Brooks frames the debate in the Republican party in the context of Western movies. But he diagnoses the problem as the distinction between individualism and community:
[The Republican individualistic focus] doesn't work in the densely populated parts of the country: the cities and suburbs where Republicans are getting slaughtered. People in these areas understand that their lives are profoundly influenced by other people's individual choices. People there are used to worrying about the health of the communal order.
In these places, Democrats have been able to establish themselves as the safe and orderly party. President Obama has made responsibility his core theme and has emerged as a calm, reassuring presence (even as he runs up the debt and intervenes rashly in sector after sector).
If the Republicans are going to rebound, they will have to re-establish themselves as the party of civic order. First, they will have to stylistically decontaminate their brand. That means they will have to find a leader who is calm, prudent, reassuring and reasonable.
This has the ring of truth to me-- I believe that politics is about problems and solutions.
I'm most concerned with the problems that the Democratic party focuses on addressing-- strengthening the middle class by addressing wealth inequalities and health care; fixing the social safety net; addressing global environmental problems.
The Democrats attack these problems, and have since Clinton, by finding the most competent people and bringing the best solutions to bear.
Once upon a time, Republicans were known as the party of competence. But it has been hard to argue that for at least two decades.
Lately, the Republican party identifies edge case problems that they can use to spur populist outrage and apply solutions that are rigid and based on assumed-to-be-true (i.e., tax cuts fix everything) rather than searching for best solutions.
Plus, they ignore and trivialize real problems that affect Americans: wealth disparity, shrinking middle class real income, and global warming.
Why should it be important here, in a blue blog, that the Republican party should be able to compete?
Because democracy is only healthy when there are multiple valid options presented. Right now, the Republicans are so bereft of ideas that they aren't able to participate in debate.
Because if only the Democrats hold power, they will ultimately become as corrupt as the Republicans have been and as Democrats were or appeared to be in the 70s and 80s.
Because at some point, the Republicans will be back in power. I'm concerned that date, in New York, may be as early as the 2010 election cycle. It would be nice to think that when the Republicans return to power, there may be some rational approaches.
Because it is good for the country.
What do we do? I don't know that there is much that partisan Democrats can do to help the Republicans.
I do know that we need to do more, here, in our own camp to stall our "corruption conversion", especially here in New York state.
We need to:
- End three men in a room and open up the budget process
- Reduce the cost of government and bring New York state closer to the middle of all the states
- Champion policies that will help true job creation in New York
- Implement clean money, clean elections
- Provide real solutions-- like universal health care-- that help real Americans (and real New Yorkers)
I'll make an unpopular prediction (here, at least): we're going to loose the Governor's mansion and the State Senate next year if we don't make some radical changes to how we are doing business in this state. |
