The Republican Redux--is it 1977 all over again?

I recently had two separate dinners with two friends who are the most Conservative that I know. Both expressed common sentiments that President Obama was completely rudderless, and showed all of the markings of a "one-termer" in office. They both compared his tenure thus far to Jimmy Carter, and his inability to effectuate change, or articulate a clear message.

And in some respects they do have a point. However, comparing a President's handling of the economic disaster, after 9 weeks on the job, is hardly a fair comparison. And if I were to draw a parallel to past Presidencies, I would be more inclined to say that Obama has followed a closer path to that of Bill Clinton in 1993 (as I have discussed here in a number of previous posts).

But the sentiment to my friends is the same. They are both waiting patiently for this President to overreach, underperform, and be rewarded with a one-term tenure, followed by public outcry for more Conservative rule.

And why shouldn't Conservatives wait for such events to transpire? They have twice before. Carter's administration hastened Reagan's election, and Clinton's supposed overreach on taxes, health care, and gays-in-the-military hastened in the Republican revolution of 1994 in the Congress.

I warned both of my friends, however, that if Conservatives want to gain back the power in the halls of Congress or the White House, they will need to do more than wait patiently. Here's why:

1. Previous Republican victories have been brought about from leaders with big ideas--Reagan and Newt Gingrich both presented America with a set of bold choices to move the country in a visionary direction. It may not have been the direction everyone wanted to go, but it was clear, and it sounded better than the direction the country was headed at the time. I don't see a clear leader in today's Conservative movement articulating such a direction at this point.

2. The Demographics are getting worse--Everyone talks of the Reagan Revolution, but if the 1980 election were held today, Reagan would have only gotten 47% of the vote. Why? The country demographic today is less white and less rural than 30 years ago, and getting even less so by the day. Urban, non-whites don't tend to vote Republican. And the Republican party has not done a great job articulating why these folks should vote Republican (despite Michael Steele's efforts)

3. The "evidence" that Supply Side economics works is dubious to very uncertain--People point to Reagan's tax cuts in 1981, or Kennedy's in the 60's as evidence that tax cuts spur growth, no doubt. Unfortunately, no one seems to note Ford's tax cuts, Reagan's subsequent tax hikes, or even Clinton's tax hikes in these arguments. That's because there is little to any evidence that any of the activities noted here had an effect on the economy. Cutting taxes has been the winning campaign slogan for years for the GOP. Democrats couldn't beat it for 30 years. But now they can counter the argument. After all, Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, along with de-regulation, have led our system to the brink of collapse. Hey, that point may not be backed up by really good evidence either, but sadly, Supply Side Economics has an equally unclear track record as well. It's enough to muddy the once clear alternative to Democrats on economic policy.

4. Social wedge issues--This is going to be a tricky one. This message loses some punch if Sarah "my daughter is having a baby out of wedlock" Palin, or Newt "cheated on my wife while impeaching the President" Gingrich is delivering it. Even Reagan had more sense than to preach the morality. He let his colleagues do it for him.

5. Lack of a scandal...yet--Despite all the other arguments for a new Conservative revolution, what helped the last revolution was a complicit Democratic House Majority, who had gotten complacent in campaigning, and was mired in scandals like the House check cashing issues, or Dan Rostenkowski's legal mess. It was easy to point to the Democrats and call them profligate spenders and corrupt officials. Chris Dodd's issues notwithstanding, it is a much tougher argument for Republicans to make this time around. After all, it was they who were in power not too long ago, and it was their Congressmen and Women who were ensnared in things like the Abrahamoff scandal, and the Mark Foley affair, or David Vitter's escapades. Again, this is not to say that the Democrats haven't had their share of misbehavers, but it will be tough in 2010 or 2012 to depict the Democrats alone as the deviants. The last time I checked, both parties are lacking some in the morality department.

6. Still have to be something other than the party of "no"--It is seldom to never that a party wins power just by not being "the other guy". The Conservative faithful I know seem to think that just being the anti-Obama is enough to win back power. Let's be clear, if things get worse, that MAY be enough. But if things stabilize, the GOP will look back on 2012 much like the Democrats look back on 2004, and say "I can't believe we LOST to this guy!". People don't change for change's sake. You need to give them a reason to vote FOR your side.

So in the end, Conservatives have taken some heart that Obama has proven not to be infallible. However, their ideology, and political organization has a LONG way to go, to start to repair the brand, and be competitive once again. If my friends want their man back in power, they are going to have to do more than tell me why Obama stinks.