Monthly Archives: March 2013

Republicans Must Lose the Nasty Party Tag to Win 2016

The Republican Party remain unelectable with socially divisive policies

The 2012 presidential election exposed how deeply divided America is, with,  historically the popular vote results being one of the closest. Gone was Obama’s rhetoric from 2008 of a ‘United States of America’ as America proved to the world that it was still a collection of ‘Red and Blue States.’

On divisive issues such as welfare, the economy and social legislation Americans are firmly in either the Red or Blue camp. Granted, Romney and Obama are notorious flip-floppers and there is a compelling argument both candidates stood for ‘business as usual’ on many issues. On the economy & foreign policy, differentials in position were in the detail. However on divisive social issues such as gay rights, women’s issues and immigration the split is clear, Democrats remain the progressively liberal party whereas Republicans are firmly rooted as not.

For the Republicans to have a stronger chance of winning in 2016 they clearly need to increase their support base, one way of doing this would be to become more open to socially liberal ideas.

The Conservative Party in the UK faced a similar problem following the landslide defeat to Labour in 1997, calling for a detox of the brand and to remove the tag of the ‘nasty party’. Cameron’s relatively successful modernising project was rewarded by more success in the 2010 election. If the GOP undergoes a similar venture, they too may fare better at the polls.

Romney was a candidate prone to gaffes, jumped on by the media for sound bites such as ‘I am not concerned with the very poor’, ‘corporations are people’ and his awkward anecdotes about ‘binders full of women’ and the ‘irrelevant 47% of voters’. Romney truly earned the tag as the ‘nasty’ candidate, and if the Republicans want to win again, they need to remove this reputation.

The social conservative message, especially on women’s issues and equal marriage, turns off young voters. In 2012, 19% of those that voted were under the age of 30, and that demographic itself voted strongly in favour of Obama (60%). To win the White House the support of the youth is necessary: worryingly for the GOP, coinciding with this is a trend of their voter base getting smaller and older.

However the disposition of the recent Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) shows that there are promising signs of the GOP addressing these issues.

A straw poll of younger conference attendees found that only 15% saw their most important goal as ‘promoting traditional values by protecting traditional marriage and the life of the unborn.’ Compared to the 77% who stated that their ‘most important goal is to promote individual freedom by reducing the size and scope of government.’

This is by no an indication that the social conservative’s influence has been significantly marginalised within the party. LGBT groups still found themselves excluded from CPAC and the response to Republican Senator Rob Portman’s endorsement of Gay marriage from an older generation was unfavourable, to say the least. However with a younger generation of Republicans coming through, the rhetoric is clearly smaller government in all aspects of political life, social and economic

The Republicans consistently define themselves as the party of ‘small government’, yet the reality is they are currently in favour of big government legislation and are fiscally irresponsible. Only if they choose a candidate that truly confronts these problems can they attract a youth that grows ever more sceptical of government.

Following CPAC, the Republican National Committee produced a 98 page report detailing where the GOP needs to focus to win the next election.  The report identifies that the GOP appears out of touch and must be more inclusive to win in 2016 instead of just ‘preaching to the choir.’

What is significantly lacking in the report is the discussion of fundamentalist Christian principles on abortion and homosexuality that turn off floating voters. This willingness of senior Republicans to change course is encouraging, but not without limits. It does not recommend any specific policies to win over voters, yet it has still led to attacks from the Christian Right of the party. Religious voters are worried the party is undermining their principles for cheap political gains.

On the surface the Republicans appear to be in a catch-22. They can’t afford to exclude their traditional base but at the same time, if they don’t change their stances they cannot win over voters. However, in the post-Bush era the evidence suggests the religious right is gradually losing its influence on the party. The Republicans no longer have to be the party of religious fundamentalists; it is not permanently ingrained into their ideology.

Romney successfully became presidential candidate on a fairly non-religious platform compared to his opponents and the party’s youth are focused more on libertarian values as opposed to traditional ones:  the path to the White House is clearly in this direction as the Religious Right become more marginalised.

Following 2012 the Republicans have nothing left to lose and their party is seen as growing in irrelevance; this is their chance to incorporate more socially liberal values in order to win in 2016. Instead of being tarred as the socially ‘nasty party’ they can win the election based on being fiscally responsible and more inclusive.

@harry_fraser

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Young People Identifying more with Libertarian Positions?

There is arguably a much more sympathetic view amongst students towards state intervention to solve problems facing society. With this in mind I recently attended the recording of BBC 3’s current affairs program Free Speech in Liverpool.

The panel consisted of contemporary pop star Kate Nash, Conservative MP for Glamorgan Alun Cairns, Liverpool Council’s spokesperson for young people Stephanie Till and finally Sam Bowman, Research Director at the Adam Smith Institute.

Viewers at home could interact by tweeting either #Yes or #No followed by a panelist’s name to cast their vote of approval or disapproval to what they were saying, the results of this represented on a ‘power bar’. By the end of the night, interestingly it was Sam that was the decisive winner.

The first question posed to the panel was, “Should the government subsidise housing payments for first time buyers?” Alun did argue for more liberal planning laws and less restrictions on banks lending money, however the crux of his argument was that the state should do more in terms of building affordable housing. He made the case for the government’s Social Housing Guarantee, to replace any sold off social houses in the hope of keeping housing affordable.

Stephanie championed Liverpool City Council’s policy of derelict properties being sold off for as little as £1 to developers to replenish the housing stock. As well, she promoted the Council’s scheme of providing money to first time buyers to underwrite mortgages. The consensus from the two was that the government should do more to solve the issue.

Sam offered an alternative to this narrative by focussing on freeing up the planning system, and as well making the case that a lack of supply could be solved through a market auctioning system, rejecting the use of the state as a solution to this problem. He added the point that government benefits have had the unintended consequence of acting as subsidy to landlords thus driving up the costs of housing and rent further, an argument not often found in mainstream politics. The audience liked what they heard and in contrast to the others, applauded Sam’s message.

When asked to respond to the British Medical Association’s proposed solution to the obesity crisis – a ‘fat tax’, Sam again rejected any state intervention on the matter. Citing results from Denmark and the US, he took apart the argument for ‘fat taxes’. Using evidence that shows the policy to be ineffective at curbing obesity and simply acts as a regressive tax, he argued that it is cheaper to eat healthily and ultimately it was down to individuals to control their diet.

The audience again approved this message, but what followed was a fruitless ill-informed  debate over the costs of food, highlighting the real fundamental problem at the heart of the obesity issue, a lack of education. The consensus amongst the audience agreed with Sam that a tax would not work, however the argument put forward by Stephanie to have subsidised healthier food also had approval. A score draw between the market and state intervention approach.

When the panel were asked, “Is drug addiction a medical or criminal issue?” Sam took the lead and argued that it is an addiction and to treat it as criminal is counterproductive. He reasoned, drug addictions tear individuals apart, and then the state escalates the problem by putting people that need help in to prisons, an environment in which their problem will only get worse.

Using Portugal to illustrate his point, a country that does treat it as a medical issue and has legalised drugs. Sam pointed out this has led to a decline in crime, addiction levels and health complications related to drugs. Current legislation means the main beneficiaries of the ‘war on drugs’ are criminal gangs just as they were in the age of prohibition.

Encouragingly, Sam received overwhelming approval for his argument and agreed that criminalisation is hurting those that need help. Stephanie’s rebuttal was incoherent and appeared out-dated. Wrongly stating that legalisation will lead to problems such as increased drug cutting and giving more power to dealers, which are already symptoms of the current legislation situation. Alun also appeared out of touch by trying to rationalise an addict’s behaviour so that it should be treated as criminal. This authoritarian position did not sit well with the audience.

The only answer from the panel that really addressed a concern expressed by many in the audience over funding for treatment was from Sam who argued with less money spent on imprisoning users, then more can be spent on rehabilitation. The power bar following this discussion showed that Sam was way ahead compared to his opponents.

Granted the topics discussed only scratched the surface of market solutions to society’s problems. It is fair to question if the audience and viewers responses would have been as approving if libertarian stances on the minimum wage, banker’s bonuses or welfare were discussed. It is hard to say, but if more people like Sam argued for the market in an articulate and reasoned manner backed up with evidence then minds can be changed.

The program format is no formal evidence and discussion fell victim like all shows of this type to at times populism, not helped by the anecdotal ramblings of Ms Nash. However it did display that the ideas put forward by Sam Bowman were as a whole being understood better and seen as more relevant to the young audience than the solutions put forward by the other members of the panel.

I never thought I’d sit in an audience of students and watch them clap hardest at free market individualism, this can only be an encouraging sign for supporters of greater individual liberty to solve the problems we face today.

@harry_fraser

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,