Last Hurrah for the GOP?

The Last Hurrah is a novel about an Irish machine politician of the 1950s whose final campaign for mayor is his "last hurrah."  He loses because of forces changing the nature of politics that he doesn't master, specifically TV.  In the end he loses the election and dies soon after.  I read the book in my early teens, but still remember its contours.  Today, many on the left are righting a similar obituary for the Republican party through the lens of the changing demographics of the country.  They point to the fact that currently, Republicans draw heavily on white support and whites constitute only about 71% of the electorate, which is declining every four years.  Brookings reports that they will comprise about 75% of actual voters, but that figure is in decline as well.  Here is a graphic of the trend.

One would think that this spells long term disaster for the GOP, but I think not.  Just focusing on group, Hispanics can explain why.  One of the key reasons that Hispanics have been voting Democrat is a misperception that the Republican position on immigration is motivated by race.  It is not, but that is a hard perception to change.  I believe that Mexican-Americans, who are largely Catholic, would not be in the Democratic coalition except for this.  As often is the case, Victor David Hanson lays out the case much more eloquently than I.  The quoted article is explaining why there is hope for California's dysfunctional politics, but his comments have broader implications.

At some point, the state’s southern border will finally be closed, and with it the unchecked yearly flow of illegal immigrants. The economic downturn in the United States, globalized new industry in Mexico, and increased border enforcement have already resulted in lower numbers of illegals. No national support exists for wholesale amnesty or for open borders. And with an enforced border, California will see not only decreased remittances to Mexico and Latin America and a reduced draw on state services but also, perhaps, a change in attitude within the state’s largest ethnic group. After all, illegal immigration warps the politics of the Mexican-American community, which constitutes more than 40 percent of the state’s population. The unlawful entry of Mexican nationals into California not only ensures statistically that Mexican-Americans as a group suffer from disproportionate poverty rates; it also means that affluent third- and fourth-generation Mexican-Americans become part of a minority receiving disproportionate state help.. . .Indeed, the great fear of the liberal Hispanic hierarchy in government, media, and academia is that without illegal immigration, the conservative tendencies of the Hispanic middle class would cost the elites their positions as self-appointed spokespeople for the statistically underachieving.

The Republicans could speed this change by reaching out to Hispanics now, and by actually getting the border under control after a Romney victory.  Control of the border will be the down payment conservatives will require before negotiating a more thoughtful immigration policy.  But once that issue is settled, I see Hispanics splitting between Republican and Democratic leanings in the same proportion as whites.  That will force the Democratic party back to the middle and be good for the country as a whole.

Let The Demagoguery on the Left Begin

When I saw the WSJ Headline this morning, GOP Aim: Cut $4 Trillion, I thought, look out, this will bring out the vitriol from the left. When I read on, that the key to the plan was to remove Medicare as a single payer for the elderly, I knew this would hit a nerve.

First, the facts. Paul Ryan is going to release a plan that would move those currently under 55 into a "premium support" system rather than to Medicare as it is currently structured. This will shield the federal government from the skyrocketing costs of the program, but will end Medicare as we know it. Cue the howls, the Republicans are ending Medicare. True enough, but if a better and more affordable way to insure seniors can be found, what difference does it make. Frankly we can not afford the current system, given the trends.
Will seniors have to do a better job saving for and managing their own health care? Yes. Why is that a bad thing? Market competition, while not a panacea is certainly preferable to the current system that is rife with fraud and is slowing falling apart as doctors opt out and the queue gets longer for the ones that remain.

Over at DailyKos, the focus is on the fact that this ends Medicare, as if calling it a sacred cow will save it from the inexorable economics that are already killing it. Josh Marshall of TPM is quoted:

The Ryan plan is to get rid of Medicare and in place of it give seniors a voucher to buy health care insurance from private insurers. Now, what if you can't buy as much as insurance or as much care as you need? Well, start saving now or just too bad.

The Republican rebuttal to this tripe is that if the current system isn't dramatically changed, then seniors will have zero health care help from the government. It is a strong man argument, comparing a still functioning system of today against Ryan's proposal, when the actual comparison is against a bankrupt system that helps no one once it goes bust in the future.

E.J. Dionne, another reliably lefty writer, is also quoted in Kos from his WaPo article.

Will President Obama welcome the responsibility of engaging the country in this big argument, or will he shrink from it? Will his political advisers remain robotically obsessed with poll results about the 2012 election, or will they embrace Obama’s historic obligation — and opportunity — to win the most important struggle over the role of government since the New Deal?

He is asking the President to act irresponsibly, as if the party will never end, and risk his re-election on the hope that the public will buy into the shrill messaging of years past. But I think we are beyond that. The Tea Party has educated the public, they are ready to deal with this.

Exit questions. Is this a political winner for Republicans? Will Obama lead a spirited counter-offensive in defense of all things governmental?

Do Republicans Deserve Victory? Part II

After reading my article about the Republican party yesterday, Jonah Goldberg has extended my remarks, and quite eloquently, I might add. He compares the current state of the Republican party to Domino's pizza, an apt comparison. He says that the party should take a page from the new Domino's ads (I have embedded the famous YouTube one below) and admit their past mistakes and do the repentance I have been urging. Some key quotes:

But the GOP’s troubles over the last decade have a lot to do with the fact that Americans didn’t stop liking what the Republican party is supposed to deliver. They stopped liking what the GOP actually delivered.

Spot on. Hence the rise of the Tea Party movement, the desire for limited government still burns strong in America. On "compassionate conservatism" being like a pizza chain getting into Chinese:

Indeed, by my lights, that’s what George W. Bush tried to do with his “compassionate conservatism.” He surrendered to liberal arguments about the role, size, and scope of government on too many fronts. In effect, he said you can have your pizza and Kung Pao chicken all in the same dish. That’s not a good meal, it’s a bad mess.

Goldberg goes on to say that it's time to attack "crony capitalism," the corrupt union of big business and big government. A little contrition and honesty will go a long way to regaining the trust of Americans. Then, they will have to deliver. Time for the GOP to adopt the Freedom Coalition agenda, because soon, just being against the execrable pseudo-socialist crony-capitalism of the Democrats won't be enough; we will have to be for something.


Domino's Turnaround

Do Republicans Deserve Victory?

Certainly the Democrats deserve defeat for their execrable management of their first year of full control of both Houses of Congress and the Presidency. As Peggy Noonan points out in the WSJ today, the focus on health care and global warming is causing the public to believe they don't care about jobs, the deficit or national security. The last failing on full display with two terrorist attacks. (BTW, it's not so much the attacks themselves but the curiously slow and lackluster response by senior officials and the President himself that makes you wonder. HotAir tips that Panetta didn't even break vacation, and apparently this is partly a CIA cock-up.)

But the question is really about Republicans. I have stated repeatedly that McCain's failure to break without bailout nation cost him any chance at the Presidency. Further, it was spending like drunken sailors and becoming identified as the party of big government that lost control of the Congress in 2006. Peggy Noonan phrases the question as:

The question is whether the party will be worthy of victory, whether it learned from its losses in 2006 and '08, whether it deserves leadership. Whether Republicans are a worthy alternative. Whether, in short, they are serious.
They do not see that 2010 could be a catastrophic victory for them. If they seize back power without clear purpose, if they are not serious, if they do the lazy and cynical thing by just sitting back and letting the Democrats lose, three bad things will happen. They will contribute to the air of cynicism in which our citizens marinate. Their lack of seriousness will be discerned by the Republican base, whose enthusiasm and generosity will be blunted. And the Republicans themselves will be left unable to lead when their time comes, because operating cynically will allow the public to view them cynically, which will lessen the chance they will be able to do anything constructive.

Interestingly, Michael Steele, chair of the RNC, seems to think this might be a problem as well. Despite being pilloried in some corners, I think Steele makes a valid point in this report from a Hannity interview:

In fact, when Hannity followed up on the point, Steele said he doesn't know if the GOP is ready to take back the reins of power.

"I don't know. And that's what I'm assessing and evaluating right now. Those candidates who are looking to run have to be anchored in these principles," he said, referring to 5 conservative ideals he lays out in his new tome. "If they don't [anchor themselves], then they'll get to Washington, and they'll start drinking that Potomac River water, and they'll get drunk with power and throw the steps out the window."

Notice how politicians get in the most trouble for telling the truth?