An old sport’s adage is that you learn more from your losses than you do from your victories. So let the Republicans learn a thing or two. And, please, this time let’s not try to spin a loss (like the one’s in 1995 and 1996) as a victory. Wow! What happened? Well, without throwing away the age-old experience of off-year elections, these results simply boiled down to a failure of coalition building. It had been noted by every pundit and commentator that this election would turn on the ability of the party’s to energize their respective "bases". This was simply an incorrect, and especially for Republicans, a fatally flawed view of their supporters and of the tactics of victory. A "base" implies a foundation of support. A group of people that will vote for a particular party regardless of candidate or a multitude of party issues, except obviously for those that affect them. The Democrats are the closest to having a true "base" of support. This being the primary result of liberal policies that created a "mechanism of dependency" and a "dependent class". While I do not believe that this "mechanism" was a deliberate creation it is, after all, the result of 35 years of government giveaways, recognizing that it exists and using it to their complete advantage is quite deliberate. And in this election energizing that "base" reached an unprecedented low, but we can address that later. For the Republican’s things are not so easy. They have no true "base". Instead they have a "coalition" of groups energized through a multitude of issues. The Republican Party is best likened to a European parliamentary system, where to govern means cutting deals with various other smaller parties and cobbling together a ruling majority. If anything goes awry to alienate one of those associated groups/parties then all hell breaks lose and the government dissolves until a new ruling majority can be cobbled together. Simplistically put, the Republican Party is composed of two large factions, and a number of smaller spin-off factions. To ensure victory the Republicans must pull these sometimes-differing interests together and form a unified front heading into an election year. Support for this view can be found in the Reagan years and in the 1994 election. Let me explain. The major groups are the "social" conservatives, these being the family values group and the Christian Right. Yes, the social conservatives are two groups united under the family values banner. Next you have the "economic" conservatives, the Wall Street team. This group is typically softer on the social issues. Then you have the Country Club Republicans, Neo-Conservatives, Globalist, Foreign Policy, and the spin-offs. The spin-offs are an interesting study and are currently being overlooked in the coalition equation. This group is made up of the Libertarian, US Taxpayers, and Reformed parties. Each of these parties are made up of the hard edges of the Republican constituencies of the above mentioned groups. The Libertarians are the hard-edged "economic" conservatives, hard on economic issues and liberal on social issues. The USTP is hard on social issues, hard on economic issues that effect Mainstreet, and protectionist on trade. The Reformed party is soft on social issues, hard on the Mainstreet economic issues and protectionist on trade. The 1994 elections provide a general blueprint for coalition building. I say this without necessarily endorsing it, but The Contract with America was a coalition builder. The issues framed there struck to the heart of social, family, and economic issues that are central to each of these group's special interest. It provided the framework for a strong coalition and resulted in a smashing victory in the 1994 elections. While a lot of credit was given to the Republicans responsible for the Contract, hindsight says they may just have been lucky in there choice of tactics. The failure of the Republicans over the last two elections has been the failure of leadership and coalition building. The 1998 elections are a prime example of how to pull apart a coalition. The Republican leadership sent conflicting, contradictory messages about the Clinton impeachment hearings, seeming to play politics with a major "social" conservative issue. At the same time caving on a budget deal that contained no tax breaks and played dialing-for-pork with the budget surplus. Weak-kneed politics as usual and your coalition comes apart and stays home from the polls. As of this writing every Republican is pointing the finger at every other Republican and playing the blame game. "Social" conservative lost the election by staying home. No it was the "economic" conservative who stayed home. In reality it was fear and timidity of the Republican leadership which pulled apart the coalition. To put it back together is simple. Get new leadership. Get back on the core messages, i.e. social and economic. And work to pull the Libertarian, USTP, and Reformed voter back into the coalition. This is not as hard as it may appear. In fact only two issues are really troublesome for the Republican coalition. They are abortion and protectionism. The abortion issue can be handled by going hammer and tong after the partial-birth abortion ban. This will give pro-life the victory they need and the "social" conservatives are on board for 2000. The next is harder, but nevertheless necessary…jettison the free-traders. |
