OP-ED | GOP Reality Check Time
by Sarah Darer Littman | Nov 16, 2012 1:00pm
(20) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Election 2012, Opinion
Watching Republican astonishment over Mitt Romney’s loss on Nov. 6 has been a revelation. “We went into the evening confident we had a good path to victory,” said one senior Romney adviser. “I don’t think there was one person who saw this coming.”
There was, actually. His name is Nate Silver. But when your party has embraced anti-intellectualism and faith-based math to the point where you trust a huckster with no statistics training and his “unskewed polls” instead of an actual statistician who ended up calling all but one race correctly . . . well, frankly, you deserve defeat.
What’s most disturbing, though, is the utter lack of introspection about the real reasons for defeat. “I don’t think we lost it on those budget issues, especially on Medicare — we clearly didn’t lose it on those issues,” Paul Ryan said in an interview with WISC-TV. Well, I hate to break it to you, Congressman, but exit polls showed voters preferred the President’s position on Medicare by 52 percent to 44 percent.
Even my colleague, contributing columnist Heath W. Fahle, seems to have succumbed to the collective inability to face difficult truths.
“President Obama’s dominance with self-described moderates . . . winning 56 percent compared to Gov. Romney’s 42 percent, highlights the extent to which the Republican brand in New England is damaged by perceived extremism.”
Until someone in the Republican Party has the courage to drop the word “perceived” and actually call out the very real extremism in the party platform, the GOP will continue to lose those moderates.
But here’s where Fahle, like so many other Republicans, really misses it: “It is most striking though that in an era of transformative economic and social change, Connecticut’s voters mostly endorsed the status quo.”
If that’s the message Republicans are taking away from this election, they a’re going remain out of office for the foreseeable future. Because the vote wasn’t just for the status quo. It was against extremism and GOP economic policies.
If you ever want to win elections again, turn off Fox News, because you have to stop listening to people like Bill O’Reilly, who feeds youthis kind of narrative:
“It’s not a traditional America anymore. And there are 50 percent of the voting public who want stuff. They want things and who is going to give them things? President Obama. He knows it and he ran on it . . . the voters, many of them, feel that this economic system is stacked against them and they want stuff. You’re going to see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama. Overwhelming for President Obama and women will probably break President Obama’s way. People feel that they are entitled to things and which candidate, between the two, is going to give them things?”
The only accurate statements in O’Reilly’s insulting rant — the tone of which sums up why women (55 percent overall, 68 percent of singles), Latinos (71 percent), Afro-American (93 percent), Asian (73 percent), all voted to re-elect the President — are that it’s not a traditional white America anymore, and voters believe the economic system is stacked against them. In the AP exit poll 55 percent of voters agreed with the statement that the U.S. economic system generally favors the wealthy. What’s more, the data show that they’re right.
During the latter part of the campaign, Mitt Romney kept repeating the phrase “trickle down government” like it was a pearl of Luntzian genius. It might have played well to the Republican base, but it reminded the rest of us of the fallacy of “trickle down economics,” and merely highlighted that Romney & Ryan were trying to pull that tired voodoo wool over our eyes again.
Because the reality is this: from the late 1970s to the mid-2000s, in every state in this nation, the richest fifth of households enjoyed larger income gains in dollar terms each year ($2,550, after adjusting for inflation) than the poorest fifth experienced during the entire three decades ($1,330), according toa study released yesterday by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute. If that’s trickle down economics then I’ve got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.
To put this in perspective, in the late 1970s the top 20 percent of households had 5.2 times the income of the poorest 20 percent. By the mid-2000s this ratio had grown to 8.3. In the late 1970s, only six states had a top-to-bottom ratio of more than 6.0. By the mid-2000s, only one state had a top-to-bottom ratio of less than 6.0.
The 2001 and 2003 federal tax cuts, which benefited the wealthiest households, only served to further widen the income gap between the wealthy and the low- and moderate-income households. All this rhetoric about not taxing “job creators” is just Luntzian doublespeak like changing “inheritance tax” to “death tax.”
Here in Connecticut the story is no different — in fact, the gap between the rich and the poor grew faster here than in any other state, according to Pulling Apart: Connecticut Income Inequality 1977 to Present, a study released yesterday by Connecticut Voices for Children and CAHS. Thirty years ago, our state was a much more egalitarian place. Now we are one of the unequal states in the nation. What’s astonishing is that those at the 95th percentile of income, earning low six figures, are closer in income to the poorest 20 percent in income than to the wealthiest 1 percent.
The Republicans tried to frame this election in Randian terms of Makers and Takers, writing off 47 percent of Americans as “moochers.” What they fail to recognize is that the voters they insult are hard working people who still want to believe the American Dream is possible.
Sarah Darer Littman is an award-winning columnist and novelist of books for teens. Long before the financial meltdown, she worked as a securities analyst and earned her MBA in Finance from the Stern School at NYU.
Tags: GOP, Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, Economic Policy Institute, CT Voices for Children, CAHS, Sarah Darer Littman, income inequality, dh
(20) Comments
posted by: Lawrence | November 16, 2012 9:16pm
Excellent, Sarah. Superb, intelligent, insightful, direct commentary!
posted by: NoNonsense2012 | November 16, 2012 9:44pm
Ditto what Lawrence said. Republicans need to get their eyes checked, because their vision is in dire need of correction.
posted by: Lawrence | November 17, 2012 1:58pm
From Saturday’s national Associated Press story:
“We’ve got to have a very brutally honest review from stem to stern of what we did and what we didn’t do, and what worked and what failed,” said former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, who ran the party in the 1990s.
The party “has to modernize in a whole wide range of ways,” added former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who ran against White House nominee Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential primary. “We were clearly wrong on a whole range of fronts.”
posted by: Lawrence | November 17, 2012 2:03pm
Megan McCain, writing Friday in The Daily Beast:
“Times are changing. The face of America is changing and we as Republicans stand at a crossroads. Are we going to accept the changing face of America and change with it? Or are we going to continue to become more isolated and irrelevant? It’s possible to maintain the core values of this party and evolve when it comes to social issues. Quite frankly, I don’t see any other path to success.”
posted by: saramerica | November 17, 2012 2:31pm
Thanks - I do hope the GOP gets its house in order because America will be healthier when moderate voters have a genuine choice. That doesn’t exist right now.
posted by: Lawrence | November 17, 2012 8:19pm
I think moderate voters do have a choice, and they chose Democrats, who have become much, much more moderate of a party over the past 30 years or so.
That is the true victory of Ronald Reagan, Lee Atwater, The Hertiage Foundation, etc.—they don’t win every battle, but they have changed the battlefield to their advantage. So even the GOP losses result in more conservative Democratic candidates and a more cautious, timid Democratic legislative agenda.
Perhaps what you are getting at is a fiscal choice for moderate voters, without the baggage of racism, sexism, xenophobia, anti-science, etc. and all the other ignorant, fringe elements that the national GOP has come to especially embody over the past decade or so. But the national GOP is going to have to go through several years (I believe) of losing races, lost political contributions and acrimony in order to flush itself of that hate-filled, ignorant and strident streak within it. Then it can emerge with a more moderate social message and its usual conservative fiscal message—at which point America will be so incredibly fractured along wealth lines (see Susan Bigelow’s column for evidence) that the GOP will, once again, be on the losing end of all public policy arguments, be they social or fiscal.
Just my .02
posted by: GoatBoyPHD | November 18, 2012 6:01am
Post 2008 carnage
11 new GOP governors
57 GOP house seats
5 new senators
60000 change votes in CO, FL, NC, OH—206,000 IN all and its a Gop win.
posted by: saramerica | November 18, 2012 7:03am
Lawrence - that’s exactly what I was getting at. What the New England Republican used to be but cannot be any longer and still survive in the national party, or be trusted by moderate voters to vote in a sane way when the party establishment is kowtowing to crazy people. Hello, why did Andrew Roraback lose? If they’re going to do pull a Romney and blame it on “gifts from Obama” then they’re missing the point.
The reason I want Republicans to get their act together is because it’s not healthy for Democrats to think they can always count on our support because we’ve got nowhere else to go. Look how badly they are screwing up education with RTTT. Instead of getting rid of NCLB they just took it to a whole new level of test score crazy. And our Democratic Governor is right there with them singing Hallelujah.
posted by: GoatBoyPHD | November 18, 2012 4:16pm
All the GOP needs is to return to the basics Jack Kemp taught them about Blue States and urban voters.
Pro-immigration reform; urban tax breaks and deregulation to encourage urban business growth and job creation; and a path o home owership for urban residents in public housing or on Section 8. Go straight for the heart of the non-unioized Blue Collar workers and Middle Class. Kemp was able to win in Buffalo an otherwise Democratic stronghold. Roraback and Romney missed the urban voters completely particularly the Hispanic voter and new residents of NC and Florida.
posted by: Reasonable | November 18, 2012 4:40pm
Sarah: Don’t lick your chops for too long. See what the Democratic-socialistic Obamaism brings us after the next four years. You blog reflects the fact that you can only think as a Democrat, since you say that Republicans cost your father his job. Forgive and forget, before we lose our country.
posted by: Reasonable | November 19, 2012 10:06pm
Sarah: Under Pres. Obama, our total national welfare cost is $1.01 trillion dollars - more than the cost of our Social Security program or the total cost of providing for national defense armed forces. Republicans couldn’t win against our national Santa Claus—“Barack Obama.” So don’t blame the Republican Party for not being able to compete against the Democratic National Welfare Party. We are currently paying $700 million dollars per day as interest on our National Debt—which is climbing.
It’s the Democratic leadership that is burying our country—while you conveniently try to cover it up, by painting the Republican Party as a party of many faults. Nice try, Sarah.
posted by: saramerica | November 20, 2012 8:08am
“All the GOP needs to do is return to the basics” Agreed. But here’s your hope for 2016 in Iowa: http://www.salon.com/2012/11/19/rubio_flirts_with_creationism/
Yeah, good luck with that…
posted by: saramerica | November 20, 2012 8:19am
Reasonable - I’m sure you are a lovely man. But you really, really, really need to broaden your sources from which you get your news. I suggest you start slowly, so you don’t get a heart attack from cognitive dissonance. Start ten minutes a day with the BBC USA. Work your way up to an extra twenty minutes of CNN. Maybe even check out the CBC website. Get out of the bubble. You’ll learn that Bush was as much of a Santa Claus as Obama. Remember the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit? Here’s a little refresher on how the GOP pushed it through the House. It wasn’t pretty: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/lessons_from_the_medicare_pres.html. Here’s another little reality check for you - from a Republican: http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/19/republican-budget-hypocrisy-health-care-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html
I get my news from a variety of sources. It enables me to triangulate on some semblance of “truth”. These days it is impossible to ascertain reality if you are only listening or reading one source of news, especially if that source is Fox.
posted by: Reasonable | November 20, 2012 10:49am
Sarah: Why do you and the Democratic National Committee keep attacking Fox News, other for the fact that Fox is the only news media the Obama’s billionaires do not control. Obama’s billionaires won the election for him with their control of the news media—so give Fox news a break—in our Socialist-led- country.
posted by: saramerica | November 21, 2012 9:14am
All I’m saying, honey, is that you should broaden your horizons. Really, it’s a good thing. You’ll be surprised. Media literacy is important in this day and age.
posted by: Reasonable | November 21, 2012 5:22pm
Sarah: You give advice to broaden my horizons—when your political literacy is limited to your devoted prowess of the Democratic Party. The economic demise of this country cannot be be credited to Democratic prosperity. Your continual work of antagonizing Republicans, instead of making an effort of bringing our political parties parties together, shows that you should broaden you horizons, rather than taking a continual political stance to divide our country == to satisfy your personal political gratification. Besides, as a pacifist, I am sure you will impress more readers, rather than being a divider.
posted by: Lawrence | November 21, 2012 8:09pm
Sarah, you tried. That was the Christian thing to do. Now, put it back in “Drive” and floor it. Reasonable is in the rearview mirror of life…
posted by: Reasonable | November 21, 2012 10:18pm
Sarah: Only you would create this blog to tear apart Republican Party. Romney used his own money to lose the election, but he couldn’t compete with the $1.01 trillion dollars that Obama took credit for in money doled out by the government in all forms of government welfare. Our taxpayers paid for Obama’s victory, and are still paying for it. You should broaden your own horizons by telling the truth, instead of branding it as media literacy. I still like you Sarah, even though you are badly-politically misinformed. Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family.