try to legislate morality a bunch of the time).

But maybe those days are totally gone, and all we can look forward to is more "debate" about how to define a "family."

---
Kristy Sammis
BlogHer's Conference & Event Planner
e. kristy@blogher.com

shelleyp 5 pts

DNLee, the threaded comment indentation doesn't always demonstrate well the fact that I was responding to the person that Gena was also responding to.

kdc521 5 pts

I agree with you that the Democratic Party has not always been kind towards Bush and I think that's wrong too. I believe that we need to support (not necessarily agree with every policy, but support) whoever is President. Republicans can't throw stones though - they have been super critical of Bush also. Personally, I found it very disloyal the way many Republican candidates tried to distance themselves from Bush during the campaign season like he was some sort of pariah - especially when many of them went along with Bush's policies until they became extremely unpopular. Bush didn't get our country in this position by himself...people on all sides politically contributed. The term "fair-weather friends" come to mind...

Also, I don't think that the point (not mines anyway) was that the Republicans were "mean" for questioning some of Obama's associations. It's the manner in which they did so - in a manner intent on instilling fear/ inciting anger/ causing division. (As moms, many of us teach our kids that it's not always what you say but also how you say it.) Even many conservative lifelong Republicans have expressed their disappointment/shame with the manner in which McCain's campaign went so negative near the end....

dnlee5 5 pts

ShellyP:  I think you may have missed Gena's point.  She was criticizing the likes of Palin,Limbaugh and others.  The GOP's roots are fiscal conservatism, limited gov't, and perserving individual rights.  Since the evangelical right has had a strong hold they have been none of these things.

And I felt similarly about the GOP - it is White, white, white.  Though they depended on alot of 'code talk' it all came down to being white - that's what real Americans look like, everyone else, especially if you are a member of a marginalized group w/legitimate historical beef w/ some US or State policies - you're not real Americans. You're whiny, communists, terrorists, anti-Americans.

 The GOP had some great core values once upon a time - and I'm NOT talking about Reagan his administration was HORRIBLE to most working class people in America.  Some cities/families still have the scars from his economic policies.  Get back to those core values and the party stands a chance of diversifying because those values are color-blind.

DNLee

Lisse 5 pts

That brought Obama his victory.

It was not so much that Conservatism was appealing as that it was an alternative to the completely demoralized country we became after the Iran Hostage taking and the gas crisis (and was frankly, still recovering from both Viet Nam and Watergate).

When Reagan left we had decimated family farms and the manufacturing sector, and a huge national debt to the defense industry. Big business had all the power, workers saw less and less return for their efforts, and of course, greed was good.

Here we are again with the winner having delivered a message of hope after 8 years of misguided war efforts, abuse of power, and financial malfeasance - an era that began with Enron, was dominated by Haliburton, and ended in a crashing heap of credit default swaps.

Sarah Palin energized her party with messages of fear-based hatred. She appealled to people's basest instincts and they came out in droves to refuel the misguided outrage that empowers them. She got as far as she did because otherwise reasonable people have said that Obama scares them, even if they could not give a reason for their fear in any kind of fact-based language.

Thankfully, the nation has rejected that rhetoric for now.

Conservatives might also do well to remember that McCain the moderate had a very broad-based appeal in the 2000 election, before Rove destroyed him. Sadly, it was reawakening that nastiness in his 2008 campaign that proved his undoing this time around.

But by all means, stick to your hard-line conservativism. The more you continue to marginalize yourselves, the better off the general population will be.

-Lisse

@ Home in the World ( http://homeintheworld.typepad.com )

shelleyp 5 pts

You are so right, the Republican party needs to return to its "roots". Listen to people like Limbaugh and Malkin, and pick someone like Sarah Palin for the next presidential election.

I think its especially important for the party to return to focus on its glory days, of Reagan and landslide victory. So what if this was over a generation ago? Don't let the changing times influence you -- by gol, you all know what works. 

I'm looking forward to Sarah Palin running for President in 2012. No, really, I am.

I like an easy election.

evilslutopia 5 pts

I don't know any Republicans who scream and yell about gay people. Who are they????

You might want to try reading the sections of the Republican party platform ( http://www.gopplatform2008.com/2008Platform.pdf ) that deal with gay rights. 

The Evil Slut Clique
Evilslutopia ( http://evilslutopia.blogspot.com )

evilslutopia 5 pts

it is interesting to note that Obama did not win in a landslide.

Obama: 365 electoral votes - 66,361,433 popular vote
McCain: 173 electoral votes - 58,024,608 popular vote

Obama won the popular vote 53% to 46%, and got almost 200 electoral votes more than McCain.  How much more decisive did you want it to be? 

The Evil Slut Clique
Evilslutopia ( http://evilslutopia.blogspot.com )

Gena Haskett 6 pts

The Republican party made it very clear who their base is and I am not included. The party does not have to say a word. Look at the photos & visuals alone from the convention or a rally or a campaign stop.

Not the faces they stick on stage, the crowd. The base is WASPy, Anglo, Euro and limited POCs with a few exception. Now turn up the sound from candidate rallys.

I'll give McCain credit on this one, he did draw the line when people said negative things to his face about Obama. Palin had no internal breaks, she said what she meant and it was ignorant.

I was told because I believed different things I was not a true American. I was the enemy. I will not forget that or be told it was not said. Republican and some conservative people applauded and cheered. I am an American but not in the eyes of the current version of the Republican party. The nasty things 2nd and 3rd tier Republican supporters and conservative media like Fox News made it very clear who was in and out of the Grand Old Party.

You can't blame the media for how Republicans presented themselves for the past 8 years. They had the Congress for six. What did they do? Lie, steal, and massive misrepresentation of the powers of Executive office. The Republican Congress had the power and evangelical backing up the ying yang.

Human rights violations that are shameful and will haunt us as we try to regain world community standing and global cooperation.

Explain to me what was watered down in those six year?

I saw a living example of a Republican managed government ballooned the budget. Go on, hold that up as an example to aspire and value. Fiscal conservatives tried to speak up and they were trounced or silenced.

We both could agree that if they returned to fiscally responsible approaches and provided helpful suggestions to taxing and bailing out corporations that could be a good start. I ain't heard nothing yet.

You don't like what you think Obama is gonna do? Provide viable solutions to the problems that the Dubya Administration created. But clean your party house first. And the Republican party needs to fess up that they f-cked up on multiple levels.

I will not derail this topic with Prop 8 except to say it was presented as a pack of lies funded by LDS and Catholic organizations. Yes, even in Blue states people vote their beliefs and fears. It was a fear based campaign.

Gena - Out On The Stoop ( http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com )

amamasblog 5 pts

The reason the Republicans lost the election was they have not been true to their conservatism roots. The entire left, and some "Republicans" say the message of conservatism needs to be "watered down," it needs to attract the moderates to win. This is still being said, even after the Republican's ran the most moderate-middle-of-the road Republican they had. Obviously, straying from conservative principles, to appeal to the moderates, does NOT work. 

It is VERY interesting that when a conservative value like traditional marriage was on the ballot this past election, and NOT watered down, to make it a Democrat "lite" version, it won. Prop. 8 in California won. Traditional marriage defined- it won in California-one of the bluest of the blue states. Similar measures also won in Florida (Prop. 2), and in Arizona (Prop. 102). Obama won Florida and California, so we can't argue that these states had a majority Republican/conservative voter base.

Clearly, the passage of these measures by "blue states" says, that when conservatism is not watered down, it does fine- and it WINS. The message is clear, and people understand it. When conservatism becomes Democrat "lite," much like McCain's campaign- then there is a problem.

If you need further evidence, look at Sarah Palin. Love her or hate her, it is hard to deny that she stands for conservative ideals, and she isn't afraid to make that known. She doesn't apologize for what she believes in, and she can articulate those beliefs, and the ideals of conservatism. That is why she was attacked so viciously by members of the left AND the right. She's a threat. She has the potential to return the Republican party back to its roots. The Democrat "lite" Republicans do not like that. Neither does the left, but that is another issue. Sarah Palin energized the Republican party because the true conservatives finally were being represented.

There are hypocrites, and people who disgrace both parties- on the left (John Edwards, Elliot Spitzer) and on the right (Ted Stevens,)- if Americans are going to use that standard to pick whom they were going to vote for, no one would ever be elected. Both parties make mistakes, and there is no "perfect" candidate. I find it very ironic that the people who say the Republicans are so mean spirited, and cite that as a reason for voting Democrat, are voting for a party (Democrat) which has done nothing to unite the country the last eight years. They do not support the current president, and the spew venom at him, every chance they get. They make movies in Hollywood about assassinating our current president. Yet, the Republicans are "mean" for questioning some of the associates that Sen. Obama has had. It makes no sense whatsoever.

The Republicans have to return to their conservative roots- conservatism wins elections when it is clearly defined and defended- still not convinced? Two words- Ronald Reagan. He won 49 out of 50 states (only second candidate to ever do so)- he won 58.8% of the vote to Mondale's 40.6% and he won 525 electoral votes out of 538-the highest total EVER received by a presidential candidate. Conservatism was clearly defined, and it won big time. Now that was a landslide election.

HeatherA Mama's Blog ( http://www.amamasblog.com/ )

aftercancer 5 pts

Where do I begin?  Multiple reports of voter rolls being purged by Republican run election boards. Poor election districts getting substandard voting equipment and not nearly enough of it at that for the turnout. 

And Christians that yell and scream about gays?  Really are you serious?  There may be millions of Christians who are wonderful but unfortunately they are not nearly as well represented as those who do yell and scream.  

Fred Phelps picketing funerals of military members and screaming and disrupting because he believes that homosexuality is the reason that "we are being punished by God".
Protesting the right to form a gay student group  http://www.gaypasg.org/GayPASG/PressClippings/2005... ( http://www.gaypasg.org/GayPASG/PressClippings/2005... )
Ex-gay groups like Exodus
And quotes from Pat Robertson like this - If the widespread practice of homosexuality will bring about the destruction of your nation, if it will bring about terrorist bombs, if it'll bring about earthquakes, tornadoea and possibly a meteor it isn't necessarily something we ought to open our arms to.  OR MAYBE ONE LIKE THIS -Many of the people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many were homosexuals --the two things seem to go together. 
This was not meant to be an anti-christian rant but if you can truly say you don't know about any of these things than you live in a different country than I do.  By the way, I'm not gay and I can cite these, Imagine the citations if I were.

As for charity that was not the purpose either.  There is an enormous difference between charity and policy.  The right wing folks are the ones who don't want to teach about birth control, don't want to provide birth control or healthcare "if you can afford it" but if a woman gets pregnant suddenly the fetus is the most important thing in the universe, despite the fact that social sevices to help women and children are always the first to be cut.

Finally as for "voter fraud" from ACORN, let me explain this clearly.  ACORN performed voter registration drives.  The job during a voter registration drive is to get people to register to vote.  Once a form is filled out it MUST be submitted without change or that is voter fraud.  So even if 5 million people completed registration forms with the name Mickey Mouse they were submitted.  BUT when they go to the polls to vote they must have identification to prove that they are Mickey Mouse, thus they do not vote under those names.

So much for nonsense!

Kate

I blog at http://www.aftercancernowwhat.wordpress.com 

Norma156 5 pts

I don't really understand your comment. We should trade only with countries whose politics we admire? And, ignore the rest of the world? Try telling that to the companies who sell into China.

What interests me here is that the same people who consider the war in Iraq interference in a domestic dispute are all to ready to impose social and political regulations on countries before doing busines with them. It's a logical inconsistency.

It also interests me that many of the same people who support a government bailout for Detroit, oppose free trade. Better to let taxpayers subsidize jobs than actually create them. Hmm.

Free trade works. NAFTA opened doors to millions of people on both sides of the border, north and south.  

Norma156 5 pts

This is absolute nonsense.

If you look at any of the research done on giving, you'll find that Republicans are far more generous than their counterparts. Check it out before you start yapping about Republicans screwing the poor. And, on that note, give me one example of Republicans screwing the poor or disenfranchising their neighbors. Most of the news coverage about voter corruption this cycle concerned ACORN, an organization to which Obama has strong links.

I think I read somewhere that Michelle and Barrack have donated about a grand to charity. Wow! Biden's given about three grand. Double wow!

Helping the poor? Yes, of course, with tax dollars. Not their own.

I don't know any Republicans who scream and yell about gay people. Who are they????

I do get tired of this kind of baloney.

Norma156 5 pts

This is absolute nonsense.

If you look at any of the research done on giving, you'll find that Republicans are far more generous than their counterparts. Check it out before you start yapping about Republicans screwing the poor. And, on that note, give me one example of Republicans screwing the poor or disenfranchising their neighbors. Most of the news coverage about voter corruption this cycle concerned ACORN, an organization to which Obama has strong links.

I think I read somewhere that Michelle and Barrack have donated about a grand to charity. Wow! Biden's given about three grand. Double wow!

Helping the poor? Yes, of course, with tax dollars. Not their own.

I don't know any Republicans who scream and yell about gay people. Who are they????

I do get tired of this kind of baloney.

nowickedwitch 5 pts

 Free Trade is something I hope Obama reevaluates. It hasn't worked well in it's absconded version ( the last 25 years) and though we punished countries who were not fiscally prudent we spent  and borrowed out the yang, and our global collapse is a direct result of that - while countries with a more regulated market are doing significantly better.

It was a great myth that the free market once released from the constraints of government woudl regulate itself. Be it Columbia or somewhere else there is more to be considered both economically, politically and socially.

cooper

aftercancer 5 pts

You're right and Democrats are the ones who want larger government, except of course for George W. 

Kate

I blog at http://www.aftercancernowwhat.wordpress.com 

Kristy Sammis 5 pts

...unless it has to do with monitoring, judging, and legislating against what we do in our bedrooms.

---
Kristy Sammis
BlogHer's Conference & Event Planner
e. kristy@blogher.com

aftercancer 5 pts

The problem with the party as I see it is hypocrisy.

All of the social issues that they yell and scream about wind up as fodder for their own failings. Homosexuality is evil; unless you're the vice presidents daughter or a politician from Idaho, We should teach abstinence only and if a teenager gets pregnant she's a stupid slut, unless you're the vice president's daughter. How many politicians do you need to see fall from corruption?  Whether it is true or not Delay and Stevens and Abramoff and Paulson make the entire party look crooked. 

It goes on and on, the Republican party is a strange blend of religious right and business. So those who whould be talking about  helping the poor and loving thy neighbor insteadscrew the poor and disenfranchise their neighbor. Until someone makes them take a good hard look at that, they can stay the minority.

Kate

I blog at http://www.aftercancernowwhat.wordpress.com 

Norma156 5 pts

John McCain faced the perfect storm. An unpopular president, an unpopular war, an economy in a meltdown, a smooth and plausible candidate with the added advantage of being black, and a mainstream media intent on savaging Republicans.

This doesn't have anything to do with philosophy, although it is interesting to note that Obama did not win in a landslide.

As we embark on an Obama presidency, I think it's of paramount important that the leaders of both parties look to history as providing some guideline on how to address the economic issues confronting us.

The first response of Hoover was to raise tarriffs. The first response of Roosevelt was to  raise taxes. The depression lasted ten years. Only the war resolved it. It's also worth noting that many of the "New Deal" institutions, e.g., Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are the very ones which have gotten us into such trouble.

Obama is against the free trade agreement with Columbia, one of our allies. He spoke against NAFTA during the campaign. He's repeatedly indicated his desire to raise taxes on the "rich."

This is a miserable portent of things to come.

kdc521 5 pts

As someone who votes based on whom she thinks is the best candidate for the office, this is what has turned me off from the Republican Party as late....

-They have been very divisive. You can disagree without being disagreeable and labeling those who think differently from you in inflammatory terms (enough of the "real America", socialists, communists, etc.). Stick to the issues and let the voters decide. Polls (and word of mouth!) have shown that most Americans are tired of this. The deciding factor for many people (including myself!)
regarding the presidential election was how negative/hostile the Republican Party’s campaign had become in the last few weeks. It said a lot about Obama's character that (for the most part) he refused to sink down to their depths.

-They have not reached out extensively to a variety of groups. I know that you repeat in your article about how inclusive of women and minorities the Republican Party is. However, we live in a very visual society. I look at the Republican conventions, rallies, etc. and I rarely see people of color represented. The "face" of America is changing and evolving. The Republican Party will become irrelevant if it doesn't keep up.

And

-The manner in which they present their values. I'm a Christian, so I have many Bible-based conservative opinions. However, we live in a country that supposedly has a separation of church and state. So, I don't feel comfortable with government mandating their moral beliefs politically AND questioning the faith of those who don't agree. I can't count how many times Republicans have questioned the Christianity of those who were planning
on voting Democrat. How ridiculous. (Jesus didn't get involved in the politics of his day.)

Anyway, those are my top three "annoyances" with the Republican Party as of late. Having written that, I must write that I have voted Republican before and I will again - based on what the individual candidate stands for - NOT because of their label.

-Kimberly/Mom in the City ( http://www.mominthecity.com/ )