international

Right-wing pundits attempt to set agenda for Republican Party

One of the most interesting phenomena in US politics at the moment is the extent to which pundits are blurring the line between commentary and political involvement.

It's a phenomenon that leading Democrats are encouraging.  The White House, for example, is promoting the idea that popular talk radio host, Rush Limbaugh, is the real leader of the Republicans.  They calculate that any association of his strong views will alienate moderate voters from the GOP.

Laura Ingraham, another top conservative radio star, is promoting a 'Ten for '10' list of policy objectives for candidates standing in next year's elections. She'll endorse candidates who sign up. A number already have, including Senator Jim DeMint and Steve Forbes.  Fox News star Sean Hannity also has a list of ten issues.  They include "keeping Gitmo open" and "expand[ing] coal mining".

The hottest right-wing star at the moment is another Fox News star, Glenn Beck.  He is currently touring the country to sell-out crowds promoting his latest book, Arguing With Idiots.  Beck famously told Fox viewers that Barack Obama hated white people:

As the internet develops we will see more blurring of the lines between media entities and political parties. The monopoly on comment is already broken. The conventional parties' monopolies of political fundraising and of running slates of candidates will be broken too as the barriers to entry get lower and lower. Moderate Republicans fear that the 'Coulterisation' of their party will accelerate with loud and hardline voices damaging their party's prospects.

As the Left rebuilds on the internet in Britain - following a likely defeat next year - Labour may be pulled from the centre by its own populist voices.

Sarah Palin is back with a bang but is unlikely to appear on a presidential ticket again

Sarah Palin's memoir, Going Rogue, is selling like hot cakes but the American fascination with the former Governor of Alaska is unlikely to see her become a contender for the nation's highest office.

Sarah Palin, talking to Oprah Winfrey, says she is not considering a presidential bid in 2012 (not yet, anyway): "“I’m concentrating on 2010,” when there will be midterm elections. Has she thought about running? “It’s not on my radar screen right now,” she said. Then again, she probably wouldn’t tell Oprah if she were, right? “No, I wouldn’t,” Ms. Palin acknowledged." [New York Times].

Moderate Republicans are said to be unhappy at Sarah Palin's re-emergence: "Moderate Republicans—yes, they are not yet extinct, though most are in hiding—scoff at Sarah Palin and wish she would go away. But she's not going away. This week she's going on-air with Barbara Walters and Oprah Winfrey to flog her new book, Going Rogue: An American Life, and to promote her brand of in-your-face, power-to-the-people conservatism." [Newsweek].

For the Republican Portillistas at NewMajority.com, Palin has celebrity but not credibility.

Loved by most Republicans and hated by most Democrats: "Ms. Palin remains highly popular among Republicans (69% favorable). But the Democrats' striking antipathy to the former governor—she has a 72% unfavorable rating among them—drives down her overall approval." [Matthew Continetti].

Independents are divided but could they be won over if she demonstrated substance on policy?: "In last month's Gallup poll, Ms. Palin had a 48% unfavorable and 41% favorable rating among independents. Not good, but not insurmountable. Flip those percentages, and they could be serving moose burgers in the White House in 2013. What drives independents' uncertainty is their feeling that Ms. Palin isn't up to the job." [Matthew Continetti].

The consensus is that she's unlikely to run: "Republicans have just edged ahead of Democrats in the polls and Mr Obama is suddenly looking as if he might be just a one-term President. But Mrs Palin is unlikely to become the candidate who can oust the man Oprah anointed as "the One"." [Toby Harnden].

For many she'll be a hero of movement conservatives but never anything else: “Palin will forever be a cult hero among conservatives, but I think it is unlikely she will ever hold public office again. In fact, I have concluded that she will never even run. In 20 years she will have earned a spot on the mountain with Buckley, Goldwater, and Limbaugh, but I don’t see her on a ballot again.” [A consultant quoted by Jim Geraghty].

Ron Paul's son, Rand, challenges establishment Republican candidate in Kentucky

All across America, including against Florida Governor Charlie Crist, conservative candidates are standing against more centrist Republican candidates as part of the anti-'RINO' phenomenon that took off in New York. 'RINO' equalling Republican In Name Only.

Rand Paul, son of libertarian Ron Paul, is the poster boy for this insurgent movement as he seeks to win the Republican nomination to be US Senate candidate for Kentucky.

This Wall Street Journal video overviews the Republican establishment's concerns that this will cause division in the party and that the conservative candidates favoured by grassroots Republicans will be easier for Democrats to beat than more moderate candidates.

 

In the video below Rand Paul explains why he opposes government bailout of car manufacturers:

One year on, Obama has lost his magic as Republicans celebrate significant wins

A number of special elections were held in America last night; one year after Obama was elected America's 44th President.

The Democrats will want to say that last night's setbacks for their party were not a reflection on Barack Obama and it is true that most voters told pollsters that the President was not a big factor in their decision. However, it is also true that the magic that he sprinkled on American politics has gone. He stumped for the embattled Democratic Governor of New Jersey, Jon Corzine, five times during the campaign, twice as recently as Sunday. The President recorded ads for Corzine and Corzine used Obama constantly in his own ads. None of this was enough to save the Democrat from voter anger about taxes and general economic distress. The Republican Chris Christie won the Governorship by 49% to 45%. Jennifer Rubin writes:

"The White House will have a hard time saying this one doesn’t matter. Obama won the state by 14%. The Republicans in a only a year won the state back."

The Republican victory was even bigger in Virginia. The so-called purple swing state of Virginia has been trending to the Democrats for a number of years and it was one of Obama's biggest prizes last year. But the Republican candidate for Governor won a landslide victory yesterday. Bob McDonnell "steamrolled" his Democrat opponent by 59% to 41%. The GOP won all three Virginia-wide offices up for election. McDonnell made a promise not to raise taxes but to use efficiency savings to afford improvements to transport and schools. He also campaigned heavily against President Obama's proposed cap on greenhouse emissions (while backing more green jobs) and against plans to aid unionisation of Virginia's economy. As RealClearPolitics noted, however, McDonnell was a conservative who downplayed social issues, was relentlessly optimistic and asked Sarah Palin to stay out of the campaign. Ramesh Ponnuru offers one other lesson:

"One of the lessons he draws is that Republican candidates have to "finish the sentence." Instead of just saying that we have to keep taxes and spending low, and thus pleasing conservatives, he said, McDonnell explain how these policies would create jobs and "plug the hole in [the budget]." Too many Republican candidates, he says, forget to do that."

Exactly. Conservatives need to show how conservative themes have practical benefits.

The most disappointing result for conservatives and Republicans comes from New York state where a Democrat won after the Republican vote was split. ConInternational discussed this fascinating contest on Saturday. Conservatives will blame the party establishment for the defeat, saying that they were wrong to foist such a liberal candidate on them. Republican centrists will say that the tactics of insurgent grassroots conservatives have resulted in a Democrat winning a usually very safe Republican seat.

Mike Bloomberg was re-elected New York City's Mayor but his opponent ran him surprisingly close (51% to 46%).  The New York Times attributes the closeness of the race to "his maneuver to undo the city’s term limits law and his extravagant campaign spending". Bloomberg out-spent his opponent by ten-to-one!

It looks like voters in the moderate state of Maine have narrowly overturned a law that legalised same-sex marriage.

Grassroots Conservative candidate forces official Republican candidate to withdraw from New York Congressional race

The US Republicans should have a good day on Tuesday. They are almost certain to reclaim the Governorship of Virginia and have an evens chance of winning the Governorship of new Jersey despite a late surge to the Democrat incumbent.

The race with the greatest long-term implications is taking place in New York state, however. A solidly Republican district has a vacancy after Representative John McHugh was appointed by President Obama as Secretary of the Army. The Republican Party nominated Dede Scozzafava to take his place in Congress but her liberal views enraged ordinary conservative voters.  The Wall Street Journal accurately painted her as a high taxing, union-supporting liberal.

In huge numbers conservative voters defected from the Republican candidate to support an independent Conservative candidate, Doug Hoffman. Hoffman overtook Scozzafava in the polls, won the backing of leading Republicans including Fred Thompson and Sarah Palin and today - just three days before voters go to polling stations - Scozzafava has withdrawn from the race.  This should mean Hoffman wins, and avoids a victory for the Democrat candidate because of a split in the centre right vote.

The long-term implications are also fascinating. The Republican establishment has learnt that Republican voters cannot be taken for granted. In the age of the internet and with the support of talk radio an insurgent candidate can be much more than a protest vote. One day the same thing may happen in Britain.

Monday 2nd November update: The Wall Street Journal warns conservatives not to over-react to the news: "Democrats did themselves no favors by driving Joe Lieberman out of their party, and conservatives will do their cause no good by forcing GOP candidates in Illinois, California and Connecticut to sound like Tom DeLay. If conservatives now revolt against every GOP candidate who disagrees with them on trade, immigration or abortion, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will keep their majorities for a very long time."

It's far, far too early for the Republicans to start celebrating

After many months of deep gloom there are suddenly plenty of things to encourage America's Republicans in political terms:

• Obama has lost control of the budget.  Figures released by the White House budget office - reports Associated Press - now foresee a cumulative $9 trillion deficit from 2010-2019.  That's $2 trillion more than the Obama administration estimated in May.  Republicans who vigorously oppoosed Obama's massive fiscal stimulus will certainly be blaming that stimulus on this deterioration.
• The Obama coalition is beginning to splinter.  Fouad Ajami explains why this was always likely.  Some white liberals voted for him because they saw "absolution for the country in the election of an African-American man". Blue collar independents voted for him because they hoped he'd make life easier for them. Anti-Bush left-wingers voted for a man who would end the 'Cheney wars'. The likelihood that Obama will have to raise taxes and the growing commitment to Afghanistan are two of the biggest factors that are hurting this coalition.
• The unpopularity of Obama's healthcare reforms.  More than any other factor the President's ambitions to reform a system with which most Americans are content but which does not adequately cover many poor Americans explains why Obama's job approval rating is now lower that that enjoyed by Bush at a similar stage of his presidency.  See RealClearPolitics graph (click to enlarge).
• Republicans see hopes of advancing in the Senate and House of Representatives.  It's still fifteen months until elections but early polls suggest that even the Democrat's Leader in the Senate - Harry Reid of Nevada - could lose his bid for re-election.

Pouring cold water on all these encouragements, however, is Gerald F Seib in the Wall Street Journal.  He argues that "just because one party is down doesn't automatically mean the other party is up."  He notes four outstanding weaknesses for the Republicans:

• The lack of a social justice agenda.  He draws on an essay from Pete Wehner and Mike Gerson that pays tribute to how British conservatives are now competitive with Labour on issues of poverty and equity.  Wehner and Gerson write: "Republicans would be well advised here to borrow a page from David Cameron and Iain Duncan Smith in their revival of the British Conservative party. These leaders have emphasized a range of issues that directly influence the quality of life in community: homelessness, addiction, prison reform, family breakdown, long-term unemployment. As yet, Republicans have no comparable agenda to address such issues of social justice from a conservative perspective. This, as we noted earlier, may be partly owing to the curse of previous success, which has allowed the issue of social justice to be seized by Democrats. But, to invoke a historical reference, the GOP must be the party of both Adam Smiths: the free-market champion who wrote The Wealth of Nations and the moral philosopher who authored The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Like Smith in the 18th century, the party of the 21st century must uphold the paramount virtues of freedom and the “invisible hand” and the no less paramount truth that the free life is nurtured and sustained in community."
• Only 28% of voters feel positively towards the Republicans.  42% feel positively towards the Democrats.  The lack of a social justice agenda is part of the problem here.
• The lack of a credible national leader and presidential candidate for 2012.  People like Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh are very unpopular with independent voters but loved by the base.
• No alternative policy for healthcare reform.

Tim Montgomerie    

US Republicans elect African American as their new Chairman

Michael Steele promises "something completely different" as he is elected Chairman of the Republican National Committee for at least the next two years.  He promises to "knock over" all Republicans who get in the way of his attempt to take "the party of Abraham Lincoln" into neglected territory.  As former Lt Governor of Maryland he has a record of winning in a non-traditional GOP state.  He would have become one of the state's Senators in 2006 if it hadn't have been such a terrible year for all Republican candidates.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Politico comments:

"Former Maryland Lt. Gov Michael Steele triumphed over four opponents in the race for Republican National Committee chairman Friday, giving the party its first black chairman as well as a forceful communicator at a time of political weakness."

The Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire:

"Steele has been more willing that his four opponents to speak candidly about the failings of the Republican Party and the Bush administration. In a well-known 2006 meeting with reporters, Steele–then a Senate candidate—likened the ‘R’ after his name to a “Scarlet Letter. The American people faith had lost faith in our leadership,” he said Friday. “This is a new moment for our party.”"

NewMajority.com:

"Steele won statewide office in Democratic Maryland as Lt. Governor alongside Bob Ehrlich.  They were a popular problem-solving team who knew how to appeal across party lines, reconnecting with centrists and independents.  They made fiscal responsibility, education, health and the environment, public safety, and commerce the "five pillars" of their administration.  They knew how to make government work on a local level – and such statewide efforts will be the route to Republican's resurgence in the future as it has been in the past."

Not one Republican votes for Obama's "porkulus" bill

Despite White House efforts not one Republican Congressman voted for what Rush Limbaugh has called Barack Obama's "porkulus" plan.  Eleven Democrats voted 'no' too during yesterday's successful passage of the bill in the House of Representatives.

America's Republicans - like Britain's Conservatives - have chosen to gamble that the stimulus will either not work or the long-term indebtedness will be hugely expensive (economically and electorally).   

A range of concerns motivated Republicans.  Fiscal conservatives worried about the scale of borrowing.  Supply-siders were unhappy at the amount of tax cuts relative to spending increases.  Social conservatives were unhappy about an "extra $50 million allotted to the National Endowment for the Arts and an untold amount of Medicaid dollars for states to spend on contraception and other forms of family planning."  Partisan Republicans just wanted to give Obama a bloody nose.

The remarkable thing is that Obama was unable to win the backing of a single Republican Congressman.  Democrats had hoped for at least ten supporters and the President's Chief of Staff had dined with a 'moderate eleven' at the White House just 24 hours ago.  Some Republican Senators may be more consensual when the bill reaches them.

Two analyses of the Obama stimulus plan doubt its effectiveness on (a) timeliness and (b) inducing others to reduce their spending.

(A) Jim Manzi notes that "substantially more of outlays occur in 2012 or later than occur in 2009."  He continues:

"If this is a “normal” length recession, the spending bill will have the classic problem that fiscal stimulus does—namely, it comes too late to do much good, but right on time to help stoke inflation and mis-allocation of resources that are suddenly in high demand as the economy enters a recovery.  And if this is a very long-lasting recession, more like a U.S. 1930s Depression or Japan 1990s “lost decade”, then the problem is so long-lasting that we’re not really debating a stimulus bill, we’re debating a near-permanent shift of control of resources to the government, which doesn’t exactly have a sterling track record of success."

(B) Alan Reynolds on National Review:

"When the government spends money, or gives it away in rebate checks, that undoubtedly “stimulates” those who receive the cash. But it has the opposite effect on those who pay the bills. Karl Marx, in his 1852 critique of Louis Bonaparte, explained that “the people are to be given employment: initiation of public works. But the public works increase the people’s tax obligations. . . . Taxes are the life source of the bureaucracy. . . . Strong government and heavy taxes are identical.”  When the government borrows from Peter to pay Paul, taxpayers then have an obligation either to pay interest to Peter (forever) or to repay the debt. Government money does not become free money simply because it was borrowed. True, the U.S. government has been able to borrow at extremely low interest rates lately, but that never lasts for long. The extra debt the new administration plans to dump on the backs of future taxpayers will have to be rolled over at higher interest rates, sooner or later (more likely sooner) and the rising cost of debt service will be borne by taxpayers unless the government defaults (which is already the subject of some speculation)."

Republicans urged to abandon "narrowness" and "losing fight" on gay rights

David Frum, author and former speechwriter to President George W Bush, has launched NewMajority.com.  It styles itself as a website that can build "a conservatism that can win again".  Although David Frum is contributing enthusiastically there are many other voices too.  Early posts are calling the party away from 'narrowness':

> John Avlon of the Manhattan Institute calling for greater respect to fellow Republicans: "Somehow Republicans have lost common ground – Reagan invoked the Big Tent constantly as a way of collecting libertarian conservatives, national security conservatives, economic conservatives and social conservatives under one banner.  But the spirit of outreach and inclusiveness has been drummed out of the GOP – disagreement is seen as disloyalty, and the search for heretics has become a hobby.  Libertarians are losing any logical reason to affiliate with the GOP, while centrist Republicans are seen as suspect almost by definition.  When Senators like Olympia Snowe or John McCain win re-election with over 70% of the vote, they are considered sell-outs rather than successes. I’ve debated conservatives on TV who were rooting for Norm Coleman to lose, because they considered him insufficiently conservative.  This road leads not just to political disaster, but party suicide."

> James Kirchick calls on the GOP to give up a "losing fight" on gay rights: "Conservatives face a stark choice. They can succumb to the short-term temptation of erstwhile electoral victory and continue to support regressive policies on gay rights that are fast going out of fashion. Or they can look at the statistics, talk to their younger colleagues, coolly survey the direction in which the culture is inevitably headed, and plan accordingly. This doesn’t necessarily require the GOP to support gay marriage, just to stand out of the way of what’s coming."

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has sat down for an interview with NewMajority.com and has called for the Republicans to become less narrow and less sectional:

Tim Montgomerie

Republicans see veto of auto bailout as first step toward restoring economic reputation

America's Big Three carmakers - Chrysler, Ford and GM - are facing very difficult economic times.  Sixteen million cars were sold in 2007 but that already below-average number has sunk to ten million this year.  Without a bailout Chrysler and GM may go under and the consequences for the many businesses in the supply chain could also be disastrous.  That is the argument for the bailout and why President Bush is now considering using a portion of the already-agreed financial bailout to help the car companies.

The special bailout was scuppered on Thursday, however, by Republican lawmakers who worry that the bailout culture is becoming a monster (whole nations are next in the queue) and that union power needs to be checked.  Key conservative commentators compare the unionised car industry with the much more successful car manufacturers of the 'right-to-work' states (although Jonathan Rauch makes the case that GM is far from a hopeless case, noting that it is finally producing better cars and has cut employment by 40% since 2004.)

The Unions, increasingly confident of more power with the Democrats controlling the White House and both halves of Congress, discovered the limits to that power when Republican Senators made it clear that they would not support a "bailout without strings".  Republican Senator Bob Corker from Tennessee insisted upon a "date certain" in 2009, by which time the hourly labour costs of those working for America's Big Three car makers would be reduced to the average of foreign-owned car companies operating in the USA.  The United Auto Workers (UAW) offered to look at wage costs but not until 2011.  Republican Senator Mitch McConnell replied that that sounded like "taxpayer money today for reforms that may or may not come tomorrow."

The Wall Street Journal sees Thursday as an important milestone for the Republicans:

"Thursday's showdown marked an important political moment for the Republican Party. By refusing to write a blank check to Detroit, Senate Republicans have started to reclaim some credibility on fiscal policy and the role of government in the economy. They did so standing up to a Republican President who doesn't want any more bad headlines, as well as to Democrats who will blame the GOP if the auto makers collapse. They also stood up for the right reasons. No bailout will ever restore the car companies to profitability without a restructuring. Yet an explicit UAW goal is to use the bailout to avoid any such thing. The union and their Democratic protectors want to avoid the discipline that a bankruptcy could impose under Chapter 11. A government-directed salvation would also give environmentalists huge leverage over the cars Detroit builds, a power they and Democrats have wanted for decades."

US Republicans debate their attitude to size and scope of government

US Republicans - or, perhaps, I should be writing US conservatives - have been debating their attitude to the size and scope of government.

Bill Kristol kicked things off in his weekly New York Times column.  He argued that recent Republican Presidents hadn't succeeded in delivering small government and he notes that Jeb Bush - now openly considering a run for the US Senate - may be billing himself as a small government conservative but his record as Florida's Governor was mixed:

"Jeb Bush was a successful and popular conservative governor of Florida, with tax cuts, policy reforms and privatizations of government services to show for his time in office. Still, in his two terms state spending increased over 50 percent — a rate faster than inflation plus population growth. It turns out, in the real world of Republican governance, that there aren’t a whole lot of small-government Republicans."

Ross Douthat - at Atlantic.com - would like readers to think of small government conservatism as more of an attitude than a pure position and he contends that the attitude hasn't done too badly:

"Around the time that Buckley founded National Review, the federal government's share of GDP had been rising steadily for more than thirty years, from 3 percent in 1925 to 18.8 percent in 1962. In the Sixties and early Seventies, it seemed extremely plausible that the United States was a glide path to European-style social democracy. Then came the conservative ascendancy - and thirty years later, in 2001, government's share of GDP stood at ... 18.4 percent of GDP. (It's inched up somewhat, of course, under George W. Bush.) Now obviously there are a variety of reasons why the size of government stopped rising after the Seventies, but far from least among them is the influence that Buckley-style small-government conservatism has wielded over public policy lo these many years. (And remember that he promised to stop history, not to roll it back.)"

Republican victory in Georgia prevents super majority for Senate Democrats

After November 4th's defeats the Republicans have finally received some good news.

Saxby Chambliss has won a big victory in the run-off for the Georgia Senate seat he first won in 2002 when George W Bush's popularity was at its peak.

Senator Chambliss narrowly failed to win 50% on election day and was forced to face a run-off election yesterday.  He is forecast to have won more than 57% of the vote.

It is now impossible for the Democrats to close down debate in the Senate without the agreement of at least one or two Republicans.  If the recount in Minnesota goes to Norm Coleman the Republicans will hold 42 Senate seats; leaving the Democrats two seats short of a super majority of 60.

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin played an active role in the run-off election, stumping across Georgia for Mr Chambliss:

What America's Republicans can import from Britain's Tories

By Tim Montgomerie, Editor of ConservativeHome.com and a speechwriter to two former Tory leaders.

A number of US commentators - including Fred Barnes, David Brooks and Mike Gerson - have suggested that the Republicans should study the renaissance of Britain's Tories as they plot their own way back to popularity.  That's good advice because - despite recent setbacks - the Conservatives are likely to be Britain's next government.  Although there's much to learn the study needs to be careful and learn from the mistakes as well as the more evident successes.  Jonathan Freedland wrote an article for the New York Times that - if absorbed - would have sent the GOP in a very unbalanced direction.  Here are eight observations on what the GOP should learn from David Cameron's Conservatives:

(1) Patiently build for the long-term
This is probably the most important lesson - and one made by The Spectator's James Forsyth in another very useful look at this subject.  It may be difficult to hear this but Americans are unlikely to turn against Barack Obama quickly.  The Conservatives wasted our first four years in opposition - believing that voters would soon reject Tony Blair and we consequently failed to begin the work of serious policy renewal. There was too much tactics, too little strategy.

All over the world we see voters re-electing incumbents at the first time of asking.  Think Tony Blair, George W Bush, Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder, Stephen Harper, John Howard.  Republicans don't need to complete their rethink quickly.  Take time.  Don't rush to conclusions.  Debate thoroughly.  Undertake serious - academically respectable - policy making.  And don't throw your best long-term prospects (eg Bobby Jindal) into the line of fire too quickly, as we did with William Hague.

(2) Aim for greater breadth of appeal...
David Cameron's change agenda can be summarised by four 'C's:

• Candidates: He has relentlessly promoted women candidates and candidates from minority backgrounds (and with some success).
• Conservation: A famous visit to a Norwegian glacier - complete with huskies - was the most memorable moment in David Cameron's conversion of his party to the cause of combating climate change.  Voters were encouraged to vote blue (the Tories' colour) and 'go green'.  Conservatives have been most successful electorally when they've focused on local, practical green measures rather than 'change the world' environmentalism.
• Compassion: In echoes of George W Bush's 2000 campaign David Cameron has presented himself as a gentler conservative, concerned about the many poorer communities failed by Labour's big state. The first visit of his leadership was to a project working with disadvantaged youths and his first announcement was a major commission into the causes of persistent poverty.
• Civil liberties: Once the party of authoritarianism the Conservatives have about-turned and become a vigorous opponent of Labour's plans for a national ID card and for an extended period of detention without charge.  A more respectful view of same-sex relationships has also bought David Cameron greater opportunity to make the case for traditional marriage.

All of these changes have helped the Conservative Party connect with the many wealthier British voters that had deserted it.

(3) ...BUT not a different narrowness
Under Michael Howard - David Cameron's predecessor as Tory leader - the party had become too narrow; talking only of crime, immigration, tax and Britain's relationship with Europe.  David Cameron has rightly added to the Conservative appeal by addressing quality of life issues (the 'CCCC' agenda referred to above).  But - although necessary - it left the Conservative Party almost as unbalanced in the summer of 2007 as it was under Michael Howard in 2005.  More core Tory Party members were unhappy with David Cameron in September 2007 than were happy.  Only when the Tory leadership started simultaneously talking about the familiar and 'the change' messages was David Cameron able to unite the core vote and the new members of his coalition*.

Australian John Howard's rule of thumb was to spend as much time keeping his base happy as wooing new voters.  David Cameron neglected the first half of the task until a year ago.

(4) Neutralise the left-leaning media
In our earliest days of opposition, the Tories just seemed to get angry - attacking the left-liberal media and retreating under the comfort blanket of the Daily Mail and Telegraph (Fox News and Talk Radio would be the nearest US equivalents).

David Cameron realised that an election victory would be very difficult if the BBC and The Guardian (as the journal of the ideas class, it is Britain's most important newspaper) remained hostile.  He has courted both extensively - not just giving them constant exclusives but also addressing 'their issues' - 'the CCCC quartet'.  Labour reacted furiously when a recent Guardian leader entertained the mere possibility that its readers should consider voting Tory.

Grand New Party traces the Republicans' path to recovery

Now that yesterday’s long anticipated defeat has been confirmed, America’s conservatives can grimly look forward to much criticism and unsolicited advice on what they have done wrong and where to go from here.

Much has been written on this issue already, and the casual and more-than-casual British observer of American politics alike will be familiar with one often quite sympathetic view. According to this account, the Republicans succeeded in the 1980s and since with a small government and optimistic message, cunningly taking the votes of deeply religious voters but delivering nothing to them. But in recent years, the party has allowed the religious right to dominate policy-making and has let rip with government spending. Little wonder that the swing voter in America’s centre ground has now been alienated by reactionary social policies and fiscal profligacy.

This analysis has much to offer in explaining how the Republicans have alienated media and cultural elites. But as an analysis of America’s whole electorate, it does not add up. As I have argued elsewhere, where Republicans have increased domestic spending significantly, it has been out of a reluctant but politically savvy recognition that they could not both oppose government programmes like free prescription drugs for pensioners - backed by nine in ten voters of all ages - and win the presidency. There are good reasons to be opposed to the bulk of the Bush Administration’s higher spending, but the notion that they were an electoral liability is not among them.

On social issues too, the gulf between elite preferences and voters’ preferences is enormous. It is the elites who are most likely to find opposition to abortion or mass immigration offensive. As in Britain, the polls suggest the typical American swing voter is not a fiscally conservative social liberal but some kind of big government social conservative. The most compelling arguments on where the Republicans should now take things are coming from those who recognise this.

Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam’s Grand New Party is such an argument - and the best political book of 2008. Douthat and Salam, both excellent young conservative writers with no illusions about the failures and disappointments of recent Republican rule, have identified the American working class as the key to a new Republican majority. It is the needs and preferences of the non-college educated half of the American electorate, rather than those of metropolitan sophisticates, which must be heeded.

The Republicans have had a good run of elections over the last four decades – even after yesterday, their tally is 7 presidential elections won and 4 lost. But Salam and Douthat show they have never had the sort of consistent governing majority enjoyed by Democratic Presidents such as Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson: the working class swing constituency has kept on wavering, repeatedly denying Republicans lasting victories.

America's elections: The breakdown of results

Barack Obama was elected yesterday President with 52% of the vote to John McCain's 46%. In the electoral college, 48 states have been declared with Obama on 349 electoral college votes and McCain on 163. At time of writing North Carolina's 15 electoral college votes look likely to go to Obama, while Missouri's 11 look more likely to go to McCain.

For the Republicans, this is a result very comparable to 1992, when George H. W. Bush won 168 electoral college votes. The Republicans have lost a presidential election on two other occasions in the last forty years - in 1976 and 1996. 2008 is a better performance than in 1996 but worse than 1976.

In the House of Representatives, the Republicans lost twenty seats net to the Democrats. The Democrats are on 252 seats, with the Republicans on 173. The Republicans' twenty-four lost seats were offset by four gains - Tom Delay's former district in Texas and Mark Foley's in Florida, the sixth district of Louisiana which had been Republican from 1975 until a special election earlier this year and the second district of Kansas.

At the Senate level, four results remain undeclared. The Republicans are on forty Senators and being reported very slightly ahead in Alaska, Georgia, Minnesota and Oregon. If all of these seats are won by the Democrats - meaning they are on sixty seats including two independents who caucus with the Democrats - then the Republicans will be unable to fillibuster votes that go strictly down the party line.

In races for Governor, eleven seats were up for grabs, with ten going to the incumbent party and one being lost to the Democrats.

On Sunday, the conservative columnist George Will wrote of the 1964 and 1976 elections, both with very bad results for Republicans. In the former, House Republicans were reduced to 140; in the latter to 144. In the Senate, the Republicans won 32 seats in 1964 and 38 in 1976.

What next for America's Republicans?

The latest polling points to a landslide election win for Barack Obama. Dan Hamilton's analysis also suggests significant gains for the Democrats in the Senate.  Conservative commentators are already asking what the Republicans should do next.  Some of those ideas are summarised below:

Blaming the media and others would be the worst thing that Republicans could do

"[A] lot of conservatives are going to be telling themselves after election day: That Obama cheated, that the media cheated, that McCain wasn't a conservative anyway, and that the only reason Sarah Palin wasn't a hit with swing voters is that the press - with an assist from conservative quislings like Frum and Brooks and Parker and Noonan - poisoned the well. And in such thinking lies the seeds of years or even decades of defeat." - Ross Douthat of The Atlantic

Republicans will need a lot of patience; political recovery takes time

"If the Conservative triumph in Britain last month has any relevance for America, Republicans shouldn't get their hopes up in 2008. It took Conservatives 11 years to recover from their landslide loss to Labour in 1997. The Republican recovery--what there is of one--is less than two years old." - Fred Barnes in The Weekly Standard

An inexperienced President Obama will create opportunities for the Republicans

"If the inexperienced Barack Obama wins — and then discovers that there is more to being president than giving speeches — we could discover that the next generation of young people reacts to the failures of an Obama presidency by rediscovering the enduring Republican principles of limited government, individual rights, strong national defense and pragmatic effective governance." - David Frum for USA Today

The Republicans need to focus on the working class and "government-enhanced social mobility"

"[I]f I could put one book on the desk of every Republican officeholder, “Grand New Party” would be it. You can discount my praise because of my friendship with the authors, but this is the best single roadmap of where the party should and is likely to head... I’m not sure how quickly the G.O.P. can swing behind this working-class focus and this vision of government-enhanced social mobility... It may take a few defeats for the G.O.P. to embrace a Sam’s Club agenda, but sooner or later, it will happen. Trust me." - David Brooks of the New York Times 

The GOP must develop a compelling agenda on healthcare, immigration, energy and the environment

"McCain, while holding some conservative positions, has never been the standard-bearer for the conservative cause. Moreover, America remains, in the main, a center-right nation. Twice as many respondents to an October Newsweek poll said they consider themselves to be conservative as said they were liberal (40 percent vs. 20 percent). And a Fox News poll taken at the start of October found that 76 percent of respondents believe lower taxes and smaller government are preferable to higher taxes and larger government.  It would be silly and self-defeating for Republicans to repudiate conservatism's core principles of a strong national defense, limited government, constitutionalism and protection for unborn children. Yet it would be shortsighted to believe that the issues that worked more than a quarter-century ago will carry the day.  Conservatives are in a similar position today. Issues such as welfare and crime, which helped conservatism achieve dominance, are not as potent as they were. And while taxes and spending remain important, stagnant wages and middle-class anxieties, the housing and credit crisis, health care, immigration, energy, and the environment also command domestic attention. Conservatives need to convince the public that they have a compelling agenda to address these issues." - Peter Wehner for The Washington Post

 Resist the Europeanisation of America on trade, tax and regulation

"What can the Republicans in Washington to do to avoid the Europeanization of America? The obvious answer is to win some elections two years from now to reduce the congressional power of those who favor it. But in the meantime they need stronger, better leadership of their minority party... They will not win all the fights, but on protectionism, higher taxes and broader government regulation they can win the support of a great many Americans. And that might keep America from becoming Europeanized and our people from losing their money, their jobs and the market freedom of our country." - Pete Du Pont of the Wall Street Journal

Centre right parties squeezed by economic crisis

The economic crisis is hurting centre right parties as Dan Hannan predicted it would:

"In the current climate, what people see are fat-cat bankers being bailed out by hard-pressed taxpayers. And, instead of objecting to the bail-out, they object to the bankers and, by extension, to the free market culture they are thought to embody. The world over, Left-of-Centre parties are benefiting: Obama in the US, Brown here."

Since the onset of the crisis John McCain has fallen significantly behind Barack Obama.

The possibility of Prime Minister Stephen Harper winning a majority in Canada have also declined.  The opposition Liberals have moved up in recent polls.

It's not just an anti-incumbent effect either.

In the UK Labour's opinion poll disadvantage has been halved.  20% behind six weeks ago the Tory lead is now just 10%.  Labour now lead the Tories on some measures economic trust.

New Zealand's Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark has also stormed back in the polls.  With just four weeks to go until polling day one poll has the Nationals down 7% to 40.5% and the governing Labour Party up a point to 37.5%.  If repeated in November 8th's General Election that would produce a hung parliament.

The Republicans after St Paul

The US Republicans leave their Convention in much better heart than most dared to hope. Their President has had lower approval ratings for a longer period than any ever previously recorded (George W Bush was mentioned sixteen times more frequently by Democrats in Denver than by Republicans in St Paul).  Less than two years ago the Grand Old Party lost control of Congress, Iraq was going badly wrong, the Democrats were raising way more money and none of their presidential candidates was inspiring the base.

Most pundits still expect Barack Obama to beat John McCain on 4th November but the Republicans no longer fear a rout. Since Sarah Palin's arrival on the scene - particularly after her barnstorming acceptance speech - many hope for victory and the McCain warchest is at last filling with dollars.

It would be a remarkable achievement for the Republicans to rehabilitate themselves while they still occupy the White House.  Most parties are unable to understand the need for change until the electorate has voted them out. The midterm thumpin' they received in November 2006 has forced them to bring forward their 'modernisation'.

What form has 'modernisation' taken?

John McCain was adopted as their nominee: Senator McCain was not popular among core Republican voters. His relationship with Bush has been uneasy since the latter defeated him in a brutal battle for the 2000 nomination. Since appearing together at a fundraiser in May this year it is reported that they haven't spoken. Bush has voted against the Republican majority on tax, campaign finance reform and immigration. Many rightists of the Coulter tendency vowed never to support him. Realising that a conventional Republican candidate was unlikely to prosper the sensible majority in the GOP swallowed hard and picked McCain. Adjustments in his own positions - on tax and oil exploration in particular - made him an easier pill to digest.

US Republicans publish their '2008 Platform'

It does not bind their presidential nominee but 112 delegates of the US Republican Party have published their 20,000 word 2008 Platform.  A PDF is here.  Its main focus is the war on terror but the most newsworthy elements are noted below:

• The Platform includes a number of differences with John McCain, notably opposition to the use of embryonic stem cells for medical research (something McCain supports).
• The Platform also opposes exceptions that would allow abortion in the case of rape, incest or in circumstances where a mother's life is in danger. McCain supports all three exceptions.
• Michelle Malkin notes how the Platform takes a much tougher line on immigration than McCain or Bush.
• Gay groups complain that the Platform betrays the GOP's opposition to homosexual rights.
• The New Republic notes that "for the first time ever, the Republican Party platform has included a plank explicitly recognizing that man-made carbon emissions might be contributing to climate change and negative environmental impacts."

What David Cameron could teach America's Republicans

Reflecting on David Cameron's leadership of the UK Conservative Party, Fred Barnes authors a cover piece for The Weekly Standard on what the GOP might learn from it.

Here are the eight main lessons he draws:

1. It takes time... to rebuild voters' trust
2. 'It's not about ideology. It's about you.' Personalities as well as policies needed reforming.
3. 'Broader ground.'  Social justice and green issues have been added to the Tory pitch.
4. Don't ignore elites. The BBC and progressives have been cultivated.
5. Co-opt liberal ends and capture liberal jargon.  The Tories have colonised the left-wing term of social justice with centre right ideas.
6. Social psychology. Nudging etc.
7. You need a leader. After November, if McCain loses, the Republicans will lack an obvious leader.
8. Forget slogans.

Click here to read the full essay.

American conservatives are challenged to move outside the 'movement cocoon'

As part of a New York Times feature on the health of US conservatism, a concern was expressed that American conservatives are listening too much to each other:

"Another new-generation conservative, Ross Douthat, argues that “Reagan was right for his time, but now it’s a different time.” Mr. Douthat, 28, and Reihan Salam are the authors of a new book, “The Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream.” Mr. Douthat says that social conservatives have gotten stuck and need to move beyond their focus on gay marriage and abortion — a focus, he said, that does nothing to help a single African-American mother trying to raise a family. Instead, conservatives need to “figure out a way to talk about the problem of family breakdown and the extent to which that’s linked to social mobility, economic troubles.

In his eyes, while the network of research groups and journals helped build conservatism, it has also contributed to its stagnation. “Conservatives have always criticized the liberal establishment” — universities, magazines, organizations — for a “tendency toward cocooning,” Mr. Douthat said. Now, it is conservatives who are cocooning, talking only to each other and not looking around for new ideas.

There was this tremendous generation of intellectuals who came of age in the ’70s and ’80s, but I think there’s been some difficulty in establishing a new generation,” Mr. Douthat said. “On the right, a lot of them did their best work 20 years ago.”