Grand New Party

I feel it's likely that very few of the people reading this blog are conservative movement leaders looking for ways to orient their movement in a more humane direction that would give it a better shot at winning votes without resorting to terrible flim-flam and massive dishonesty. But in case you are out there, or maybe if you're just interested in American politics, I hope you'll read Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream by my colleagues Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam.

The book is, in essence, a call for conservatives to get real about acknowledging some of the economic problems facing the country and an attempt to develop meaningful solutions to these problems. I'm not sure how well some of these solutions will qualify as conservative, and others I don't really agree with, but on the hole I think the kind of things they're putting on the table would be a huge step in the right direction. I'm a bit skeptical that this is a realistic vision for what the Republican Party might be like, but on some level I think it makes more sense to let conservative reformers have their shot at winning their internal battles than for liberals sitting on the sidelines to just sort of speculate about the possibilities.

Comments

" . . .but on the hole . . ."

Hmm. Well, that certainly paints a picture.

I think you mean "on the whole."

Posted by Joel | June 25, 2008 11:27 AM

on the hole...

Gross.

Posted by tinisoli | June 25, 2008 11:27 AM

So they want the GOP to become the British Tory party?

Posted by TDE | June 25, 2008 11:32 AM

No, Joel, it's about Salami and Douche-hat. Matty meant "on the hole."

Posted by Jamey | June 25, 2008 11:40 AM

Is this like a bet? If in ten years Ross and Reihan find their party hasn't become decent will they their join ours?

Posted by Chris | June 25, 2008 11:41 AM

"economic problems facing the country"?

There are no economic problems facing this country that aren't due to the communists implementing a statist socialist state. All we need to do is eliminate all taxes, stop paying for anything, and all the great boot puller uppers will create gigormous amounts of wealth that will trickle down and raise all boats. Just like in that book where someone shrugged.

Posted by BushYouth | June 25, 2008 11:42 AM

I ordered the book on Amazon a while ago, in a fit of fairmindedness. Then I forgot about it, and when I was notified it shipped yesterday I was like "Am I really going to read that?"

But there just aren't very many conservatives whose books I even stand a chance of getting through and these guys are as good a bet as any.

Posted by lowellfield | June 25, 2008 11:47 AM

...the authors show that the Democrats' cultural liberalism makes their party inherently hostile to the interests and values of the working class.

I guess you could make an argument that cultural liberalism goes against working class values, but how exactly is it so hostile to their interests?

Posted by daveNYC | June 25, 2008 11:50 AM

Can conservatives bend enough to craft a winning message? Their very nature dictates "no" to the question. So many of the issues dear to them have no gray area, no middle ground to inch towards. Abortion must be banned, anything less is unacceptable. Taxes must be lowered. Gays can't marry. Murderers must be put to death. Foreign nations must do what we say or suffer sanctions or invasion. Commerce takes precedence over the environment. Black and white. Good and bad. The word of God or serving Satan. When they do appear to offer compromise there's a wink & nudge, a tacit acknowledgment that when it comes down to drafting legislation it's gonna be "My way or the highway". Better to get a Dem Prez and filibuster proof majorities in Congress and let them stew in their intractability. The moment you think they're willing to be sensible you've lost the game.

Posted by steve duncan | June 25, 2008 11:54 AM

The book is, in essence, a call for conservatives to get real.

There is nearly nothing that has happened in my adult lifetime that would indicate that there is even a remote chance that this would happen. This list of things that the conservative movement believes that are, well, true is not very long. Cross off evolution (and cosmology, geology, etc), global warming (and much of science in general), the relation of taxes to economic activity, family planning policy, the function and role of government, the necessity to invade random countries (and the potential success of such ventures), the role of the US in the world. Hell, it is easier to make a list of things that are part of the conservative movement that are related to reality. But I can't think of many. Gravity? What if Jesus wants us to fly? Maybe if the GOP and conservatives parted ways, but that does not seem likely in the near future.

Posted by ropty | June 25, 2008 12:02 PM

a call for conservatives to get real about acknowledging some of the economic problems facing the country and an attempt to develop meaningful solutions to these problems.

If they did that, they wouldn't be conservatives.

Posted by rea | June 25, 2008 12:06 PM

a call for conservatives to get real about acknowledging some of the economic problems facing the country and an attempt to develop meaningful solutions to these problems.

Haven't you heard, Matt? Sowell has declared that not just the solutions, but also the willingness to perceive these problems was a disaster in the 60's and is a bad idea now.

Protecting criminals, attacking business, increasing government spending, promoting a sense of envy and grievance, raising taxes on people who are productive and subsidizing those who are not -- all this is a re-run of the 1960s.

We paid a terrible price for such 1960s notions in the years that followed, in the form of soaring crime rates, double-digit inflation and double-digit unemployment. During the 1960s, ghettoes across the countries were ravaged by riots from which many have not fully recovered to this day.

The violence and destruction were concentrated not where there was the greatest poverty or injustice but where there were the most liberal politicians, promoting grievances and hamstringing the police.

The only answer for conservatives is to keep blaming the perception of the problem on the "liberal media" and to keep calling all alternatives "elitist."

Failure without end, amen.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | June 25, 2008 12:09 PM

"I guess you could make an argument that cultural liberalism goes against working class values, but how exactly is it so hostile to their interests?"

Imagine yourself to be a rich CEO. You trumpet your support of gay marriage, feminism, etc. Under current definitions, you can call yourself a "liberal" (or "progressive") or whatever, even while phucking your workers out of their health insurance, holding down their wages, etc. We all know the type because there's lots of them out there.

When the dems turned away from union/new deal liberalism and adopted cultural liberalism in its place, they made liberalism safe for rich people, giving them the perfect cover they needed to pursue the traditional GOP economic agenda. That's why outside the "culture wars" there is little to distinguish the 2 parties in what they actually do in D.C., irrespective of the spin they may put on it.

Posted by kafka | June 25, 2008 12:10 PM

It sounds like this book is basically a 200+ page Mike Huckabee speech written by a couple of Ivy Leaguers with better vocabularies and less wit.

Pass.

Posted by jdr | June 25, 2008 12:14 PM

I'm not sure how well some of these solutions will qualify as conservative

I haven't (and won't) read the book. But my impression (from reading their Sam's Club article in TWS, among other things) is that their solutions simply do NOT qualify as conservative.

Their solution to the problems of conservatives is that conservatives should become liberals. Which, come to think of it, is probably pretty similar to Matthew's solutions for conservatives.

Posted by Al | June 25, 2008 12:17 PM

Here's what your esteemed colleagues and their friends who want to revive the GOP should consider:

1) Stop lying your fucking asses off ALL the time

2) Stop getting hundreds of thousands of people killed.

You do that and maybe you can expand your appeal beyond the ranks of the entirely self-interested amoral rich.

But of course they can't stop lying because all of their policies are aimed at helping a tiny minority (plus fast talking some idiot born agains into thinking they're on the same side).

The best advice? Become the opposite of what you are now.

Posted by The Fool | June 25, 2008 12:17 PM

Splendid gesture in the direction of objectivity, Matt. Now if your commenters could just get past cartoons and stereotypes, and entertain the occasional idea that's not a DNC talking point, you might actually get some kind of useful conversation going here. Good luck.

Posted by robert powell | June 25, 2008 12:33 PM

who gets to 2K books sold first? you or Douhat?

Posted by sean | June 25, 2008 12:38 PM

"their solutions simply do NOT qualify as conservative."

This coming from the guy that advocated for price controls on gas? What the heck DOES qualify as conservative these days? By reading his blog, I don't think Douthat really knows. Can you explain it?

Posted by freddiemac | June 25, 2008 1:00 PM

@Bobby Powell:

cartoons and stereotypes? I think not. You Republicans DO lie all the time (e.g. tax cuts and WMD) about very important matters of public policy. And you get hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed regularly. Nixon did in Vietnam. Reagan did in Central America. George W. Bush most certainly did -- not to mention being a war criminal.

You think that's DNC spin? Ask General Taguba what he thinks about the war criminal in the White House.

Take my advice, Bobby: become the opposite of what you are now because right now you're a bunch of deceitful assholes and people don't like deceitful assholes.

Posted by The Fool | June 25, 2008 1:02 PM

Now if your commenters could just get past cartoons and stereotypes, and entertain the occasional idea that's not a DNC talking point, you might actually get some kind of useful conversation going here

In the spirit of comity, let me give that a try: "Blow me, you fat, useless, unAmerican piece of shit. Stop trying to wreck the country for even just a year and you might find you get a kinder hearing." How's that?

But my impression (from reading their Sam's Club article in TWS, among other things) is that their solutions simply do NOT qualify as conservative.

I'm not sure what the operative definition of "conservative" is anymore. If you're going to tie "conservative" to the Republican party, it makes sense, I would think, to infer the meaning of "conservative" from what the majority (or at least the plurality) of Republican voters think. My recollection is that--particularly in the South, where the base of the party sits--Republicans are socially conservative and fiscally more liberal. And my sense from the article you reference is that Douthat and Salaam are fashioning a message that is responsive to that majority or plurality.

I don't know that the message will find many converts among those in the infrastructure of the party, and, as a Blue Stater, I wouldn't trust the implementation. But it seems at least potentially responsive to Republican voters, and particularly to those commonly considered the most conservative Republican voters. And if that isn't understood to be conservative today, I think there's a pretty good chance it will be tomorrow.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 25, 2008 1:21 PM

So if the Republican Party is not going to make a come back, the next question is how will the U.S. function as a one party state. Is the examples of one party areas like DC, Maryland, Chicago, LA the examples that the U.S. will follow.

Also, it is humorous that elite white progressives make fun of the beliefs of white middle class Republicans without realizing that blacks who vote overwhelmingly Democratic have roughly the same views on evolution, gays, and the government. Yet, the elite progressive whites would never think of mocking blacks or Hispanics for their beliefs on evolution, religion, homosexuality, or abortion.

Posted by superdestroyer | June 25, 2008 1:27 PM

Yet, the elite progressive whites would never think of mocking blacks or Hispanics for their beliefs on evolution, religion, homosexuality, or abortion.

If they were in a position to do anything about it, we might, though the language might be a little different.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 25, 2008 1:30 PM

This sounds like the Petey Party: leveraging militarism and authoritarianism to attract southern voters who might also be receptive to a populist policies.

Posted by Tyro | June 25, 2008 1:32 PM

I am curious to watch Harvard-eduated Washington-types in their 20s explain blue-collar family structures and values (and their contradictions with liberal values). Did they even live in the Midwest in their lives at any points?

Posted by wilye | June 25, 2008 1:52 PM

I am curious to watch Harvard-eduated Washington-types in their 20s explain blue-collar family structures and values (and their contradictions with liberal values). Did they even live in the Midwest at any point in their lives?

Posted by wilye | June 25, 2008 1:52 PM

wilye: I'm curious to see how a bunch of fat old Republican tycoons explain to blue collar families why endless tax cuts for the rich, unjust wars that kill thousands of blue collar kids, privatizing Social Security, and a crappy healthcare system are what they really, really want as blue collar Midwesterners -- and do that without the usual lies.

I'm really curious to see that.

Posted by The Fool | June 25, 2008 2:00 PM

I'm probably not going to read the book, but man, listening to Reihan nervously expound upon Sweden on NPR was awesome. Dude needs a job in radio, he's just fantastic.

Posted by Boring Commenter | June 25, 2008 2:17 PM

The Fool:

I think that the "Harvard-eduated Washington-types in their 20s" to which wilye refers are Douthat and Salaam.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 25, 2008 2:20 PM

Tim: Oh. I thought wilye was referring to Yglesias. If not, I apologize and I'll put the safety back on my hair-trigger typing fingers.

Posted by The Fool | June 25, 2008 2:24 PM

This sounds like the Petey Party: leveraging militarism and authoritarianism to attract southern voters who might also be receptive to a populist policies.

As they're Republicans, perhaps it runs the other way: the social services and populist policies are the cost of getting the wars and authoritarian culture wanted by Republicans. That fits with at least recent neoconservative stylings, which seem to put a premium on martial characteristics. And perhaps it solves Al's "conservative" problem, too.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 25, 2008 2:26 PM

Matt, I know Douthat works with you and all . . . but is that any reason to actually pimp that cliche-riddled amoral prick's writing? I mean, forget for a moment that y'all are probably friends, take a step back and see the guy for what he is -- a whining, piteous, junior-high level thinker and writer. By all rights, you should be spending your time scolding the Atlantic for hiring the guy. I mean, there have to be better young conservative writers out there, right?

I mean, just because he's incrementally smarter than Megan McArdle doesn't make him . . . you know . . . smart.

Posted by C.S. | June 25, 2008 2:57 PM

The Party purged the leadership of any noblesse oblige in the '80's. After they were *sure* the USSR was truly out of the picture in the '90's, the leading fat cats got serious about playing for keeps, and trickle down became the only authorized means for improving the lot of the non-fat.

They've realized vast gains this way, and - regardless of how the upcoming general turns out - it's probably going to take a mid-term and an added general election beating for them to think things aren't going to just fall back into their laps.

More to the point, if Congress pushes the nominal rate on the highest bracket to - say - 50% or more and the GOP doesn't clean up on the following mid-term, that'll be when anyone with the influence to do anything about it would consider a "GNP" plan.

Posted by cmholm | June 25, 2008 3:05 PM

===
Tim: Oh. I thought wilye was referring to Yglesias. If not, I apologize and I'll put the safety back on my hair-trigger typing fingers.
==

Hahahahaha. That's actually really funny; which elite 20s Ivy Leaguer is going to Tell Us How It Really Is today? "Hey Kool Thing, I just wanna know, what are you gonna do for me?" I get them all confused myself too...

I only bring it up since the cultural stuff/family structure/divorce seems to be doing a lot of heavy lifting from the previews. I too would like an explaination as to why divorce rates are so high among the Red States, or the way inequality plays out in the anxious exurbs, etc., but I have a hard time believing one can contribute without the enthographic field work, instead of putting a new spin on David Frum and data-mining some census spreadsheetings (or worse, alluding to chain restaurants a la David Brooks). Real sociology, not the fake kind. But I'll see!

Posted by wilye | June 25, 2008 3:45 PM

"On the hole"

You're kidding me, right? "On the hole"

Posted by TW Andrews | June 25, 2008 4:34 PM

Reihan is reading this comment thread.

For what it's worth, I think Republicans would be better off denationalizing their agenda. Take the hands of the RNC, the NRSC, and the NRCC off the tiller, fund candidates equally or not at all, and see what sort of ideas achieve success . . . sort it all out at the 2012 convention. Perhaps Salam/Douthatism will sweep the nation, perhaps the Club For Growth will consolidate its control, or maybe everyone wants to go in for a lot more wars and hang the expense. It would be an interesting fight; a Republican free market if you will.

They're not too excited about McCain, so the national ticket and 2008 should present no great obstacle to this plan.

Posted by southpaw | June 25, 2008 4:42 PM

Question: Will Matt hype Ross' book again if it sells more than Matt's book?

Matt: "conservative movement leaders looking for ways to orient their movement in a more humane direction that would give it a better shot at winning votes without resorting to terrible flim-flam and massive dishonesty."

You lost them all with that last clause - including Ross.

Sorry, they don't exist.

Not sure they exist on the Democratic side, either.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 25, 2008 6:09 PM

It sounds like you're making a general statement about politicians of any stripe, any nation, at any point in history.

kafka makes an interesting point. Anyone else want to weigh in?

Posted by Quietus | June 25, 2008 8:03 PM

Also, it is humorous that elite white progressives make fun of the beliefs of white middle class Republicans without realizing that blacks who vote overwhelmingly Democratic have roughly the same views on evolution, gays, and the government

Sure, and if the Republicans could lay off being racist buttmunches or even just put up a somewhat convincing facade, they'd clean up with black and Hispanic voters in general, they'd rule for a 1,000 years.

But they can't and they won't.

Posted by Henry Holland | June 25, 2008 8:24 PM

"kafka makes an interesting point. Anyone else want to weigh in?"

No he doesn't. He makes a generalization about rich CEOs, and then accuses the Democrats of catering to them and pursuing policies like the Republicans. Who enacted tax cuts for the rich? The Republicans. Who wants to eliminate capital gains taxes? Republicans. Estate tax? Republicans. It is a strawman argument, beneath reproach, which is why no one bothered with it until you drug it up.

Posted by freddiemac | June 25, 2008 9:02 PM

He still has a point of how cultural liberalism weakens Dem support from a lot of the economically disadvantaged in Red States.

Posted by Quietus | June 25, 2008 9:43 PM

He still has a point of how cultural liberalism weakens Dem support from a lot of the economically disadvantaged in Red States.

Give me a break. "Cultural liberalism" really means the civil rights movement and the women's movement. In 1968, the year to which the choice of "cultural liberalism" is usually pegged, the median white male income was $31K (2006 dollars). The median black male income was $18K, and the median white female income was $10K. This is when the Dems picked the rich?

What weakens support for Dems in a lot of Red states is that they disagree with us on "cultural issues" like not kicking the shit out black people, women, and now gay people. Economic-minded social safety nets were and are the backbone on the Dem message for, oh, ever. The Republicans ran against that image of the Dems. "Tax and spend!" "Class warfare." The Red states picked on other grounds.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 25, 2008 10:00 PM

Oh, come on. You can't claim that the majority of the Red States is made up of bigots.

Posted by Quietus | June 26, 2008 2:15 AM

Henry Holland,

Blacks and Hispanics enjoy the idea of government spending paid for by taxes on whites to ever vote for Republicans. Look at the percentage of blacks who work for the government versus whites. Such a demographic group will never vote for a party that even pretends to be fiscally conservative.

The real question is how will upper class gay whites going to exist in the same political party with poor blacks and Hispanics. The current idea is to use government programs to pay off blacks and Hispanics. That only works when the economy is doing fine.

Posted by superdestroyer | June 26, 2008 8:22 AM

Oh, come on. You can't claim that the majority of the Red States is made up of bigots.

Well, I could, but that's not actually what's at issue. The question regards a smaller group of people who switched from Dem to Republican because of the Dems' "cultural liberalism." No doubt there are exceptions--good-faith anti-abortion voters, for example--but some form of bigotry, of varying virulence, seems to explain that set of switchers better than "the Dems became the party of the rich."

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 26, 2008 9:21 AM

Blacks and Hispanics enjoy the idea of government spending paid for by taxes on whites to ever vote for Republicans.

Yeah, those crafty folks of dusky hue, they're so calculating like that. For fuck's sake.

Look at the percentage of blacks who work for the government versus whites. Such a demographic group will never vote for a party that even pretends to be fiscally conservative.

Right, there's no history, in the US especially, of people voting against their interests, oh no siree. There's also a vast difference between being an $8/hour clerk at the DMV in Watts and being appointed to the Department of Justice solely because you're a white conservative.

The real question is how will upper class gay whites going to exist in the same political party with poor blacks and Hispanics.

I'm a gay white man and I make $31,000/year. Not a single one of my gay friends is "upper class". David Geffen is an outlier. Why don't we ask how upper class straight black men are going to coexist with a poor cocksucker like me? Or would that fuck up your stereotyping too much?

The current idea is to use government programs to pay off blacks and Hispanics. That only works when the economy is doing fine.

Well, I'll ignore the fact that, percentage-wise, it's sister fuckers in West Virginny and their Appalachian/rural South ilk* that suck at the public teat more than anyone, so those devious rich white homo's plan clearly isn't working, but really, thanks for proving my point about facades.

* sarcastic stereotyping

Posted by Henry Holland | June 26, 2008 8:01 PM

I think you're hating on the wrong bunch of rednecks. WV and the Appalachians fought for the Union and had no use for slavery.

Posted by Quietus | June 27, 2008 2:30 AM

Henry Holland,

Even though blacks make up only 12% of the U.S. population and less than 12% of the work force, they make up about 20% of civilian workforce and would be higher if public school teachers are counted.

Also, no matter how wealthy blacks are or what their occupation is, they vote for liberal Democratic candidates even if the upper class black is a church going social conservative. The congressional black caucus is the most liberal group in Congress.

The clerk at the DMV in Watts starts at $3100 per month. Definitely more than $8 an hour. http://jobs.spb.ca.gov/wvpos/more_info.cfm?recno=365485

If you look at the Prince Georges County in Maryland that has the highest percentage of professional blacks in the U.S., they are generally government workers. Also, in counties in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia that depend upon the government the most, the population if overwhelmingly black.

Posted by superdestroyer | June 27, 2008 9:05 AM

[i]"Sure, and if the Republicans could lay off being racist buttmunches"[/i]

How exactly are Republicans being "racist buttmunches"? It looks to me Republicans walk on eggshells to keep from appearing "racist".

Sure, you can always say their economics screw the middle class and poor, but isnt changing that what this discussion is all about?

Posted by Jeremy | June 27, 2008 3:05 PM