Reince Picks Up The Pieces
Barack Obama was re-elected President of the United States
last November. While this this
remarkable fact has apparently not yet reached the United State House of
Representatives, thankfully, someone was able to contact Mitt Romney before he
made the trip to Washington.
Also with his ear to the ground was one Reince Priebus,
chairman of the Republican National Committee, and the man charged with
snagging the shoes of the fisherman and placing them on the correct feet.
Priebus, despite the 2012 fiasco, is actually a pretty smart
fellow. He commissioned an RNC study to
determine what went wrong, and last week, he presented an extensive critique of
the GOP’s response to technical, nominating process, philosophical, and
demographic challenges.
The technical issues are the easiest to resolve, and it
seems fairly clear that anything that can be solved with time, expertise, and
money, will be accomplished. By 2016,
the GOP should have in place all the digital tools it needs to match Mr. Obama’s
2012 performance. The party’s base may
not believe in science when it comes to global warming or evolution, but the
party pros believe in it as necessary to win.
As to the nominating system itself, what Priebus really
wants is a partial return to the old-time smoke-filled back rooms where the
insiders make the safe, conventional, and “electable” choices. He wants to shorten the process on both the
front and the back ends: fewer debates, a more concentrated schedule of
primaries, maybe even regional primaries, and an earlier convention. This is smart for at least a couple of
reasons; the more debates, the more the possibility of gaffes. Perhaps more importantly, although Priebus
can’t really say this: the longer the nominating period the greater the
temptation and even the competition to play only to the base. That doesn’t always go over well with the
general electorate; even if you buy the Republicans core argument that the
country is center-right, it is not hard right.
Enacting these reforms could be difficult. Priebus was careful not to offend the early
primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. They won’t want to lose their
disproportionate influence. But any
return to the back-room, or even a significant reduction in debates, offends
true outsider or insurgent candidates who will have less of an opportunity if
they aren’t afforded a platform. This outsider-victim mentality is a new
development. Culturally, the old Republican Party always liked order; you could
never imagine anything like the 1968 Democratic Convention. Now, many hard-right conservatives,
particularly Tea Party types, thrive on adrenaline-soaked high-wire acts.
Priebus is also shrewdly focused on the changing racial
demographics; by 2016, well over 30% of the potential electorate is either
going to be African-American, Latino-American, or Asian American. But, for each of the three ethic groups, the
problems the GOP faces are different.
With Obama in the White House, the GOP has played jujitsu
with the African-American vote; even Colin Powell’s endorsement was derided as
“identity politics.” In 2016, however,
with Mr. Obama off the ticket, both the more blatant aspects of this and the
more subliminal will no longer play a role.
The GOP is anticipating a large gain by virtue of the expected drop-off
in African-American turnout. What they
haven’t taken into account, however, is whether any of the old-fashioned, more
traditional voters who were not ready for a Barack Obama would be willing to
return to the Democratic fold with a more conventional candidate. This redistribution might not be the windfall
the GOP hopes for; much of the African-American vote is concentrated in
big-city Northeastern and Midwestern states (already Blue) and in the deep
crimson South, so a slight reduction in minority turnout may have no impact on
outcome. It is even possible that this
swapping of votes could turn out to be a net positive for the Democrats.
As for Asian-Americans, the math is substantially different,
and more complex. The Asian-American community is profoundly dedicated to
personal advancement through education.
Families sacrifice every material comfort to provide maximum opportunity
to their children. Their children, in
turn, disproportionately fill places like New York City’s Stuyvesant High
School, as well as universities such as Cal Tech and MIT. The Santorum wing of the GOP is deeply
anti-science on a number of levels. To a
group that values education as much as the Asian community does, this near-mania
for Flat-Earthism shows Republicans to be unserious, and, as a result
untrustworthy with power.
Latinos, of course, have been in the bulls-eye for some
time. I don’t intend to minimize the real problem of illegal immigration, which
is a serious one. But, what Priebus has,
in effect, acknowledged, is that the GOP has not been able to frame the
immigration debate as a legal and economic one, as opposed to a merely racial
one. The report itself says “many minorities wrongly think that
Republicans do not like them or want them in the country.”
What Priebus does want is for the GOP to embrace some type
of immigration reform that provides an easier path to legal immigration and
deals humanely with the illegals already here.
Marco Rubio wants that as well, as does Jeb Bush, when he’s not changing
his mind. They have support for some of
this from the pro-business wing, which wants more visas for economically useful
immigrants. Just this past weekend,
Thomas Donlan, in Barron’s, made an excellent case for opening the door to STEM
(science, technology, engineering and math) workers. Notwithstanding those influences, it’s fairly
clear, that for now, the Rush wing of the party has no interest in it, and the
Rush wing has control. This is a gift to
the Democrats: a slightly different GOP should have no problem attracting
Latino votes; they are a group much closer to David Brooks’ “communitarian
conservatism” than traditional Northeast liberalism.
Philosophically, the bigger tent Priebus is suggesting is a
very hard sell. On “moral” issues, the
evangelical wing of the party is sincere in their beliefs and is not likely to
be more accommodating. Ohio Senator Rob
Portman just revealed that his son was gay and endorsed same-sex marriage. If you will excuse the pun, Portman hasn’t
exactly led a rush to the altar. In
North Dakota, the Republican dominated government has essentially banned
abortion, and in Arkansas, the legislature has come close. Several prominent Republicans, including Rick
Santorum, oppose birth control. Countless school districts insist on teaching
creationism. And, politically, if what
went on in CPAC is any guide, looking for a broader worldview than just
Fox/Rush/Laura Ingram isn’t going to happen any time soon. It was telling that Dick Morris (he of the
325 vote Romney landslide prediction) was a featured speaker. The CPAC crowd just isn’t ready to hear any
opposing views.
What does the future look like? The “philosophical” issues
bring us back to demographics, and particularly, age. If the GOP is the party of older whites, the
country is moving in the opposite direction. It is not merely getting less
white, but, inevitably, the older voters (of all races) are being replaced by
the younger, and younger people think differently. Their view on ethnicity, on
the role that gender should play in the workplace, and on personal choices is
very different, and far more tolerant. This is not a condemnation of the older
generations, merely an observation of context. The world they knew is passing. In the new, the young don’t relate to the
demands of the culture warriors and don’t share some of the more dated attitudes.
Here, I think, is Priebus’s greatest opportunity, because if
the GOP can find a way to be more tolerant, they may have a generation willing
to listen to them on economic issues.
However socially liberal younger voters may be, they are not New Deal
Democrats. This was vividly demonstrated
to me this past weekend. On Saturdays, I
run in the park with a group that’s mostly about half my age. One of the leaders grew up in the Midwest,
served in Afghanistan, and now is stateside and trying to make his way in the
sometimes unforgiving world of New York.
After the run, he talked to me a bit; he holds down three jobs and plays
in a band, and never gets enough sleep.
He was tired of always trying to keep up; he wanted the system to
respect his work. I inserted some well-meaning Northeastern liberal
claptrap. My mistake. He wasn’t asking
for anything beyond understanding. Nor did he feel that he should support
others who weren’t willing to make the same efforts that he did. If I had taken
the time to listen more closely, instead of staying in my own middle-aged
sure-of-myself comfort zone, I would have realized that.
To that end, I was struck by a report by David Remnick in
The New Yorker about remarks Mr. Obama made during his recent trip to the Middle East. Instead of addressing the Knesset, he chose a younger, more liberal, more sympathetic
group. He spoke more intimately, touched
on the aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians, about dignity, and the
two-state process. In his words, peace comes “Not just in the plans of leaders, but in
the hearts of people; not just in some carefully designed process, but in the
daily connections, that sense of empathy that takes place among those who live
together in this land and in this sacred city of Jerusalem. And let me say this
as a politician, I can promise you this: political leaders will never take
risks if the people do not push them to take some risks. You must create the
change that you want to see. Ordinary people can accomplish extraordinary
things.”
Mr. Obama has an oft-derided gift for pretty words, but this
time he was right on target. That young
crowd, more open-minded and accepting than the older generation of hard-liners
who had fought several wars, would either have to accept the choices made by
their elders, and the consequences, or push for a different future—their future.
I better go back to my running group next Saturday and open
my ears and my mind. I hope Reince
Priebus doesn’t get there first.
MM
Comments or questions? Contact us
