Whither thou goest, G.O.P.?

[_MeDotOrg]

The economy is mired in a virtually jobless recovery. Many Republicans saw this election as a repeat of 1980. Bad economy? Throw the Democrats out and let the business friendly G.O.P. get things back on track.

The Republican Primaries were an exhaustive vetting process. Romney was not considered the ideological favorite, but the safest, most electable candidate. While a lot can happen between now and November, you get the feeling that the election is slipping away from him. With all of the super PAC money, with all of the disdain (and in some cases outright hatred) for Obama uniting Republicans, with the calls to save America from impending socialist doom, it appears that the G.O.P. may not be able to martial enough votes to win.

Why? How that question is answered could be critical to the future of the Republican Party.

The easy answer is that Romney is too much of a cypher. He is is a chameleon, willing to become anything to be elected. It is his flip-flop vacillating indecisiveness that turn voters off. Next time, they will say, put Paul Ryan (or someone like him) at the top of the ticket Perform a final purge of the moderates, give people a clear choice, and they will respond.

But I think the problem is much deeper than that. The Republican base is shrinking. Instead of reaching out, they are becoming more insular and self righteous. For many Republicans, this is the last national election where they feel can effect change before the tide turns. But such an attitude is quixotic and self-defeating, and (I would argue) nihilistic.

And I think Mitt, willingly or not, clearly defined the problem in his "47%" speech.

In a way, this was the 'quiet room' where Romney told Matt Lauer he would discuss income inequality. Here, at a $50,000 a plate fundraiser (where he no doubt thought his words would not be captured), he says 47% of Americans vote their pocketbook for Obama, that they see the government as their meal ticket.

If he really believes this, he needs to get 97% of the vote from 53% of the voters to win. That's pretty hard to do. Given the G.O.P.'s position on abortion, gay rights, immigration, defense spending and foreign policy, it's virtually impossible.

This comment suggests a few things. First, it suggests that he really doesn’t know much about the country he inhabits. Who are these freeloaders? Is it the Iraq war veteran who goes to the V.A.? Is it the student getting a loan to go to college? Is it the retiree on Social Security or Medicare?...

Romney’s comments also reveal that he has lost any sense of the social compact. In 1987, during Ronald Reagan’s second term, 62 percent of Republicans believed that the government has a responsibility to help those who can’t help themselves. Now, according to the Pew Research Center, only 40 percent of Republicans believe that...

The Republican Party, and apparently Mitt Romney, too, has shifted over toward a much more hyperindividualistic and atomistic social view — from the Reaganesque language of common citizenship to the libertarian language of makers and takers.

David Brooks is a Republican. A moderate Republican, who some true believers would call a RINO. I just think he hasn't drunk the kool-aid.

It is hard to build a majority consensus when you view 47% as being 'bought' by the opposition. As Mr. Brooks points out, what does that mean about how you view the country? What hope do we have for any sort of reasonable compromise or coalition if this is the way you view the electorate?

Politicians may depend upon inspiring dreams to get elected, but government is the art of the possible. Ideological purists can push the political discussion one way or another, but they are rarely good at governance because they refuse to compromise. And a politcal view that sees half the country as 'the other' does not have a great chance to succeed.

Democrats could argue that this is a good thing for them, and in the short term it may be. But in the long run it is bad for the country. An effective opposition keeps you honest, and it also keeps the population engaged in the democratic process.

[_ajax18]

I don't see how the Republicans can win another election. Too many voters are benefitting from the free stuff offered in exchange for our freedom. The real question is where is the country going? The answer is European socialism, similar to what now exists in Greece.

I spent my youth watching my father build missiles and rockets to protect us from communism abroad. Now the communists are taking over democratically. It reminds me of the Book of Mormon, where they point out that even democracy can be just as bad as a bad king. But when the voice of the people chooses evil, there's really nothing you can do to stop the degeneration and devolution that will follow.

Who will I even vote for when the Republican party is powerless and gone? Soon you'll have to be a Democrat to get anywhere just like you had to be in the Communist party in Russia. A one party system will definitely be a different ball game. I don't know if I can adapt and learn to play that game or not. Free speech will be a thing of the past and forums like this could put you on President Obama's, "Enemies list." The only time people will loosen up to talk about politics anymore will be when they're drunk and caught off guard just as it was in the Soviet Union.

[_EAllusion]

Obama is performing right around where econometric models would predict he should perform. There's a myth floating out there, pushed by the fantasies of people Niall Ferguson, that Obama should being having his goose cooked because of the economy. Romney, on this view, is blowing what should be a cake-walk. But voters don't based on something as vague as "the economy." What the research suggests is that what matters is trends in surrounding economic conditions leading into the last 6 months to year prior to the election. And, as it happens, the economy has been tepidly improving during that time. Obama enjoys a small, tepid lead as predicted by that fact. It's actually better to go from 8.3% unemployment to 8.1% than it is to go from 5.5% to 5.7% even though the absolute number, on paper, looks better in the latter case. And if the economy improves too late, like it did in the case of George H.W. Bush, it won't matter as much as voter preferences ossify on conditions well before the actual election takes place.

What's really happening is that a large chunk of persuadable voters that can swing elections vote primarily based on their vague sense of "how things are going." It turns out that their perception of how economic conditions around them are trending plays a notable role in that impression.

Pollyvote aggregates a variety of econometric models. Right now, they predict an Obama victory with 50.4% of the vote. That's not very far off the general 51.5% ish general projections floating out there. Romney is not failing to capture some natural massive advantage for him and there is no lesson like you are suggesting to be had from his failure in this regard.

[_EAllusion]

Who will I even vote for when the Republican party is powerless and gone? Soon you'll have to be a Democrat to get anywhere just like you had to be in the Communist party in Russia.

This is insane.

Free speech will be a thing of the past and forums like this could put you on President Obama's, "Enemies list."

Even more so.

[_palerobber]

i do think the GOP faces a long-term structural problem. but it's not class-based (i wish), it's demographic. as many others have pointed out, our country is going to continue getting less white and less religious for many years to come. so the GOP is going to have to reform at some point. a democrat winning in 2012, 2016, and 2020 could probably force that change. but i fear the power of personalities. though by and large the public may dislike their platform, a likable enough GOP candidate could still overcome that.