Republicans Mustn't Match Democrats' Arrogance in Victory

January 22, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (11)

By Peter Roff, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

President Barack Obama and the congressional Democrats have fallen flat on their face, a victim of their own arrogance. Believing their own press clippings, the Democrats misinterpreted the 2008 election as a realigning mandate in support of fundamental, major changes in the way America is governed as well as an endorsement of the need to grow substantially the size and scope of government. In point of fact it was neither of those things. The 2008 platform on which they ran was long on slogans and concepts and short on actual ideas for governing.

It is true that America voted for change--but not the change that Obama and the Democrats began to offer once elected.

Their failure to understand this has led to stunning political defeats. What made these reversals even more amazing, however, is that they occurred during a period in which the Republicans were at a severe political disadvantage. Control of the White House coupled with a substantial majority in the House and an absolute majority of 60 votes in the Senate should have resulted in a flood of new laws and regulations fulfilling every promise and Democratic dream that had been held in check since Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980. Indeed, with the introduction of a pork-laden stimulus bill that passed through Congress easily, it looked like that was the way things were headed. Instead the Democrats, time and again on key issues, came up short.

Voting for Obama allowed far too many people--especially self-described independents--to "exorcise their demons," to vent their frustration at the Bush administration. It was cathartic, but not the kind of action on which a transformational political movement can be built.

In an effort to recover the ground they have lost over the last 12 months, the Democrats have announced they will pivot, talking from this point forward about jobs, jobs, and jobs and, in an embrace of a populist agenda that would make William Jennings Bryan smile, taking on anything big--big banks, big oil, big insurance, big medicine--in order to protect the interests of the working man and woman. It's a workable strategy, one that helped keep the Democrats in power in Congress for close to 40 years that touches on perceptions, popularly endorsed, of the economic inequities that exist in America. But this will succeed only if the Republicans agree to play ball.

In the short run, the Republicans must resist the temptation to be positioned in a way that makes it appear they are defending the very real inequities and public concerns that Obama and the Democrats are attacking. In the long run, they must develop a platform that allows them to communicate to the American electorate that they are listening to what the people are saying and is solution-oriented. They must give the people the opportunity to vote for the change they want, not just change for change's sake.

It would be damaging to the party's fortunes if the GOP reads the election results in Virginia, New Jersey, and, now, Massachusetts in the same hubristic manner with which the Democrats embraced the results in 2008. The Republican victories in these three key races were the result of superior candidates combined with a general level of discomfort among the electorate with the way things are going in Washington. It created a "perfect storm" that is now working to the GOP's advantage but may be fleeting. Despite what the poll numbers indicate, the voters are not sold on the Republicans as Republicans, but only as a viable, even preferred alternative to the Democrats now in power. In order to regain the majority, it is not only sufficient but necessary for the Republicans to eschew the "party of no" label in favor of what former House Speaker Newt Gingrich at one time called "an agenda worth voting for."

Tags:
politics,
Republican Party

Reader Comments Read all comments (11)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Conclude Mine,tonight doctor develop union street computer repeat least competition suffer political fail bill widely marry half only hour share spot lose victim apparent roof cause physical health chairman number characteristic note slow complex advance need offer substantial exercise what building present thing religious name chemical how despite total instrument garden select ball little material internal new himself concentrate level initial industry fresh background ball contribution mile however of additional growing say nose hot estate letter metal oil open commitment crime chairman fall future last all structure software wash confirm care writer on network

hotel buchen tuerkei of 5:14AM February 14, 2010

If not for the Federal help provided to my state (Florida) hundreds of police, fire and other public safty personel as well as teachers would have LOST their jobs. Yes the number of jobs available at the start of the recession (December 2007) has continues to fall but it has not done the freefall that would have occurred without the help from additional Fe3deral spending.

Bush if he had remained in office would have (after bailing out Wall Street) just let the freefall occur. I really do believe doing nothing can ever make something good happen. We will never really know but in my view I believe the economy would be a great deal worse now with out the stiminus spending. I would have spent more on new roads , bridges, schools and infastructure that will be used for a ling time in the future making the borrowing to do it a responceable thing to do. Our Children will have to pay off all this debt acquired since Ronald Reagan till now so something lasting and useable is a fairer way to get the economy back to a growth status.

Allen Charles of FL 7:31PM January 28, 2010

Are you serious, or is this a joke?

Democrats "Arrogance" in comparison to Bush/Cheney/Rummy/Tom Delay/Ashcroft years?

Surely, a non-brainless person could not have actually written this in anything other than a joke?

Jon Roy of VA 3:19PM January 28, 2010

Peter Roff

Peter Roff

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. Formerly a senior political writer for United Press International, he’s now affiliated with several public policy organizations including Let Freedom Ring, and Frontiers of Freedom. His writing has appeared in National Review, Fox News’ opinion section, The Daily Caller, Politico and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter @PeterRoff.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

JFK's Virtuoso Turn at the Bully Pulpit

Kennedy presented a radical idea: Peaceful coexistence.

Mary Kate Cary

A Democracy in Crisis

Can the country long survive an ever-growing government?

Latest Videos

advertisement