Rising from the ashes of the Republican collapse will not be an easy feat. The Republicans are reeling from their recent election defeats, and this has devastated the foundations of the party. According to Drew Mckissick, writing in The Conservative Outpost , he states : "Unfortunately, we got off base with big-government conservatism, or "active" conservatism, as some in that camp prefer to style it. The problem with big government conservatism (apart from its obvious philosophical flaws) is that there are always big government liberals that will shamelessly outbid you every time, (because they know it's not their money anyway). It will never work, nor should it."
I definitely agree with Mr. Mckissick. The Republicans campaign on smaller government, but in the last 8 years, they ballooned the size of the federal government. Some may argue that some aspects of this increase were necessary, for example more defense spending in a post 9/11 world - but the infamous "No Child Left Behind Act" really annoyed some conservatives, I know this by talking to some of my Republican friends who have parents who teach. They told me that the idea is unrealistic, and it is also unfair because the act punishes schools that are not doing well - shouldn't schools that are not doing well get aid to help the students perform better?
The best way to tackle the question of what the new Republican party would look like is to answer why the Republicans have collapsed like a deck of cards recently. In my previous blog, I vividly described how 2 main events, the Iraq war and, more recently, the economy, contributed to the G.O.P. downfall - so how do the Republicans combat this in 2012 and, in the nearer future, the mid-term elections of 2010?
One man on the tip of everyone's lips is Bobby Jindal, the Governor of Louisiana. Young, at 37 years of age, intelligent (educated at Oxoford and Brown), and diverse (Indian heritage), he certainly fits the bill. Look at Barack Obama, young, well educated, and a diverse candidate. A perfect democrat vs. republican mirror image?
One person who agrees with me is Michael Lehay, writing in the Houston Chronicle, in an article entitled "Some in GOP see their Obama in Jindal; Young Louisiana governor is being talked up as key player in party's future". In the article, Lehay explains, "...a mostly Republican crowd of self-described conservatives received their first introduction to someone many prominent members of the GOP think could be the party's own version of Obama. Like the president-elect, Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana is young (37), accomplished (a Rhodes scholar) and, as the son of Indian immigrants, someone familiar with breaking racial and cultural barriers. He came to Iowa to deliver a pair of speeches, and his mere presence ignited talk that the 2012 presidential campaign has begun here, if coyly. Already, a fierce fight is looming between him and other Republicans — former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who arrived in Iowa a couple of days before him, and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who is said to be coming at some point — for the hearts of social conservatives."
I definitely would go along with Lehay's assessment that the Republicans need to do a better job at capturing the increasingly diverse melting pot that is the United States of America. For example, everyone knows that Barack Obama convincingly won the African American vote, but one area in which he was surprisingly successful in was the Hispanic vote. According to Ina Jaffe writing for NPR.com, "Even in Florida — where Hispanic voters have traditionally backed Republicans — a majority supported Obama, says Arturo Vargas, head of the National Association of Latino Elected Officials. He says Latinos focus on their interests — which include the economy, the war in Iraq, access to health care and the need for comprehensive immigration reform — not a particular party."
Considering the vast amount of Hispanics in the United States, this is a vote that will be heavily sought after in the future elections, no doubt about it, and I think Jindal could play a key role in reviving the flat-line that the Republicans seem to have encountered with this diverse demographic, because as Jaffe points out, the Republicans have traditionally done well with Hispanic voters, but Obama's message of unity for all races, combined with the democratic party's more flexible view of immigration, seems to have sealed the deal.
So, what about the rest of party's makeup. Well, for Vice President, I would have Chuck Hagel. Hagel spoke true words of wisdom regarding Iraq, and as a long as distinguished U.S. Senator from the ultra red state of Nebraska, he would provide Jindal will bullet-proof cover from any potential democratic attacks about a perceived "lack of experience in war-time" argument. Hagel would add a much needed wise head to the ticket. But unlike some of his other long serving Republican counter parts, Hagel has a history of positive bi-partisanship, and he admitted that he would have considered running on the democratic ticket with Barack Obama had he been asked to do so.
As for which state(s) the Republicans should target to resurrect their political heartbeat, as I've already stated, they should be very worried about the Hispanic vote. In 2008, Obama was not far away from embarrassing McCain in his home state of Arizona, and surprisingly won in Colorado and New Mexico - both Republican states in 2004 under George Bush. If things continue, how long before the Republicans lose other major states in the nearby area of the country? If Texas, for example, were ever to go Democrat in a presidential election - you can bet your life the Democrats would sweep to victory. I know what you're thinking, Texas going democrat - pigs will fly, but in 2004 had you said that Colorado and New Mexico would both go blue, and Arizona would be close to going blue, you would have got the same reaction from most people...
Finally, as for the make-up of the personnel within the party, appointing both democrats and republicans to key positions could prove fruitful; this would indicate a willingness to display bi-partisanship and would convince the electorate that the party is willing and able to work for the greater good of the country. One candidate for Secretary of State could be Mike Huckabee. I think Huckabee articulated that he was clearly going to adopt a different foreign policy to that of Bush-Cheney. He explained, "The Bush administration’s arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad,” the former Arkansas governor writes. He called for a change in “tone and attitude,” and said that President Bush “has never adequately explained the theology and ideology behind Islamic terrorism."
As someone who has lived outside the United States, one common criticism and misconception people have of America is the representation of an arrogant, rugged mentality with regards to foreign relations and affairs. I think Huckabee would provide a fresh perspective to this notion that US foreign policy is either America's way, or the Highway. Considering the job title of the United States Secretary of State is to be responsible for handling foreign affairs - I think Huckabee would be a fantastic addition to a Jindal-Hagel Presidency.
To summarize, I think I have explained some pointers as to how the Republicans could potentially transform themselves for a strong run in 2012. A Jindal-Hagel ticket would really give the Obama-Biden team a run for their money in the next Presidential election!
No comments:
Post a Comment