We Need You: A Case for a New Grand Old Party Agenda
by Daphne Muller, Writer
March 2, 2009
Last week Mark Wilson articulated that the GOP’s “alternative” plan for economic recovery was really just more of the same tried and un-true tax-cut policies. On Sunday, Frank Rich went so far as to say that the Republicans’ “desperate” tactics (such as Bobby Jindal’s callow performance Tuesday night and GOP Party Chair Michael Steele’s assertion that the Republican party needs an “off-the-hook” hip-hop makeover) were close to “committing [political] suicide.” While the stakes are definitely high for Obama and the Democrats to pull off this economic recovery, the Republican Party’s future is in dire straits if they don’t come up with a (positive) message—and leaders—fast.
GOP past or future?
On Wednesday, New York’s registered Independent mayor Michael Bloomberg met with local GOP leaders to ask for their support for his run for a third term as mayor. Although it’s understandable that they would be wary of his sincerity (he dropped the party back in 2007, and many think he only wants their endorsement because he’d be placed more visibly on the ballot), there are currently no clear Republican front-runners that could legitimately challenge Bloomberg when he runs later this year. And, while the party certainly reserves the right not to back him, they ironically need a candidate like him—someone who understands their commitment to balanced and fair economic incentives but also encourages public works projects and city-supported programs for the broader citizenry. In fact, if you look at New York as a political microcosm of the United States, Republicans can only remain relevant in this country if they promote candidates and leaders with Bloomberg-esque ideas; ones that offer innovative policies for their fiscal proposals along with new, bolder initiatives that support individual citizens.
Of course, Bloomberg isn’t perfect. However, the point is that if the Republican party wants to survive, it can’t only look to out-of-touch spokespersons such as Mark Sanford to deliver their fractured message. Although they seem to be avoiding it like the plague, Republicans are going to have to change their agenda, their ideas, and even their mission to go beyond the same old trickle-down, tax-cut, tax-credit mantra. Americans just aren’t buying it.
One possible reason the Republicans are having such a hard time promoting a new, appealing agenda is because while they’ve certainly evolved since their inception to favor the interests of an elite minority of the electorate, they’ve also clung to the image that they represent just the opposite. This stolid Party-of-No got its start by being a conflicted party of misfits: Disgruntled Democrats, frustrated Whigs, angry Know-Nothings, and other politically passionate individuals who really could only agree on their opposition to slavery. This team of outcasts banded together in Wisconsin in 1854 to form the party that only six years later would usher in its first and most famous president—Abraham Lincoln. As the party evolved from one that supported small businesses and individual rights to one that consistently favors corporate tax breaks and social conservatism, it has tried to hang on to its message and supporters by pretending to be Joe the Plumber when it’s really Joe the CEO. Granted, the Democrats are just as guilty of supporting big banks and big companies. However, they lack the Achilles heel that the Republicans will not confront—denial. Republicans don’t want to change their image, but, ironically, they often misrepresent themselves and don’t embrace the interests of most Americans.
Despite all the best efforts of the Democrats, we need Republicans to challenge them, offer ideas, and approach our economic problems with a different, fresh perspective. We don’t need one party running the show in Washington. Unfortunately, the GOP is making this paradigm easy when congressional members stonewall Obama and his administration, GOP governors threaten to deny crucial funding for their constituents based on ideological disagreement, and Republican leaders and pundits cry “Socialism!” every time the Democrats offer forth a plan but at the same time fail to offer any constructive agenda of their own. (Sorry, the so-called “minority tyranny” that Senate filibustering provides does not constitute as a genuine effort either.)
In his speech on Tuesday night, Governor Jindal implored:
Democratic leaders in Washington, they place their hope in the federal government. We [Republicans] place our hope in you, the American people.
Of all the patronizing statements he made that night, this was the most striking. If the past election taught Americans anything, it was that they are their government and can certainly accomplish a lot if they stay motivated and involved. Jindal’s assertion corroborates the Republican “people v. government” attitude and fails to recognize that Americans want Washington to work for them—they don’t pay taxes for their representatives to sit on their hands. By suggesting that Americans have the power and know-how to overcome the hardships of the economy, health care, and education as individuals, Jindal minimizes the severity of the people’s problems and shirks the responsibility of the post in which he was elected.
Americans don’t expect government to solve all their problems. However, they do expect them to make their best and most qualified effort. If Republicans want to complain about how horrible and intrusive government is, then why are they involved in government at all? They can’t claim the title of watchdog, if they’re just going to bark and not bite.
Which brings us back to Bloomberg. Why exactly did this very popular Republican leader leave the ticket he ran on in two successful elections? In a speech at the University of Southern California in 2007 he explained:
The politics of partisanship and the resulting inaction and excuses have paralyzed decision-making, primarily at the federal level, and the big issues of the day are not being addressed, leaving our future in jeopardy.
This was pre-economic crisis, and yet his words still hold true today for the Grand Old Party. And if the Republicans can’t convince a Wall Street billionaire that they’re capable of instituting effective, industrious policies, whom can they convince? Hey, if Bloomberg wants you back, take him.
Great article.
Good article. We need more balanced, reasonable IDEAS in Congress, not just blind opposition.
I, and most young Republicans, agree that the image of the Republican party needs a bit of an overhaul and there needs to be a clearer focus on what we want to achieve. I disagree however with your assertion that “As the party evolved from one that supported small businesses and individual rights to one that consistently favors corporate tax breaks and social conservatism, it has tried to hang on to its message and supporters by pretending to be Joe the Plumber when it’s really Joe the CEO.”. I believe and know that the fiscal policies of the Republican party better serve the small business owner along with the large CEO’s, which benefit most American’s in the long run since small business owners and CEO’s make up the vast majority of job creation in this country. My father is a small business owner himself and policies like President Obama’s new tax plan will completely paralize him. I am sick of hearing how $250,000 is a large amount of money. It is, certainly, a grand sum for an individual but not for a small business owner who pays his or her employess along with his or herself and all of the companies expenses out of that $250,000. The Republican’s tax cuts are not what got us into this current economic mess.
SAM, you make some fair points and do a good job of looking at some potential unintended consequences of Obama’s proposed tax policy. However, a recent article at factcheck.org shows that only an estimated 600,000 tax payers out of the 27 million who own small businesses would in reality fall into the top two tax brackets that would see rates go up to what they were under Bill Clinton (not a bad time for small businesses–of course that’s partially apples and oranges, I admit):
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccains_small-business_bunk.html
In addition, it is important to note that the first 250,000 dollars would be taxed the same, it is only the marginal amount over 250,000 that would be taxed at a higher rate. For example, if one made 300,000 they may see 1,000-1,500 more a year in taxes. Most small businesses that have revenues that exceed this by too much are likely to incorporate in some sort of way. If your dad is making millions in profit, then perhaps he will end up paying more. However, if he’s making that much, he really should see a tax lawyer to help him look at different ways to legally structure his business.
In addition, an additional point that you may want to look at is that a lot of this increased tax revenue will probably help subsidize insurance markets that will likely cut your dad’s health insurance costs for himself, his family, and his employees (if he offers insurance) substantially—probably in half (this could add up to tens of thousands of dollars, if not more). All this freed up money can then be invested into capital and other ways to help grow his business. The number one reason for small business bankruptcy in this country is not higher taxes, but rather health care costs!
I had forgotten that he’s the #2 most influential politician. This was great!