Why did the Republicans loose in 2006? 9-Nov-06 Noon Balloon Radio Show on KSCO AM 1080
Posted At : November 9, 2006 6:35 PM
| Posted By : Cyrill Vatomsky
Related Categories: KSCO Radio Shows,Religion,Podcasts,Immigration,Capitalism,Free Market
Related Categories: KSCO Radio Shows,Religion,Podcasts,Immigration,Capitalism,Free Market
The first show after the dramatic beating the Republican Party got in the 2006 midterm election. The following is not a transcript, but a synopsis of sorts. There is more on the tape, listen. As usual the podcast of the show is at http://cyrillvatomsky.com
First, curiously absent from most of the spin commentary that Rush Limbaugh put out was mentioning of the phallic figure of Arnold Schwarzenegger towering over a wasteland of dead Republican campaigns. Michelle Malkin and a lot of other bloggers are still stating that conservatism did not loose, it was the Republican Party that lost, and it lost because it was not conservative enough.
I beg to differ. It was the ideological, moralistic conservatism that lost and caused the defeat of the pro-capitalist, free market, progressive and liberal view. Confused? I am glad.
As I have been saying for several years now, the Republican Party is facing a huge split. For a very long time it consisted of two distinctly different groups: the religious moral conservatives who mostly look backwards, adoring the times past and the capitalist free marketers who look forward.
The latter, originally a very small band came forth through Goldwater and through Reagan, expanding and learning their power. It is the Hayek-Goldwater wing as I call them, the real progressives, real liberals, since throughout the history of human civilizations, more progress was always about liberating individuals from dictate of society. That is the wing that cares for economic growth, free trade, competition, for capitalism that is the foundation of freedom and universal suffrage, of democracy.
The former, the religious conservatives look back. They insist on unbending sanctity of morals, claiming quite erroneously that morality never changes. Of course it does, it was moral to own slaves, and the Bible does not say it was immoral. But now it is. Their plight is not liberating, their plight is restricting: restricting gays from marriage, restricting women from abortions, restricting immigration through building walls. And for all the restrictions they need big government.
I do not know about others, but to me America is best expressed in two phrases from President Reagan. “The shining City on the Hill” and “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall”. This was the message that brought me to the US and this is the America I love and know. Not the America of some Republicans and Democrats that want to turn my shining city on the hill into a Palm Springs gated community. Instead of Reagan’s bringing down walls, we want to build our own?!
It is not a surprise to me that Republicans lost so badly. What is the purpose of being a protectionist, isolationist Republican?! One can never out-Democrat Democrat party on isolationism, baseball bat hatred of globalization, free trade, anti immigration. And thus, there was no reason to vote for Republicans, when there are Democrats that are just as good.
The article in Slate draws a ghastly picture of economic nationalism:
But in places where Democrats made their most-impressive inroads this year, one heard a distinctly different message of economic nationalism. Nationalism begins from the populist premise that working people aren't doing so well. But instead of blaming the rich at home, it focuses its energy on the poor abroad. The leading economic nationalist today is probably Lou Dobbs, who on nights other than Election Night natters on against free trade, outsourcing, globalization, and immigration on CNN.
And more further:
An even harder-edged nationalism defined many of the critical House races, where Democrats called for a moratorium on trade agreements, for canceling existing ones, or, in some cases, for slapping protective trade tariffs on China. These candidates also lumped illegal immigrants together with terrorists and demanded fencing and militarization of the Mexican border. In Pennsylvania, Democratic challengers Chris Carney and Patrick Murphy defeated Republican incumbents by accusing them of destroying good jobs by voting for the Central American Free Trade Agreement and being soft on illegal immigration. "Fair trade" candidates also won back formerly Republican seats in Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. Jerry McNerney, who defeated 14-year Republican incumbent Richard Pombo in California, says on his Web site: "I am deeply worried about the way this nation is plunging head-long into the global economy without a plan or a national consensus."
Not a surprise, really. According to Daniel Weintraub from Sacrament Bee:
According to exit polls, Schwarzenegger won among men, women and everybody more than 30 years old. He won among all income groups except those making less than $30,000 a year. And he won among all but the least educated, as Angelides managed to eke out a victory only among high school dropouts.
Here you go: high school dropouts. A traditional baseball bat Democrat Party voting block. Those are usually the people that loose most from globalization. Lowest skilled workers in the highest standard of living countries are a good match for Democrat Party.
Another aspect that lead to demise of the Republican Party was spending on negative advertising. This comes from exactly the same mentality. Instead of the being the party of Ronald Reagan, the party of the Shining City on the hill, instead of bringing the positive message, Republican National Congressional Committee spent 8:1 on adds against opponents. Nothing is wrong with pointing some negatives, but let’s keep it in perspective.
Effects of the midterm elections on our foreign policy will be the subject on the Sunday show on KSCO AM 1080 at 11 AM
Digg This!TrackBacks
There are no trackbacks for this entry.
Trackback URL for this entry:
http://cyrillvatomsky.com/trackback.cfm?CFC3901F-3048-2950-92864BE2C7B4828D
http://cyrillvatomsky.com/trackback.cfm?CFC3901F-3048-2950-92864BE2C7B4828D
Bookmarks:
Blogs
- Robert Amsterdam
- Publius Pundit
- Russian Blog
- La Russophobe
- Sean Guillory
- Vilhelm Konnander
- Accidental Russophile
- Russia from the Inside
- David McDuff
- Edward Lucas
- Siberian Light
- Scraps of Moscow
- Russian Standard
- ZheZhe [dot] us
- Ruminations on Russia
- Nosemonkey / Europhobia
- Marginalia
- The Oil Drum
- Hello Estonia
- The Observer Blog
- WaPo World Opinion
it also hopefully ended the era of "looking into the eyes of pooty-poot." Republicans like John McCain and Charles
Grassley are now free to call for confrontation with the increasing horrors of Putin's Neo-Soviet Union, and
all Republicans need to retake control of the Senate is for Joe Lieberman, ostracized by his party, to step across
the aisle. It's also quite normal for there to be a loss of power in Congress in off-year elections, Clinton lost the
House in his first off-year. What's more, the Democrats can hardly take much solace in electing an evangelical
Christian like Heath Schuler in South Carolina, far more of a "Republican" than Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island.
As long as Russia can be annoyed by Georgian pinpricks to the point of madness and continues to concentrate on exporting its racket-infested political and business culture onto EU, it is not much of a factor for the US that has a bigger fish to fry overall. Let the EU deal with the natural gas based extortions if they can.
McCain will be McCain and will be politicking. He might launch a salvo or two against Putin, but it will be, as everything the man does, pure political opportunism.
won while Republicans elsewhere were losing. With a
Republican like Schwarzenegger, who needs
Democrats?
Conservative = God fearing Christian to a lot of my friends. And no matter what I say, nothing can convince them otherwise.
Conservative approach to government is not about God. Morals are not necessarily about God either, I think you understand that Cyrill. High standards are what conservativism is about, not defined by a religion, but by value to the individual and to the group as a whole.
To change the topic a little, I hate to say it, but I am filling up with the self loathing that is normally attributed to 'liberals' who are thought to 'hate America'. This loathing comes from the fact that we have given up on Iraq, because we never would come together to support it. And the reason we wouldn't support it is because the world would not pursue our goal of 'globalizing' Iraq and the Middle East with us. Because we had to go it alone, Americans wimped out. I'm disgusted by my own countrymen...I hate to say it. If it weren't for out good boys doing the dirty work, and getting injured and killed, I'd be tempted to say we deserve the beating we are taking over there. It should not be a suprise as we get pounded down by our enemies (Islamists) and forced into a corner by our competitors (China).
So now I have to admit that I was wrong to believe that America had the will to see it through. We didn't have the will and we don't have the will. The election results scream this out to us. So now in such a weak position, created by my ourselves, we assume the position of appeasement. Appeasement will be the theme of this century and I guess that the caretakers of this grand policy will be Blue Helmets with the fearless Americans supporting them all the way.
And I think you are right that this (may I say loosing mentality?) is a form of nationalism, but I would call it 'backyard globalism', a low quality type of nationalism. My fellow countrymen can apparently only see the globe from their backyard. And that's where their understanding ends...until CNN explains it to them.
Americans have failed America, we have grown too soft and stupid in our comfort.
There is no doubt that Russia is not a high priority, that is why La Russophobe exists, to make it so! The USSR wasn't a high priority either in the 20s and 30s; by the time the world woke up, it was a much bigger problem than it needed to be.
But this is all the more reason why the electoral realignment is important. Because Russia is not on the radar screen, it made it much easier for Bush to get away with his "pooty-poot" garbage as long as his party controlled Congress and looked to him as its leader; nobody was paying much attention.
Neo-Soviet Russia is actually a great area of potential bipartisan cooperation, a chance for a unified America to show the world what it is capable of.
For more on this topic, see my article on Publius Pundit:
http://www.publiuspundit.com/?p=3042