For blame, look in the mirror

Tuesday at 6am I entered the precinct to open the polls. Sealed off from radio, TV, Internet, and even my cell phone, I knew nothing of the races until I emerged 14 hours later, my judge duties fulfilled. Too exhausted to join friends at election night headquarters, I turned my car for home. Alone in my living room, I watched the results with bleak resignation and feared for the future of my country. Wednesday morning with eyes cleared by eight hours of sleep, I viewed the true toll of the election in the morning paper. With cold amusement, I relived a scene from a favorite film of my youth and imagined conservatives hiding out on a frozen planet while the Empire reasserted itself across the known universe.

What in the world happened? Republicans across the country may be asking the same question. It would be easy to blame a deeply biased press, glitzy Hollywood endorsements, billionaire contributions, fraud a la Acorn, and the sheer eloquence of Barack Obama for the outcome of the election. Truth be told, however, the seeds of defeat were sown in the late 1990's when Republicans abandoned the principles of limited government and embraced the power of big government to advance its own ends.

No longer the party of constitutional limits, federalism, and individual rights, the GOP eagerly supported federal regulation, new entitlements, expansion of earmark spending, Great Society-like programs, nation building, economic planning and historic spending increases. In doing so, they lost the support of the base and the people they were trying to court. After all, why pick Democrat-lite when you can have the real thing.

For the past decade, few Republicans have been able to articulate why limited government, free markets, and personal responsibility are necessary for the preservation of individual freedom and national prosperity. Democrats, however, have eloquently made the case that big government, new entitlements and programs, higher taxes, and economic planning are in the nation’s best interest. It is not surprising that liberals managed to sway a great many in this state and across the nation to their viewpoint.

The silver lining is that leftist ideas are not in our best interest. Ideas have consequences and the change Democrats have in mind will bring economic hardship and social injustice. Just as FDR’s New Deal intensified the depression and LBJ’s Great Society programs mired generations in poverty, Democrats’ ideas have a predicable outcome. It is only a matter of time before the hope of a government-created utopia wears thin and people feel the consequences of this election.

In the meanwhile, the GOP has an opportunity to rebuild the party to be the freedom-loving, libertarian, limited government party. We need to do a housecleaning that sweeps out bumbling Me-too Republicanism and embarrassing politicians like the pork barreling Ted Stevens and anyone claiming to have a wide stance. Republicans who say they support the Constitution but in opposition to its principles, continue to advance their own programs, entitlements, and agendas will find a more receptive place on the other team.

Equally importantly, Republicans need to learn to articulate the case for freedom and why government programs encroach on the free will of individuals. Making the case for freedom can be difficult task. Free stuff is a much easier sell than freedom especially when the American people have come to believe that the purpose of government is to make them happy not to protect their right to pursue happiness. We must show them that the free stuff that Democrats promise comes at an enormous cost – freedom itself.

The consequences of leftist policies will surely make the case for us, but Republicans must be prepared to lead when the time comes.

Krista Kafer's column appears weekly on Face the State.com. Reprinted by permission.

A GOP district captain's lament

The reasons for Republican losses this year and the steps we need to take to rebuild are extensive. Start with the average voter. He or she does not care about (or honestly understand) ideology. Trying to appeal to the average voter with arguments about Adam Smith’s view of government and socialism etc. will likely get a blank stare. The average voter can tell you all the stats about the Denver Broncos but couldn’t tell you the difference between Hamas and Hezbollah, couldn’t tell you if Al Qaeda is a Sunni or Shia organization, and has no understanding of the ramifications of Georgia being invaded by Russia. The average voter wants to be able to feed his family, have healthcare, have a house with a big flat screen TV, and make sure his kids have a chance to get the same. The average voter (aside from the base on each side) doesn’t care if it is a Democrat or Republican who gives this to him.

Now with that as a backdrop, let’s look at this election. There were two broad issues that came into play…

1) Contextual Issues: Unpopular war, economic crisis, unpopular president, misadventures in the Minneapolis bathroom, etc.

2) Internal Party Issues: things that the GOP did and didn’t do which shot us in the foot.

As far as the contextual issues, this was a tough year for the GOP. You all know the details so I won’t repeat them here. What I would like to focus on is issues related to the GOP. In terms of pure strategy and tactics the matchup between the Dems and the GOP was like watching a football game between the Michigan Wolverines and Cherry Creek High School. They ran circles around us. A few cases in point…

Lack of Infrastructure

The Dems were incredibly well organized on a local level. They have a well run District and Precinct system with appropriate delegation of authority and support from the higher echelons of command. In Denver County we have essentially no infrastructure and we have completely let the precinct system fall into disrepair. I started as a precinct captain early this year and several weeks ago got promoted to District co-Captain. My other co-Captain, Paul Linton, also assumed his position relatively recently and he inherited a district that was in disarray. I have spoken with several other District Captains in Denver and they are experiencing the same thing. Part of the reason for this problem will be explained below.

Lack of Leadership

I have been rather unimpressed by the leadership that I see in the Colorado GOP. I won’t name any names here but too many people are “looking up” and focusing on how they can advance their own careers and get cabinet positions etc. They are not spending enough time “looking down” and making sure that the components of the Party over which they have jurisdiction gets developed. I spoke with several of the candidates who ran for either State House or State Senate and none of them received anything (money or training/advice) from the County or State Party. I understand that the Party may have decided that it would be better for them to put all their money into the Senate and National race.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that ignoring all of your local candidates is a good idea (I do not agree with this position). Ok then how about having a few candidate trainings at GOP HQ? I know there are some smart people in the party who know a lot about political strategy. It would not cost much to have an all-day “boot camp” for candidates to teach them about running for office. It would also cost very little for a county GOP chairperson to have the candidates in the county over to his/her house once a month to talk strategy and give them moral support.

It would not be difficult for the State Chairman to call each of the candidates in the state and say “stay motivated…keep up the good work!” It would not be difficult for the State Chairman to create an email list for all the local candidates and send them updates and strategy ideas. None of these things would be difficult unless hypothetically the State Chairman was trying to run a major Senate campaign at the same time he/she was trying to be State Chairman.

With the complete failure of our infrastructure that I described above, every Republican who is in a leadership position needs to be focused on rebuilding the infrastructure. I know it is a lot more fun to socialize and attend parties with powerful people but the stables need to be cleaned out and our leaders need to put their boots on and do some work.

Lack of Innovation

The Democrats utilized the internet and electronic media very well and we completely dropped the ball. This is very frustrating. Here in Denver County there are a number of people in the local GOP who fail to comprehend the importance of this. The Denver Democrat website is an order of magnitude better than the Denver GOP website. This is a critical problem that needs to be addressed NOW.

Here in District 3 we just set up a web page (www.ColoGOPhd3.com) and we are setting up Twitter, Facebook, and MySpace pages. We are going to be sending out post cards to every Republican on the Denver side of the district over the next 6 months trying to get them on our email list and trying to get them to connect with our web site. The GOP needs to make a real push to utilize technology as a force multiplier.

Excluding Voters

The Democrats have made great efforts to reach out to African Americans and Hispanics. In my humble opinion, we have to connect with these folks too or we will continue to lose.

Conclusion

We need to adopt a business mindset. Quite simply we are losing market share. When you really boil it down, we sell red widgets and the other party sells blue widgets. If the red widgets aren’t selling then one of three things might be going on…

1) People just don’t want red widgets anymore because they don’t offer what they want. (We need to change our widget)

2) People just don’t know about the red widgets and don’t realize that they really are a good product. (We need better advertising)

3) The red widgets do not actually deliver the features that they are advertised to be able to do. (We need to walk the talk)

In the first case perhaps our “product” needs to be changed, in the second case we need to do a better job of getting our message out in an understandable way, and in the third case we need to actually do what we claim we can/should do. I don’t claim to know exactly to what extent each of these plays a role but I think that they all contribute to the problem.

In business, if a company doesn’t innovate and compete effectively it goes out of business. In politics, we become irrelevant. Politics will always have two competing sides. Even the European countries that have multiple parties tend to create coalitions that divide up into two opposing sides.

The question is, will the Republicans continue to be a viable opposing force or will the natural polarity develop within the Democrat party causing the direction of our country to be decided every year in the Democratic primaries?

'Hope and change' elected BHO

The irony should not be lost on his adversaries as we now "hope for (minimal) change." Of course, his supporters have no idea who he really is or what he'll really do - so actually we're all united now! But it behooves the adult party to avoid the trap that befell our more juvenile brethren and has so hurt our country - the outright and irrational hatred of GWB. The preemptive and petty attacks on his every move has done more harm than any of his missteps. We must give the benefit of the doubt to President-elect Obama by allowing him every chance to fulfill his promise to hear and respect his opponents and govern from the center,

That said, the question still remains - How long can those not fully vested in America (whether legally, financially, culturally) determine its fate without breaking it? Those who ride on the American camel without appreciation for its beauty, or fragility.

At what point does the camel's back break? No one knows, but I fear that we're about to find out.

364-174 in context

As I write, liberal barons and the monkeys with knives known as the MSM are attempting to sculpt a 2008 narrative. In it, well-groomed adherents to the fallacy of the disassociated middle tell of an Obama whose character alone carried him to victory. This victory is one that is said to be "epic," "watershed," and on par with the elections of 1980, 1932, or 1860. However, in its weary heart, this upcoming liberal fantasy, which we should all expect to be shouted at us rather loud, is in serious error. From its heights, in metaphor, heights the same as the courts of Adad, every bit of the theory overstates and draws the wrong conclusion from 2008’s final tally.

To understand 2008 any sensible observer must first look and history for a broader perspective on the electoral map. In addition, one must also draw the correct conclusions by measuring available facts against tangibly set criteria. Currently the most common error made in analysis of the 2008 electoral map is to use the raw electoral vote as a change in the national political wind. Indeed, from this perspective Mr. Obama’s 190 electoral- vote victory seems quite potent and 2008 a watershed election.

However, the important criteria for judging shifts in the presidential political wind, is not, in fact, the raw difference but the four-year swing in multiplier, the four-year swing numerically and the percentage victory over one's opponent. This is a quantification that is quite sensible, as in order to accurately judge change one must look at the entirety of the before and after picture.

In 2004 Mr. Bush won by 35 EV, meaning that the change for the Democrats from 2004 to 2008 is +224. For Obama, this means he flipped 112 votes at a multiplier over Kerry’s total of 1.45 and a percentage over opponent of +33%.

This seems impressive, and it is, in some ways, but it is not a sea change and pales compared to all other major ideological shifts in the last 100 years of U.S. Presidential History. In the last 40 years, three "sea change" elections have happened: coming in 1968, 1980 and 1992. In the previous 40 years came another three, coming in 1932, 1952 and finally 1960. Now let us look at the numbers in two examples.

● 1932 was good for FDR as he won the election by 413 EV. But now consider that in 1928 Herbert C. Hoover had crushed Alfred E. Smith by 357 EV. What this means is that in 1932, FDR and friends came in at a cataclysmic +770 and a flip of 385. But it is in the multiplier and percentage that FDR really shows his muscle and the nature of a watershed election is shown. FDR’s swing multiplier in 1932 was 5.42 and his percentage over opponent was +77.7%.

● Nov. 4th 1968 was a good one for Nixon as that night he stood at +544 and had flipped 272 EV. But again, here, the multiplier stands out as Nixon won 5.78 times the GOP’s 1964 total. Nixon had a more modest percentage victory at +20.9%, but nonetheless a multiplication of 5.78 stands out like rice in the salt shaker.

The closest Obama comes to a watershed election is in the percentage of victory over opponent. But this is arguably the least practical advantage amongst the numbers discussed here, and it is also trumped by victory percentages like +81.6 by Reagan in 1980 and by the Gipper again in 1984 at an astonishing +94%. In the other categories of multiplier and EV gain Obama falls far short of historical comparisons. 2008 was a good year for Obama, after all he won, but in context his victory is more of a battleground one then an epic one.

Ideologies lie and the knee-jerk analysis of the MSM misleads, but numbers don’t. While the 2008 presidential is sobering for the GOP and requires a decisive comeback in both means and ideas, it’s not as epic as some would have it seem.

So don’t panic, and let's get back to work!

Discouragement isn't an option

For all of us who believe in liberty, yesterday’s ballot offerings all over the country were hardly inspiring. Predictably, the results this morning may be more than a little dispiriting. Just in case you might be feeling somewhat “down” at the moment, let me offer what I hope will be some cheerful thoughts. Eternal optimist though I am, I admit that when I looked at the morning papers the pessimist temptation briefly had me in its grip. Then I asked myself :What good purpose could a defeatist attitude possibly provide? Will it make me work harder for the causes I know are right? Is there anything about liberty that yesterday’s election disproves?

If I exude a pessimistic demeanor, will it help attract newcomers to the ideas I believe in? Is this the first time in history that believers in liberty have lost some battles? If we simply throw in the towel, will that enhance the prospects for future victories? Is our cause so menial as to justify deserting it because of some bad news or some new challenges? Do we turn back just because the hill we have to climb got a little steeper?

I think you know the answers to those questions.

This is NOT the time to abandon principles. I can’t speak for you but some day I want to go to my reward and be able to look back and say, “I never gave up. I never became part of the problem I tried to solve. I never gave the other side the luxury of winning anything without a fight. I never missed an opportunity to do my best for what I believed in, and it never mattered what the odds or the obstacles were.”

Let’s remember that we stand on the shoulders of many people who came before us and who persevered through far darker times. I think of the brave men and women behind the Iron Curtain who resisted the greatest tyranny of the modern age, and won. I think of those like Hayek and Mises who kept the flame of liberty flickering in the 1930s and ‘40s when the whole world must have seemed mad for statism in one form or another. I think of the heroes like Wilberforce and Clarkson who fought to end slavery and literally changed the conscience and character of a nation in the face of the most daunting of disadvantages.

I think of the patriots who shed their blood for American liberty and suffered through unspeakable hardships as they took on the world’s most powerful nation in 1776. I think of martyrs of the Reformation. And I think of the Scots who, 456 years before the Declaration of Independence, put their lives on the line to repel English invaders with these stirring words: “It is not for honor or glory or wealth that we fight, but for freedom alone, which no good man gives up except with his life.”

As I thought about what some of those great men and women faced, the obstacles before us today seemed rather puny. I’m ashamed that for a moment I let a little election get me down.

If you want my advice, we should not squander a second feeling bad for ourselves. This is a moment when our true character, the stuff we’re really made of, will show itself. If we retreat, that would tell me we were never really worthy of the battle in the first place. But if we resolve to let these tough times build character, teach us to be better and smarter at what we do, and rally our dispirited friends to new levels of dedication, we will look back on this occasion some day with pride at how we handled it. It’s already past 9 am. Have you made any calls to cheer anybody up yet?

Believe me, the folks who for the moment are basking in victory and salivating for the opportunities they may soon have to deploy more force and coercion in our lives are not divinely-inspired geniuses. They are not going to be the first bunch in the history of the planet to figure out how to make big government work. They are far more likely, in fact, to give those who believe in liberty some unique opportunities to drive home our arguments with more eloquence and effect than ever before. When they flop, will the right ideas be lying around, ready to go, to make change for the better? That depends on us. Will we rise to the occasion?

Use this time to think about how you can do more for liberty and do it better, reaching larger audiences in ways that turn lights on people’s minds. Support others who are working full-time on liberty’s behalf. INspire, don’t EXpire!

So in the course of a few hours, I’m happy to say I’ve traversed from a moment of despair to a smile and a sunny optimism, to an eagerness to accept the challenge and get down to work. To all those out there who are hoping people like you and me will go quietly into the night, just keep thinking that. You’re in for some unexpected surprises.

Onward and upward! Larry

Lawrence W. Reed is newly aboard as president of the Foundation for Economic Education in Irvington NY. He is also president emeritus of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Michigan, which he founded two decades ago.