My Initial Take: False Advertising

Nationally, the GOP lost the House of Representatives and probably the Senate last night.  On the same night, Republican Governor Schwarzenegger won in a landslide in "liberal" California.  What gives?

My guess is that most of the national media and punditry will begin their week of analysis by pointing to Iraq.  It is a national issue that is not popular.  It has nothing to do with Schwarzenegger, so it is consistent in explaining last night's outcomes.

I, however, do not agree.  Obviously, any political race is the result of numerous forces and events.  But if I were to focus on one root cause that explained the GOP's losses yesterday, it would not be Iraq.  Instead, it would be false advertising.  The GOP never hid its position on Iraq--follow the President's lead--but it did not do as it advertised on government growth.

The GOP has long branded itself as the party of limited government.  Reagan consistently pointed to the ills of an ever-growing government.  That message brought in conservative and moderate Democrats and galvanized Republicans.  The GOP has become the voters' only option if they prefer limited government.

But with 12 years of power in Congress, and 6 years with both Congress and the White House, government has grown, and grown, and grown.  The federal government has grown more under a GOP Congress and President than ever before.  "Earmarking" (pork barrel projects for favored Congressional districts) has grown during the GOP's Congressional leadership when it should have disappeared.  And along with the growth came the usual problem:  power corrupting.  The more power and influence the government got, the more opportunities for bad deeds the politicians had.

The mainstream media will not point to Republican growth of government has the problem though.  They will point to Iraq.  The reason is simple:  the MSM hates the current Iraq policy, and they don't mind seeing the government grow.  Their explanation will fit their bias.  If they launch a media campaign decrying the growth in government like they did against Iraq, the result--policies shrinking government--would not please them.  So, we won't hear that as the explanation.

But it is the problem.  Voters thought they were electing a team to limit the size and reach of government when they voted "R" in years past.  When that didn't work, they threw them out.  You have to do what you say you are going to do.  That's one of Reagan's points:  say what you mean, mean what you say.  There was no need, or desire by voters, for Republicans to "out Democrat the Democrats" with government size and spending.  If voters wanted a growing government, they could have gone to the party that promised it.

So, by not sticking to its limited-government principles, the GOP has been tossed out of leading Congress.  I do not think they will get back in unless they advertise, and deliver, a serious limited-government agenda.  This will require breaking down layers of cynicism from the voters that don't believe them anymore.  As such, it is likely that a new, fresh leadership team will have to come in and take over.

For the last few years voters have got what they thought they were getting on Iraq--there's nothing new there, though Iraq is less popular than before.  But voters have not gotten what they wanted on limited government.  Finally, the voters have said "enough's enough, if the government's just going to keep growing, lets give someone else a try." 

That's in stark contrast to California, where the Governor has delivered on what he said he would:  environmental protection, no new taxes, and developing a pro-business climate.  Some of it might not be a hard-charging conservative agenda he's laid out, but at least it is what he said it would be.

God Bless America,

Thomas More

allthesemore@yahoo.com

Comments

[Philomena]

From an article in the Daily Telegraph today:

"The only shred of comfort the Republicans can draw from a grim night at the polls is that the American people will now be reminded of just how poorly-led and unfocused the current Democratic Party is.

That might ultimately rebound in the Republicans' favour as they start the fight to retain control of the White House in 2008".

We shall see......