The Economist: Ship of Fools | The Decline of the Republican Party

[The Sisko]

The Economist hit's the nail squarely on the head regarding one reason for the GOP's losses in the last election. They lost the battle of ideas and in turn lost the "nerd" wing of the party. Certainly the economy and the GOP's part in the mess we're in played a huge part. However, the loss of ideas and the decline in influence of the Republican intelligentsia is much more worrisome from a long-term standpoint.

Ship of fools

Nov 13th 2008

From The Economist print edition

Political parties die from the head down

JOHN STUART MILL once dismissed the British Conservative Party as the stupid party. Today the Conservative Party is run by Oxford-educated high-fliers who have been busy reinventing conservatism for a new era. As Lexington sees it, the title of the “stupid party” now belongs to the Tories’ transatlantic cousins, the Republicans.

There are any number of reasons for the Republican Party’s defeat on November 4th. But high on the list is the fact that the party lost the battle for brains. Barack Obama won college graduates by two points, a group that George Bush won by six points four years ago. He won voters with postgraduate degrees by 18 points. And he won voters with a household income of more than $200,000—many of whom will get thumped by his tax increases—by six points. John McCain did best among uneducated voters in Appalachia and the South.

The Republicans lost the battle of ideas even more comprehensively than they lost the battle for educated votes, marching into the election armed with nothing more than slogans. Energy? Just drill, baby, drill. Global warming? Crack a joke about Ozone Al. Immigration? Send the bums home. Torture and Guantánamo? Wear a T-shirt saying you would rather be water-boarding. Ha ha. During the primary debates, three out of ten Republican candidates admitted that they did not believe in evolution.

The Republican Party’s divorce from the intelligentsia has been a while in the making. The born-again Mr Bush preferred listening to his “heart” rather than his “head”. He also filled the government with incompetent toadies like Michael “heck-of-a-job” Brown, who bungled the response to Hurricane Katrina. Mr McCain, once the chattering classes’ favourite Republican, refused to grapple with the intricacies of the financial meltdown, preferring instead to look for cartoonish villains. And in a desperate attempt to serve boob bait to Bubba, he appointed Sarah Palin to his ticket, a woman who took five years to get a degree in journalism, and who was apparently unaware of some of the most rudimentary facts about international politics.

Republicanism’s anti-intellectual turn is devastating for its future. The party’s electoral success from 1980 onwards was driven by its ability to link brains with brawn. The conservative intelligentsia not only helped to craft a message that resonated with working-class Democrats, a message that emphasised entrepreneurialism, law and order, and American pride. It also provided the party with a sweeping policy agenda. The party’s loss of brains leaves it rudderless, without a compelling agenda.

This is happening at a time when the American population is becoming more educated. More than a quarter of Americans now have university degrees. Twenty per cent of households earn more than $100,000 a year, up from 16% in 1996. Mark Penn, a Democratic pollster, notes that 69% call themselves “professionals”. McKinsey, a management consultancy, argues that the number of jobs requiring “tacit” intellectual skills has increased three times as fast as employment in general. The Republican Party’s current “redneck strategy” will leave it appealing to a shrinking and backward-looking portion of the electorate.

Why is this happening? One reason is that conservative brawn has lost patience with brains of all kinds, conservative or liberal. Many conservatives—particularly lower-income ones—are consumed with elemental fury about everything from immigration to liberal do-gooders. They take their opinions from talk-radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and the deeply unsubtle Sean Hannity. And they regard Mrs Palin’s apparent ignorance not as a problem but as a badge of honour.

Another reason is the degeneracy of the conservative intelligentsia itself, a modern-day version of the 1970s liberals it arose to do battle with: trapped in an ideological cocoon, defined by its outer fringes, ruled by dynasties and incapable of adjusting to a changed world. The movement has little to say about today’s pressing problems, such as global warming and the debacle in Iraq, and expends too much of its energy on xenophobia, homophobia and opposing stem-cell research....

Full article

[Larry]

[luckydevil]

Republicans are in a tough spot. They need the religious right to win, yet need to get back the center ( social conservatism turns off a lot of people).

[DeanCollins]

I'm enjoying the floundering, and not too interested in talking about how they should fix it. :laugh:

[Capt Rich Fla]

I don't think there has been a decline. Just an uprising of blind idiots.

[Bang]

I don't think there has been a decline. Just an uprising of blind idiots.

Apparently so.

It's a shame they just don't seem to get it.

Oh, wait,, oh you meant the Democrats!

My mistake.

~Bang

[twa]

Republicans are in a tough spot. They need the religious right to win, yet need to get back the center ( social conservatism turns off a lot of people).

The problem is the Reps need them more than the So-Cons need the libertarian wing or the fiscal cons.

Perhaps social issues will be resolved and they will simply swing to the Dems?...you are already seeing some movement,and it (christianity)is in many ways socialist in message.

Problem is that leaves the other two groups w/o stroke(especially since defense cons are already a swing vote)

You better refine your message and get some eloquent leaders,simply bashing the so cons ain't it.:2cents:

[Bang]

As someone who is independent and leans conservatively, the main thing that pushed me away was the utter hubris of this 'neo con' attitude that has run rampant through the party. It truly felt as if they thumbed their noses and laughed all the way to the bank over the last 8 years, questioning the patriotism of anyone who dared question what they were doing.

I support the war, so that wasn't it at all. Most people that disagreed with Bush did so on that issue, but not me. I am no fan of W, but I've supported the war effort every step of the way.

The venom with which the neo-cons attack anyone who does not agree with them is disturbing. The demonizing of their political opponents, the demonizing of any media they didn't like.. it's propaganda 101, and it bothers me to the extent that it has worked on people.

And to me, the final straw of the hubris was when McCain said he wanted to spend the last few weeks of the campaign on the issues, and not attacking Obama's relationship to Rev. Wright, as the party wanted him to do... and they came out and said they hoped someone would fund the ads since McCain refused to do it himself.

Essentially that all but said to me that they didn't want me to vote for him, they wanted me to vote for the ideology, the party, and the turns the ideology has taken don't sit well with me.

~Bang

[Elessar78]

The article is absolutely right (no pun intended). It's their ideas that are the problem. Conservative ideals are sound and admirable and even I as a democrat can respect some of them (intelligent design? C'mon.). But lately all their leaders did was talk a good game, but never delivered.

Conservatives love to call Progressives "elitists" but that's the pot calling the kettle black. A lot of policies Bush brought on were to benefit the rich and maintain the status quo.

I think it'd be hilarious and very apt if the RNC struck a deal to sponsor a NASCAR team. Big elephant logo on the hood, ExxonMobil on the quarter panel, and "Army of One" logo on the spoiler.