Michael Steele's prescription for the Republican party

[franksolich]

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/2008/11/michael_steeles_rx_for_the_gop.html

Sounds good.

The Wall Street Journal dedicated an op-ed page today to the question, "What Does the GOP Do Next," with brief essays from various conservatives, including former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele. Steele's prescription for the GOP: Become the party of the future by emulating Ronald Reagan. Essentially, Steele says, the party's problem is that it betrayed its principles in order to win and ended up losing instead.

So the party needs to follow the example of Reagan, who "made it cool to be a Republican."

"It wasn't just his specific policies, but the timeless truths he so eloquently gave voice to, and upon which his policies were based. That's the Republican Party we must re-establish."

Steele, who has recently been criticizing the GOP for not doing enough to reach out to minorities, says times have changed and the party needs to adapt. But he said the one thing it can't do is change its principles.

"Our challenge lies not in beating Democrats, but in uniting around a message that solidifies our ranks and attracts new people to our cause. We have to listen to what Americans are telling us about their hopes, desires and needs, and then translate that message into proposals for meaningful action squarely grounded in values we Republicans have always stood for."

I haven't been following this too closely, mostly because it's too soon after the election to re-establish hopes and plans for the future--one has to absorb and accept the loss first, before resurrecting hopes and making plans--but I'm wondering who would be better for the future party, Steele, Gingrich, or Thompson.

[DumbAss Tanker]

I'm wondering what he means by 'betrayed its principles,' there are many possible senses in which that would be true ranging from picking John McCain at all (I would agree with that), to reluctantly permitting the financial sector bailout to pass (certainly politically inescapable in the context in which it happened, economic necessity is an issue on which reasonable minds can differ, but if he thinks giving in on that was a primary cause for the election loss he is thinking like just another Beltway fiscal-only conservative), or if he means the entire Big Government party the GOP became with Bush and his TSA, HLS, NCLB etc. spending sprees (with which I'd have to agree).

[Eupher]

I'm wondering what he means by 'betrayed its principles,' there are many possible senses in which that would be true ranging from picking John McCain at all (I would agree with that), to reluctantly permitting the financial sector bailout to pass (certainly politically inescapable in the context in which it happened, economic necessity is an issue on which reasonable minds can differ, but if he thinks giving in on that was a primary cause for the election loss he is thinking like just another Beltway fiscal-only conservative), or if he means the entire Big Government party the GOP became with Bush and his TSA, HLS, NCLB etc. spending sprees (with which I'd have to agree).

Option #3 is the obvious one. Big Gummint has been a big issue for some time now, even under Reagan. Reagan did a great job spending money while telling the country that Big Gummint was the problem.

This might be the diciest of problems in that ratcheting back on spending doesn't bode well with Congress, who revels on bringing home the Pork - even Republicans do that.

Social issues, such as the degradation of the family unit, haven't been addressed too well by the GOP either. This single problem, IMHO, cascades over into so many other areas that it isn't funny. The nanny state has been with us for many decades now, and it's not getting any better.

[NHSparky]

I'm wondering what he means by 'betrayed its principles,' there are many possible senses in which that would be true ranging from picking John McCain at all (I would agree with that), to reluctantly permitting the financial sector bailout to pass (certainly politically inescapable in the context in which it happened, economic necessity is an issue on which reasonable minds can differ, but if he thinks giving in on that was a primary cause for the election loss he is thinking like just another Beltway fiscal-only conservative), or if he means the entire Big Government party the GOP became with Bush and his TSA, HLS, NCLB etc. spending sprees (with which I'd have to agree).

I disagree with the bailout being necessary.  We've undergone far deeper recessions and lost far more market capital in cyclical corrections without the goverment pumping literally TRILLIONS of dollars of YOUR money in to prop up companies which, quite frankly, should be failing anyway.

Republicans are just as much to blame for using government to solve problems which they created in the first place.  Not a wise move, if you ask me.

[DumbAss Tanker]

I disagree with the bailout being necessary.  We've undergone far deeper recessions and lost far more market capital in cyclical corrections without the goverment pumping literally TRILLIONS of dollars of YOUR money in to prop up companies which, quite frankly, should be failing anyway.

Republicans are just as much to blame for using government to solve problems which they created in the first place.  Not a wise move, if you ask me.

Many agree with you, and I left that point open, however I believe it was politically inescapable in the context of a closing election campaign and the overwhelming shrill drumbeat for it in all the press organs.  The press was going into meltdown over it, and the immediacy of the election left no recovery time in which their panic could have been shown to have been uncalled-for by subsequent events.  Economically valid or not, killing it would have been very popular in many Congressional district races (but which wouldn't have won us any new seats) but a Waterloo for the national ticket.

The politics and the economics of it are related to each other, but not congruent. 

[NHSparky]

Which is why economics SHOULD have overridden politics and the GOP ran away from any mention of a bailout like it was a festering ball of ebola/anthrax/AIDS all rolled into one.  This is one of those cases where it actually would have been better to do nothing.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Timing's everything, Sparky.  NOTHING would override political considerations in favor of economic ones that close to an election.