California Conservative

Peter Brown poses a great set of questions in this WSJ editorial. Specifically, he asks whether the Democrats would rethink their governing philosophy if they lose this election. Here’s how Mr. Brown first frames his question:

After the 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000 and 2004 elections, Democratic leaders argued that the American people had not rejected their ideas or governing philosophy. Instead, they said, their nominee had not effectively communicated the party’s core message. It wasn’t the American people rejecting those views and values, they contended.

Two paragraphs later, here’s how he continues his argument:

These Democrats argued their politics were not out of step and there was no reason to overhaul the party message; they just needed to tinker with it around the edges and find a better communicator to make their case. That argument was perhaps more credible when Democrats were losing to Mr. Reagan, whose communications skills were without peer. But neither President Bush, George H.W. Bush nor his son George W. Bush, could win a high school debate tournament.

Politics or Presentation?

Nevertheless, it’s clear that if Sen. Barack Obama loses this November, Democrats will have to conclude that yes, in fact, their defeats are linked to their brand of politics, not their salesman’s communication skills.

Not only is the political playing field stacked in the Democrats’ favor, an unpopular war, an even less popular Republican president, and a slow and perhaps shrinking economy–but also their White House candidate is the extraordinary communicator in this race. Sen. Obama is clearly the most charismatic candidate and the best public speaker that the Democrats have offered in many decades. Some might say since John F. Kennedy; others might go further back.

Therefore, the argument goes, if the Illinois senator, who could sell ice to Eskimos, can’t close the deal, there is a pressing need for a serious overhaul of the Democratic mindset.

This presupposes the Dems losing this November, which isn’t a guarantee by any stretch of the imagination. Nonetheless, what happens if John McCain becomes our 44th president? At that point, Democrats couldn’t credibly argue that they didn’t have the money to get their message out. They couldn’t argue that their messenger didn’t have the communication skills requisite to get the job done.

If they lose this time, what they’ll argue is that Americans were too bigoted to elect a man of color. If that’s what happens, Americans should reject that argument loudly and with clear logic. Simply state that you wouldn’t vote for Sen. Obama because he isn’t prepared for commander-in-chief responsibilities. Argue that you voted for Sen. McCain because he’s stated that he doesn’t see anything wrong with high energy prices.

It’s also possible to tell people that we can’t afford Sen. Obama’s tax policies, especially at a time when everyone’s wallets are stretched thin.

The reality that Democrats won’t admit is that conservatism only loses when it abandons a big enough part of the ideological battlefield to give Democrats an edge. When conservatives passionately advocate and thoroughly explain conservatism’s core beliefs of liberty and prosperity, it’s the dominant political philosophy in the United States.

To the activists: It’s time we doubled our efforts to tell voters about conservatism. It’s time that we told our elected officials that we’ll stand with them when they fight for conservative principles. We know this approach works because of recent results here in Minnesota.

In January, 2007, Laura Brod proposed tax cuts during a debate on a bill talking about tax conformity. The Speaker ruled Rep. Brod’s proposal wasn’t germane to the debate being held. Everyone in that chamber knew that that was BS. That’s why Rep. Brod fought for those tax cuts. They didn’t win that fight but they signalled that they wouldn’t be the DFL’s lapdogs.

A month later, GOP legislators met with covert GOP operatives (King Banaian, Jeff Johnson and myself) and plotted strategy for the session. What we told these legislators was that we’d “have their backs as long as they fought for core conservative principles.” Then we stayed in touch with these legislators, thanking them for fighting the good fight.

By fighting the good fight, Republicans thwarted the DFL’s attempt to increase spending by 17+ percent. By fighting the good fight, Republicans thwarted the DFL’s attempt to increase taxes by $5.5 billion.

The upshot of that is that GOP activists are willing to run through walls for GOP incumbents seeking re-election and candidates seeking to unseat liberals sitting in borrowed seats. Fundraising is going strong. Volunteeris are popping out of the woodwork for marching in parades.

Democrats don’t have an appealing message because they’re the Whining Party. (Charles Krauthammer said that Democrats are the “party of two years ago”, especially on Iraq.) It’s the opposite in the GOP because conservatives have an appealing message based on common sense solutions and a sense of optimism.

Technorati Tags: Obama, McCain, President Bush, Agenda, Foreign Policy, National Security, Energy Policy, Conservatism, Race Card, Election 2008