The Long Shadow of the Bush Era

By Daniel Larison • November 7, 2012, 12:28 AM

Michael remarks on the aftermath of Romney’s loss:

But in reality the more pressing problem is that Republicans are still a party badly damaged by the George W. Bush years. The GOP has traditionally held huge advantages on foreign policy and the economy. That advantage is gone now. And Mitt Romney was the wrong candidate to give the party a refresh on those issues, particularly when the gettable voters were downscale whites. It isn’t that Republicans aren’t reaching enough voters; voters simply don’t believe the GOP is competent to govern.

Put another way, if the public had much confidence in Republican leadership to conduct foreign policy responsibly or act as competent stewards of the economy the party’s demographic woes would be substantially alleviated. The GOP is failing to win adherents outside of its core constituencies, but a key reason for this is that it has proven itself manifestly unfit for government. The Bush era was a disaster for the Republican Party, and it isn’t going to be able to recover until it recognizes this, repudiates the failures of that era, and demonstrates that it has learned from the experience. If it can repair the damage that Bush-era Republicans did to the party’s reputation on managing foreign policy and the economy, it might be given a second chance and receive a hearing from people who have learned to distrust its representatives.

Michael said earlier in his post:

Because changing demographics are such a huge part of Obama’s, it is going to cause Republicans to discuss how they can attract a more diverse pool of voters. Inevitably this will focus on Hispanics. I expect tonight’s results will be used as an argument for automatically nominating Florida Senator Marco Rubio for 2016.

Michael is correct that Republicans will believe that they can expand their coalition to include more Hispanics, and he’s probably right that Rubio will be promoted as the sort of candidate able to do this. While the desire to make the party more competitive is understandable, this would be the wrong way to go about it. As I’ve said several times before, Rubio’s ability to appeal to Hispanics outside Florida is illusory, and it’s not even that reliable inside his home state. Not only will Rubio’s Cuban background be an impediment to this effort, but his overall profile as the super-hawkish favorite of movement conservative activists is one that does not appeal to anyone outside of a very narrow band of opinion. The answer to the GOP’s problems is not to elevate another John McCain on foreign policy.

Posted in foreign policy, politics. Tagged John McCain, Marco Rubio, Michael Brendan Dougherty, Mitt Romney.

24 Responses to The Long Shadow of the Bush Era

Lord Karth says:

November 7, 2012 at 12:38 am

There won’t be another “John McCain” on foreign policy; our increasingly precarious financial position will see to that.

As Mr. Buchanan pointed out in his most recent column, we are entering an era of the politics of scarcity; an age when interest groups fight over a shrinking and increasingly corrupted pool of resources. We are going to have to figure out which ethnicities, age cohorts and occupations are going to get gored, as opposed to actually growing the economic pie.

There just plain won’t be any money for military adventures far-foreign. Shoot, I wouldn’t be surprised if there isn’t enough money to maintain the Army as a border guard. The parasites on Medicaid and the recipients of public-employee pension funds won’t stand for it.

Your servant,

Lord Karth
sglover says:

November 7, 2012 at 1:09 am

“The Bush era was a disaster for the Republican Party, and it isn’t going to be able to recover until it recognizes this, repudiates the failures of that era, and demonstrates that it has learned from the experience.”

True. But Republicans have shown that that’s beyond them.

It will be hilarious watching them trying, yet again, to gin up Latino support. They probably honestly believe that nobody noticed the rather ugly undertones of their latest voter suppression ploys. Another example of how foresight and learning are simply not in the Republican toolkit any more.

Of course, it’s a measure of Dem ineptitude that the GOP didn’t follow the Whigs into oblivion after 2008….
IanH says:

November 7, 2012 at 1:16 am

The key to rebuilding conservatism, both fiscal and social, is to end immigration and rebuild American manufacturing.
Clint says:

November 7, 2012 at 1:44 am

While many of us real conservatives fell off The GOP Romney Sled and considering current counted votes numbering 52.9 million for Obama to 52.3 million for Romney, there is no current mandate.

Also, consider that Media Brotherhood carried Obama, and the in-place superior Obama campaign machine and no democrat primary war played in Obama’s favor.

The continuing economic problems will give Americans further attitude adjustment and the 2014 Midterm Elections will be ripe for another Tea Party Wave.
David M says:

November 7, 2012 at 2:03 am

@IanH: “The key to rebuilding conservatism, both fiscal and social, is to end immigration”

It might worth coming up with a backup plan in case that isn’t as easy as you make it sound.
Uncle Vanya says:

November 7, 2012 at 3:08 am

Surely the GOP has enough graduates of 12-step programs among its members to remind party poobahs that the first step toward solving any problem is to admit that you have one. Not until they do that can the party’s road to recovery begin.
IanH says:

November 7, 2012 at 10:10 am

I never said it was easy. But it is one of the keys. By all means I agree that it would be a gargantuan task.

For what it’s worth, rebuilding real American industry is the far more important of the two.
tbraton says:

November 7, 2012 at 10:17 am

“The key to rebuilding conservatism, both fiscal and social, is to end immigration and rebuild American manufacturing.”

I agree IanH, but what is the likelihood of ending immigration (or even limiting it sharply by going back to the pre-1965 restrictions) in light of last night’s results? Especially considering the clamor for the Republican Party to appeal to Hispanics. There will be a lot of pressure on Republicans to cave on amnesty for the 12 million illegals in the U.S. Reagan’s amnesty of approximately 3+ million illegals back in the 1980′s hasn’t exactly worked to the advantage of the Republican Party.
Andrew says:

November 7, 2012 at 10:52 am

The Bush era was a disaster for the Republican Party, and it isn’t going to be able to recover until it recognizes this, repudiates the failures of that era, and demonstrates that it has learned from the experience. If it can repair the damage that Bush-era Republicans did to the party’s reputation on managing foreign policy and the economy, it might be given a second chance and receive a hearing from people who have learned to distrust its representatives.

This is excellently put. I, however, doubt that this will be done. I could be wrong, of course, but for some reason I believe GOP passed the point of no return. I cannot see how GOP CAN repair the damage. At least not in foreseeable future.
IanH says:

November 7, 2012 at 11:07 am

“I agree IanH, but what is the likelihood of ending immigration (or even limiting it sharply by going back to the pre-1965 restrictions) in light of last night’s results?”

Not very likely. At least not democratically. What this country is in desperate need of is a Francisco Franco or Augusto Pinochet.
Ted says:

November 7, 2012 at 11:28 am

In re Rubio: has anybody considered that part of pretty-boy’s job was reliably deliver Florida for the GOP?
Bob Jones says:

November 7, 2012 at 11:49 am

Clint said: “The continuing economic problems will give Americans further attitude adjustment and the 2014 Midterm Elections will be ripe for another Tea Party Wave”

This may be true, but it is really going to come down to what the Republican Congress does in 2013. Constitutionally, the budget and the deficit are their responsibility, and they either need to demonstrate that they can govern and legislate, or they will need to be able to demonstrate that they can set aside the campaign rhetoric and show that they can make rational decisions. This certainly doesn’t mean that they have to raise taxes and give away more pork cookies. Rather, they need to create rationally defensible priorities and then look for opportunities for compromise on other issues.

As an example, if they want to stand on revenue neutral tax reform, then they need to give on cutting those porky pieces of the budget that they seem unwilling to do now, i.e. DoD, Homeland Security, etc. If they can demonstrate rational, effective, fiscally responsible leadership, then it is likely that they make gains in 2014. If they behave the Congress in 1996, or like they have over the past 2 years, then I wouldn’t count on it.
Seth Owen says:

November 7, 2012 at 11:52 am

“Not very likely. At least not democratically. What this country is in desperate need of is a Francisco Franco or Augusto Pinochet.”

Or maybe a Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez. You’re so quick to assume that the Napoleon favored by the masses will be on YOUR side.

My God, such faith in our Constitution, our democracy and our traditions. Yes, all we need in some Strong Man on a White Horse and everything will be just fine.

Yes, that worked out so well for Spain, Chile, Cuba and Venezuela, respectively.

Instead of grousing about immigrants (we’re all descended from immigrants) and other irrelevancies, it might be more useful to consider how to appeal to them. There was a time when ethnic whites (i.e. immigrants) were persuaded some GOP candidates had merit after being a reliable Democratic constituency.
IanH says:

November 7, 2012 at 12:06 pm

Francisco Franco kept Spain peaceful and free while the rest of the continent was being bathed in fascist violence and later communist tyranny. His social policies ensured that mothers could stay home and raise their families, which contributed to a miraculous demographic expansion in the country. He was a great man who, to the country’s peril, had his accomplishments almost totally reversed by the socialists who succeeded him. Which is why Spain is such a mess today.

Pinochet may have been flawed. However, in a era of endless Soviet insurgencies in South America, he held back the tide long enough for communism to die off. His modernization of the Chilean military also ensured that they could fend off Argentina.
Peter Shaim says:

November 7, 2012 at 12:57 pm

As a Democrat, I believe that the Republican party can reinvent itself easily.
Republicans have so many good things going for them, and are a necessary voice in this great nations dialogue.
Looking abroad, at the UK specifically, I look at how the both the Tory party and the Labour party were invigorated by Thatcher and Blair, after being both declared irrelevant.
Fear if immigration should be changed to a love of inclusion. Again in the UK, at Heathrow Airport, my bags were checked by an Islamic woman wearing a veil. Not a problem.
Hateful and demeaning attitudes to women need to stop.
Hateful and inelegant attitudes to sexual orientation need to stop.
Hateful and irresponsible attitudes to the environment need to stop.
Republicans can win by focus on portraying themselves as responsible stewards of business, by reducing red tape but not by cutting necessary rules and regulations that protect consumers and the environment.
By being the driver to make government more transparent and more efficient; more user friendly.
By reducing the size of government by making it more efficient at doing the same job.
By including all races and all people in the love of business, of entrepreneurship, of personal success.
By being the moral voice of family and ethics, for all persuasions.
I do not wish to be a lifelong Democrat purely out of habit. That is not interesting for me, and I look forward to the Republican party being able to get my vote in the future.
TWylite says:

November 7, 2012 at 2:03 pm

And Mussolini made the trains run on time, Hitler was nice to his dog, and Kennedy had a secretary named Lincoln…
peggy says:

November 7, 2012 at 2:17 pm

Coups like that of Franco and Pinochet require support of the military. I would defer to our host for an opinion as to how the Joint Chiefs view Obama, but his fundraising prowess with the troops was almost twice that of Romney.

Our nation is deeply divided with no legislative compromise in sight, similar to the situation 150 years ago. People like Ian who raise military options should remember how bloody a conflict that was.
Tom says:

November 7, 2012 at 2:19 pm

“we’re all descended from immigrants”. Yes, but most of those immigrants came here legally at a time when there was no welfare state so they had to work for everything they got.
Bob Jones says:

November 7, 2012 at 2:21 pm

IanH, You really need to take you rose colored revisionist glasses off when glorifying dictators like Franco and Pinochet. Both of these men came to power by overthrowing legitimate governments, and ruled with the help of dictatorial power, silencing dissent, and a secret police that made those who disagreed with them disappear.

Another commentor already made this observation. When wishing for a dictator, be careful of what you wish for, as you are likely to get a leader who will trample on you just as you wish he would trample on others.
Lex says:

November 7, 2012 at 2:54 pm

Franco invited the Nazis to bomb his countrymen and considered entering the war on the side of the Axis. Pinochet killed thousands and tortured tens of thousands of his countrymen. Both led coups against democratically elected governments.
JOHN KING says:

November 7, 2012 at 2:56 pm

Shaim is against hateful and demeaning attitudes to women and hateful (again) attitudes to sexual orientation and whatever it is that identifies Republicans as racists. For one thing, calling affirmative action mandated discrimination is certain to be labeled racism, no matter how true it is. But, Shaim seems far more interested in image than in facts or principle, and he does not shrink from innuendo that liberal Democrats can only love. Immigration on the scale of the last half century has clearly been economically harmful to American workers and can hardly be refuted by some vague, sugary platitude about love of inclusion.
Then, we learn that Repubs must be the moral voice of family and ethics, presumably at the same time they eschew calling homosexuality abnormal and abortion premeditated homicide lest they come across as inelegant. Permit me the suggestion that it is better to be inelegant than incoherent.
IanH says:

November 7, 2012 at 2:57 pm

“When wishing for a dictator, be careful of what you wish for, as you are likely to get a leader who will trample on you just as you wish he would trample on others.”

That sounds like something Optimus Prime would say.
Peter Shaim says:

November 7, 2012 at 3:31 pm

Dear John,

Yes, it is possible to be both a beacon of inclusiveness and morality, on a fundamental level.
Regarding abortion. Personally, I find it to be a horrible, horrible thing. And so do a lot of a lot of women. For many, it is not done easily, and it does come at huge psychological cost.
However, the majority of women prefer to have that choice available to them, and will vote accordingly.
Immigration: I am not a policy wonk, but I am in favor of restrictions to immigration, but want to see an attitude of inclusiveness to recent immigrants and their children. Regarding the idea that immigration has hurt American workers doesn’t convince entirely as it is the world that has hurt American workers, as well as the march of technology, and possibly the lack of government investment in all areas of innovative technology.
But yes, I am all about perception and image, and last night the Republicans paid the price for looking out of touch, and more than that, extreme in areas that affect the personal lives of all Americans.
It will be sad to see the Republican party hunker down for a bitter losing fight on side issues when they could easily reinvent themselves as the party of business and personal success and love of country that all races and creeds and orientations would want to wish for themselves.
Seth Owen says:

November 7, 2012 at 8:36 pm

“Coups like that of Franco and Pinochet require support of the military. I would defer to our host for an opinion as to how the Joint Chiefs view Obama, but his fundraising prowess with the troops was almost twice that of Romney.

Our nation is deeply divided with no legislative compromise in sight, similar to the situation 150 years ago. People like Ian who raise military options should remember how bloody a conflict that was.”

The apolitical nature of the professional active duty US military is so thoroughly ingrained that I find it literally inconceivable that any threat could come from that corner, despite fevered imaginings to the contrary. There will be social order breakdown long before somehting like that could happen.

What’s some what more conceivable, although still extremely unlikely, would be some yahoo National Guard/Reserve incident. Unlike the active military, reserve units are necessarily much more culturally homogeneous and have less of a tradition of political aloofness. If something were ever to happen, I’d look there for the first signs.