Powell's Allegation That the Country Has Changed
It is not surprising that Colin Powell would stand by his endorsement of the new President six months after the election. Still, I'm disappointed in Powell's analysis:
The party must realize that the country has changed. Americans do want to pay taxes for services. Americans are looking for more government in their life, not less.
I fundamentally disagree, in the strongest terms. What I see in polls is that Barack Obama is popular (according to Rasmussen, about 57% approval), but that the popularity does not necessarily translate to his policies or to the Congress. In fact, just 41% believe that Obama's upcoming Supreme Court pick will be liberal; this plainly cannot be based on the record where Obama had a strongly liberal voting record during his years in the US Senate, and Obama opposed the nominations of highly qualified Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Alito (and in fact wanted to filibuster Alito's nomination) and has advocated using the courts as a means for redistributionist justice. Obama's ratings consistently outpoll the popularity of his substantive positions. I believe a lot of Obama's high approval ratings has more to do to do with his perceived intelligence, remarkable communication skills, in particular, his moderate, nonpartisan rhetoric, his deliberate ambiguity in trying to address both sides in a dispute, and his engaged, inclusive leadership style. I think that Obama, to some extent, is benefiting from a favorable comparison with former President Bush, whom was perceived more as stubborn than principled, seemed somewhat isolated and aloof, and made a number of bad decisions (e.g., starting his second term with significant suggested structural changes in an American sacred cow, social security; the mishandling of post-liberation Iraq; waiting until after the 2006 election to make changes in Iraq leadership and strategy; the unprecedented bungling of Hurricane Katrina; and the unforced errors of Texas crony nominations of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General and Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court).
The GOP maintains a slim lead in the generic ballot and are in a dead heat with the Democrats over handling of the economy, which strongly suggests that the Democrats' actions on passing the bloated so-called stimulus bill and pork-loaded omnibus budget have not been received well beyond the Democratic base; in particular, with reference to Powell's claims, some 52% of those polled complained that they pay more than their fair share of taxes, and the GOP is trusted (by several points) more than the Democrats both on national security and taxes.
The polls also show that voters prefer customer service in the private sector 3-to-1 (75%) over the public sector, confidence in the private economy has picked up with signs of a recession bottoming, and two out of three people believe that Obama and the Democrats will spend more than the Bush Administration.
We should not understate the dynamics of what happened last fall. McCain had actually overtaken Obama in the polls by early September. Barack Obama had made a bizarre choice for his running mate, a 6-term senator in a change election (which, in my view, obfuscated his change message), snubbing Hillary Clinton, whom had barely lost to him, mostly due to her lack of organization in caucus states. But McCain's pick of Sarah Palin badly backfired given her unsatisfactory performances in national interviews (unable to articulate a Supreme Court decision beyond Roe v. Wade, overhyping her experience as a first-term governor, declining to reveal what newspapers she reads, not articulating McCain's position on regulations, etc.) and it needlessly dealt away McCain's trump card of experience. However, McCain made an unforced error by his unilateral, impulsive decision to suspend his campaign during the financial tsunami, not even using the occasion to publicly break with Bush, define a clear distinction against Obama, and champion the views of the bailout-dissenting House Republicans, which would have tapped into public discontent over the bailouts. As it was, McCain found himself in a number of nuanced versus substantive differences with Obama (on the bailout) and found it difficult to separate himself and his voting record from Bush, in part because he ran in the Republican primaries touting his voting record with Bush initiatives, and Bush had made almost no attempt to reverse his declining approval ratings during his last 2 years in office. Of course, and perhaps unfairly, McCain suffered from a factor beyond his control, his age difference from Obama. There's not a lot McCain could do about that, other than to perhaps throw a wild card into the equation by pledging to serve just one term and a unity government. McCain also had a mixed message between bipartisan leadership and his maverick image.
But I think to a large extent, circumstances beyond control of the candidate dictated the outcome of the election last November. If we had had a military/homeland security crisis by the end of the campaign, McCain would have won in a landslide.
But Powell ignores the fact that economic uncertainty inevitably swings an election in favor of the Democrats, especially when they're the challengers. The economic tsunami had shaken public confidence in the private sector; people were worried about their jobs, the ability to pay their bills (especially their mortgage), etc., and the social safety net seemed reassuring.It did not mean that Americans have drunk the liberal Kool Aid. The above-cited preference for business-provided customer service clearly suggests a more nuanced perspective on government services. In other posts, I've suggested relevant approaches, including the concept of catastrophic insurance; in addition, I'm suggesting that the GOP focus on a business approach to government services, one that is streamlined, run smarter, more efficiently, and more conveniently and responsibly to the taxpayer/citizen. In particular, the GOP should point out that just as we have become more entangled internationally and cannot afford to be the world's policeman, we have become more entangled domestically and cannot afford to be the nation's nanny. We have to learn to choose our battles, not reinvent the wheel and certainly not take on new mandates when the taxpayer already knows the government is having trouble managing what's already on its plate....I think almost any national Democrat, conservative or liberal, never mind a fourth-year senator without administrative experience whom spent the last 2 years running for President, could have beaten McCain last November. It was a a change election year: we saw the White House flip in 1952, 1960, 1968, 1976, 1992, 2000, and 2008 after 2 or more terms by the opposing party. The two Presidents who did not get reelected, Carter (1980) and Bush (1992), faced challenging economic problems late in their terms.
Powell's Critique of the Public Face of the GOP Conservatives
I think there's a lot to be said for an inclusive, congenial, articulate, positive-toned, motivational-speaker style conservative, more of a smiling Reagan conservative than a dour Goldwater conservative one. I think adapted Obamaian tactics--the ambiguity, the co-opting of traditional Democratic themes (just like Obama tried to co-opt the low tax message of the GOP)--might be useful.
I have been critical and to a certain extent judgmental about Obama and the Democrats. A lot of that is due to high pressure tactics to push out major new legislation without full and frank debate and then misleading the American people on the nature of the legislation (i.e., a stimulus bill which, in fact, only has a limited amount of infrastructure spending in the short term--and upcoming: a health care bill), the refusal to negotiate in good faith with the Republicans with a legitimate bipartisan mandate (despite all this high-sounding rhetoric of postpartisan politics--but then peeling off just enough Republican votes to bypass a filibuster and hinting at the unconventional use of budget reconciliation process to avoid a genuine compromise with the GOP, e.g., on health care). Obama has also continued to attack the Bush administration for the economic tsunami and has opened the door to possible prosecution over policy differences (with respect to enhanced interrogation techniques). And I believe Obama has been engaging in unnecessary, divisive class warfare instead of shared sacrifice with his redistributive schemes, has not been honest with the American people over the implications of chronic overspending, which will likely result in inflation (especially affecting the poor and lower middle-class), or the results of his environmental agenda, e.g., cap-and-trade and limited domestic oil and gas exploration, which will sharply escalate energy costs (especially affecting the poor and lower middle-class).
I think that the GOP leadership in Congress must reaffirm its commitment to meet with the Democrats in good faith, without preconditions, and to put the national interest above political ideology. We must not forget the example of Ronald Reagan, whom is idolized by media conservatives. Reagan was a pragmatist; as governor of California, he signed perhaps the most liberal abortion law in the country (before Roe v Wade) and, facing a stiff deficit, agreed to a significant tax hike. As President, Reagan agreed to compromise with the Democrats on a payroll tax increase to save social security, tax rate adjustments, and an immigration reform bill.
What I want to suggest to other conservatives that we adopt a message of, to paraphase a 1970's hit featuring Willie Nelson and Waylon Jennings, getting back to the basics of life: an honest day's work, thrift, due diligence, initiative, self-reliance and helping our neighbors in need. In particular, I think it is time to realize the government cannot be all things to all people: we need to focus on the competent, legitimate mandate for government: things like our national defense, infrastructure, public safety, and a legal system where judges know their role and have no hidden policy agenda. Not only must we limit our domestic entanglements, the size of our government footprint, but also our foreign entanglements. What the government does, first and foremost it must do well, and it must not initiatize new programs, or expand others, until it handles its existing mandate. To put out the fire, we don't need bigger versions of a leaky bucket; we need to fix the bucket.
It makes little sense to chase out of the party moderate or liberal Republicans like Chris Shays, Linc Chafee, or Arlen Specter, replacing them with ideologues whom have no chance to carry a swing district or state. I believe in the free market of ideas and note that the party is big enough to be home to a paleoconservative like Pat Buchanan or a libertarian like Ron Paul, both of whom opposed the Iraq intervention. I welcome the indisputable leadership and patriotism of Republicans such as Rudy Giuliani and Colin Powell, even though I differ with their position on legalized abortion rights.
