Misc. Elephantitis archive at Miscellaneous Objections

Archive for the 'Misc. Elephantitis' Category

AFF Tonight: The Road Back to Capitalism

Published by Ryan Sager March 5th, 2009 in Misc. Self Promotion and Misc. Elephantitis. 0 Comments

I’ve been remiss in not promoting this AFF panel tonight, on which I’m speaking:

On March 5th, the Obama Administration will have been in office for over a month. Since the loss of the election in November conservatives and libertarians from across the nation have started to think about the road back not only to power, but how to return the country to believing in free-market principles. Have libertarians and conservatives found their voice? With a plummeting economy, do free market ideas stand a chance? Have Republicans discovered a comeback strategy based on ideas and principles that libertarians and conservatives can support? What is the road back to capitalism?

If you’re in the city, come on out.

Last Night in Hoboken

Published by Ryan Sager February 25th, 2009 in Misc. Self Promotion and Misc. Elephantitis. 0 Comments

Thanks to everyone who came out in Hoboken last night, and thanks to the Hoboken Republicans for having me.

As always, a spirited discussion. One trend in these discussions — it seems to happen over and over and over again, in any crowd — is for two arguments to emerge: 1) We weren’t pure enough; 2) We weren’t centrist enough.

Of course, those who want the party to move in a Palin-esque direction choose argument 1. Those who favored, say, Giuliani or another “moderate” choose argument 2.

Neither is right.

Argument 1 is especially wrong-headed, I think. Whether it’s the Republicans or the Democrats, someone is always making this argument. After all, how many liberal Democrats argue that if their party had only nominated Howard Dean in 2004, they would have kicked George Dubya’s ass? Quite a number, from what I’ve seen over the years. Meanwhile, plenty of conservative Republicans this year believe that our only mistake was not putting Sarah Palin at the top of the ticket. But I’ve never seen any evidence that there’s a majority constituency for social conservatism plus fiscal conservatism. Nor is there a majority constituency for economic liberalism plus social liberalism.

Elections, for the most part, are won in the center — despite the Rove theory that everything comes down to the base.

But that doesn’t mean that whoever is most centrist automatically wins, either. Winning an election, it turns out, is a complicated thing. You need to be far enough toward the center to be broadly palatable; you have to actually stand for something to have any base; you need a candidate who can put one foot in front of the other, as opposed to in his mouth. (Or, you can get really lucky and run against a ridiculously bad opponent.)

In other words, there are no easy answers. It’s not that we need Palin. It’s not that we just have a communications problem. And it’s not just that we need to move to the center. Chances are, we’re going to need to reinvent the Republican platform and message for a new era. And we may not, for years, have a candidate capable of out-communicating Obama.

The facts may be depressing. But the facts is the facts.

Hoboken Area EitheR Fans

Published by Ryan Sager February 24th, 2009 in Misc. Self Promotion and Misc. Elephantitis. 0 Comments

If you’re in the Hoboken area, I’ll be speaking tonight at the Hoboken Republicans’ 4th Annual Lincoln Dinner.

I’ve been delivering some gloomy talks, recently, so I hope not to ruin anyone’s dinner.

Event starts at 6:30 p.m., at the Gaslight Restaurant and Bar. In Hoboken. New Jersey.

Lolita Bar Debate Audience: The Right Has NOT Hit Bottom Yet

Published by Ryan Sager February 20th, 2009 in Misc. Elephantitis. 0 Comments

Thanks to everyone who came out to Lolita Bar last night for the debate on whether the Right has hit bottom yet — and thanks to my gracious opponent, Ken Silber. (And further thanks to Todd Seavey for having me.)

As Silber says, there’s not enough daylight between us to balance a presidential ticket. But, I’m gratified nonetheless that pessimism carried the day. I certainly think pessimism is what’s warranted. The Right and the GOP are deep in a hole, but they likely still have far to fall before they hit bottom and can start the climb back up. Look at the 2010 Senate races, where GOP senators will be defending their turf in Obama states (PA, NH, NC, FL) while Dem senators will be up in places like New York and California. Also, just think about candidate recruitment and fundraising in this economy. Things could get grim.

I understand there may be a transcript of the debate available at some time in the near future. Should one become available, I will post it here.

Beating a Dead Elephant

Published by Ryan Sager February 18th, 2009 in Misc. Self Promotion and Misc. Elephantitis. 0 Comments

Tomorrow night, I’ll be debating the future of the right at Lolita Bar, on the Lower East Side (hosted by Todd Seavey):

With the government, intended by the Framers to be small and humble, now funneling a trillion dollars through itself and into the hands of its allies and supplicants…with pop culture iconography fusing with state-worship to create an ostensible messiah-president…with self-interested elites from academia to Nobel committees now oblivious to the difference between compassion and centralized planning (whether of economies or ecosystems), can the desperate (and often stupid) forces of opposition — the exiled right, marginalized conservatism — get any lower?

I’ll host — and Michel Evanchik will moderate — a debate on that very topic, “Has the Right Hit Bottom Yet?”

This Thursday, Feb. 19 (8pm) see optimist (and writer, blogger, and Research editor) Ken Silber argue yes, that the right is already planning its comeback, while pessimist (and author of Elephant in the Room) Ryan Sager argues no, saying the movement he loves is still plummeting downward for the foreseeable future.

Ryan Sager, pessimist (and author). It’s a career. 8 o’clock. See (some of) you there.

In the Hunt for 2012

Published by Ryan Sager February 17th, 2009 in Misc. Elephantitis. 0 Comments

Will the “moderate” candidate for the GOP nomination in 2012 come from Utah?

In a surprise move, Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman has come out (yes, chortle) in favor of civil unions. It’s a totally unprompted move — there’s been no pressure on him to do anything like this, and he’s been on the so-called “pro-marriage” (that is, anti-gay) side of things for years. He’s not running for reelection in Utah (where 70 percent of voters oppose civil unions, according to the linked article), so this can really only be looked at as positioning for 2012.

That said, it’s positioning of which I heartily approve. As I’ve long argued, often in front of hostile conservative audiences, the GOP simply has to come to some accommodation on the gay issue. Gay people aren’t going back in the closet, and straight America is rapidly becoming comfortable with homosexuality as what it is: a biological fact of human existence. So, the GOP can spend the next couple decades at war with gays as they once were at war with all minorities. Or they can quickly accept that America needs to legally recognize gay couples — whether it’s left to the states for a while or whether we see federal recognition of (at least) civil unions in the near future.

The bill Huntsman is supporting won’t pass in Utah (barring a miracle). But it’s good to think we might have a conservative, Western candidate in the GOP primary holding aloft the banner of a more tolerant, more modern Republican Party.

N.Y. Post: The GOP Bids for Redemption in NY

Published by Ryan Sager February 16th, 2009 in Misc. Self Promotion and Misc. Elephantitis. 0 Comments

In today’s Post, I look at the race for NY-20 — the first congressional race of the Obama era:

The national GOP is eager to paint a potential win here as the start of a Republican comeback. The new party chairman, Michael Steele, last week called the race a “battle royal” that would send a “powerful signal to the rest of the country” that the GOP has still got some fight in it. In truth, the GOP has little to gain in this race but plenty to lose.

For starters, it’s a sign of how far the Republican Party has fallen and how fast that this race is even in serious contention. Republicans held the seat for decades until 2006, when former Rep. John Sweeney lost his re-election bid. That was the year a Bush backlash and the “culture of corruption” threw control of both houses of Congress to the Democrats. And on top of ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Sweeney was hit with a domestic-violence police report surfacing days before the election, involving the congressman and his then wife.

In other words, Gillibrand’s victory was a bit of an anomaly. (It helped that she took all those conservative, NRA-friendly positions that she’s now dropping in anticipation of running statewide in 2010.)

The district isn’t just historically Republican; it’s nearly all white and heavily White collar. The GOP has a 70,000-voter registration edge, and [Assembly Minority Leader Jim Tedisco (R-Schenectady)] enjoys high name recognition. Plus, his opponent starts out unknown, with roughly six weeks to make up the difference.

It should be a walkaway for the GOP.

But the 20th went narrowly for Obama in November. And it’s not at all clear that Tedisco is any closer than the national GOP to finding a message to counter the new president’s still-popular talk of change and hope.

In other words, the GOP has a lot to lose in this race, but not much to win. Tedisco is running on a somewhat ludicrous slogan — “Now We Will!” — which is an attempt to, I suppose, shift Obama’s slogan into the future tense.

It all seems rather fittingly symbolic for a party that has absolutely no idea how to get back on its feet after 2008. Especially since its politicians, including Tedisco, seem oblivious to the fact that there is even really a problem.

[archive copy of this column here.]

N.Y. Post: The GOP Crossroads

Published by Ryan Sager January 16th, 2009 in Misc. Elephantitis. 0 Comments

At the end of January, the Republican National Committee chooses its new chairman — and, until the 2012 primaries get started (sometime next month), the new public face of the GOP.

Unfortunately, most of the candidates seem to think the GOP has a technology problem. As opposed to an everything problem. I disagree, in the Post this morning:

If the GOP has a youth problem, the answer isn’t to Twitter them about how awesome Ronald Reagan and assault weapons are. (Or to post a picture on Facebook of Ronald Reagan firing an assault weapon - no matter how cool that might sound.)

And the GOP does have a youth problem, among other problems. Obama won 18-to-29- year-olds by a 34-point margin - and did even better among minority youth voters.

The GOP also faces a 36-point gap with Latino voters, plus a nearly 100 percent chasm with black voters.

There’s also the GOP’s loss of the interior West, when it’s already been shut out of the Northeast and the Pacific Coast. And the mirror-image problem of the GOP’s captivity by the South - where John McCain picked up 113 of his 173 electoral votes.

There’s the GOP’s 50-point gap among the growing ranks of the nonreligious (12 percent of the electorate, according to 2008 exit polls). There’s the 30-plus-point gap with urban voters. The GOP’s weakening in the suburbs.

Which candidate can start the process of working through these problems?

Spoiler alert: The best of the available candidates is Maryland’s Michael Steele. (How could I not go with Chip “Magic Negro” Saltsman? Right?)

Defusion

Published by Ryan Sager January 2nd, 2009 in Misc. Elephantitis. 0 Comments

Peter Berkowitz has a column in today’s Wall Street Journal arguing that the old fusionist coalition I wrote about in The Elephant in the Room is as viable as ever.

I wish I shared his optimism.

Frost Belt Freeze-Out

Published by Ryan Sager December 12th, 2008 in Misc. Elephantitis and Misc. Politics. 0 Comments

Question for today: If the GOP — the Senate GOP that is, we have yet to see what Bush will do — becomes the enemy of the auto industry, doesn’t that freeze the party out of the Frost Belt for some time to come?

And, from a libertarian perspective, isn’t that good news?

If the GOP forecloses a South-Plains-Industrial-Midwest strategy (call it the Douthat strategy), based on social conservatism and economic populism, doesn’t that force it back toward a South-West strategy (call it the Sager strategy), based on economic liberty and cultural federalism?

(Of course, in the near term, it could just mean losing the West, Northeast, and Industrial Midwest. And, thus, just flat-out losing — some might also call this the Sager strategy, or Sagerism.)

The Western Geek Vote

Published by Ryan Sager November 15th, 2008 in Misc. Elephantitis. 1 Comment

The Denver Post prints this excellent op-ed from Paul Hsieh, the blogger at GeekPress:

After a resounding electoral defeat, in which voters in this once-red state rejected Republicans McCain, Schaffer, and Musgrave, the Colorado Republican Party will undoubtedly be asking themselves, “Why did we lose?”

I want to let them know that they lost the vote of many former supporters (including myself) because they have chosen to embrace the Religious Right.

I voted Republican in 1996, 2000, and 2004. I believe in limited government, individual rights, free market capitalism, a strong national defense, and the right to keep and bear arms - positions that one normally associates with Republicans.

But I didn’t vote for a single Republican in 2008. I’ve become increasingly alienated by the Republicans” embrace of the religious “social conservative” agenda, including attempts to ban abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage.

Hsieh is just the kind of voter the GOP needs, in the place it needs him. He’s one of the “upscale” voters Charlie Cook writes about here, that the GOP has alienated.

How does the GOP win him back? Couldn’t tell you yet. But it doesn’t involve Sarah Palin.

Wrestling With Reality

Published by Ryan Sager November 9th, 2008 in Misc. Elephantitis and Misc. Politics. 0 Comments

This thread at Hot Air, in response to my why-we-lost and how-we-get-back column, makes for some instructive reading for those invested in this debate. Most of the major threads of conservative thought on why we lost the election can be found here. The “McCain was too much of a liberal” thread (incorrect). The “Sarah Palin is an awesome libertarian” thread (also incorrect). And, then, the “what the f–k is Sager smoking, Bloomberg is not a libertarian” thread.

OK, that last one isn’t a major thread in the post-election analysis. But it’s the one I want to address, since I threw out the name.

Here’s a post on that topic:

Okay, unlike others in the Republican party, I’m willing to throw the social conservatives and the evangelicals under the bus if that’s the only way to elect a free market, strong-on-defense president.

So Ryan Sager has labored mightily in his own mind and brought forth as a suggestion …Michael Bloomberg??!! What is this guy smoking? (Not cigarettes, obviously, since he’s a fan of Bloomberg and lives in New York.) Do I need to even remind anyone that this is a high-tax, high-spending, pro rent control, pro-regulation, pro gun control, nanny stater? And he’s a life long Democrat. Wow, I don’t think that Princeton education did Sager much good. And Mr. Sager, you think Bloomberg is doing such a great job in NYC. Similar to what Frum asks about Palin, let’s see what kind of a job he does in an economy with tax revenues from Wall Street completely drying up. It’s going to make being governor of Alaska (with the falling oil prices) look like a cake walk!

This is truly the stupidest column I’ve ever read, but maybe Allah or somebody smart like that can explain it to me.

First off, I didn’t go to Princeton, so perhaps that explains my idiocy. Second, I’m not going to argue with anyone who says Mike Bloomberg isn’t a libertarian. Point conceded. But here’s why I use his name for a stand-in for what I’m talking about…

At base, this is probably a pretty similar case as to why I (and a lot of other libertarian-ish types) would support Rudy Giuliani for the GOP nomination — or, at least, would have in 2007-2008. There are very few politicians out there with anything like a libertarian profile who are in any position to run for president. (Folks can make the case about Sarah Palin, but she did not appeal to the libertarian part of the GOP base at all during the election; she was, you may remember, lying about opposing the Bridge to Nowhere, and she’s based what little appeal she has to anyone almost solely on her pro-life and pro-small-town, anti-big-city Jews — err, I mean, “media elite” — credentials. No sale as far as I’m concerned.) Given that, the available menu of candidates is, shall we say, a bit short.

So, what does a libertarian go looking for? In short, someone who is a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.

Let’s go back to Giuliani: check and check. I think, over the course of the primary campaign, however, he went way too far in trying to out-anti-immigrant Mitt Romney; he also sold out his support of civil unions in an attempt to out-social-conservative Mitt Romney, and he threw in his foreign-policy lot with the most extreme neoconservatives. I’m not saying I’d never consider him again. But I’m interested in a thorough search for who else might be out there.

And, so, this brings me to Bloomberg. Again, not a libertarian. Smoking ban: bad. Trans fat ban: bad. Anti-gun lawsuits: bad. His fiscal policy? There, despite some relatively minor tax increases, I’d still call him a fiscal conservative. He’s pulled us through some tight budget times with a minimum of pain. Overall, a pretty admirable job on the fiscal front, so far; we’ll see what happens going forward. On education, he’s not been supportive of vouchers, unfortunately, but he’s been heroic in his support of charter schools. On social issues, like abortion and gay marriage — well, he shares my positions; I wouldn’t expect much of the Republican base to like them. On foreign policy, he’d probably be a lot more internationalist than, say, Bush or McCain. Again, I’m fine with this — tough sell to the base.

Of course, a real-life Bloomberg run probably wouldn’t have to go through the Republican base. It would likely be a third party run. And, if successful, such a run could put an end to the GOP.

I wish there were a strong, libertarian-type candidate out there — especially one with the right cultural profile. As in: western. A Republican Brian Schweitzer. Of course, the fact that the GOP has no such candidate is just one of many symptoms of how and why we’re utterly and totally screwed. (ed: You just described Palin! She’s a biblical literalist who hates everyone from a place with a population north of 10,000! She’s not going to win us back an increasingly urban Colorado, for instance! Get the hell back to Kaus’s blog!)

Given the reality we’re faced with, I don’t think anyone ought to turn up his or her nose at Bloomberg just yet. That said, I’m not trying to drive the Bloomberg bandwagon, here. I’m describing a type. Other suggestions are more than welcome. And, of course, 2012 isn’t exactly right around the corner. But I can’t help myself!

N.Y. Post: GOP’s Way Back

Published by Ryan Sager November 8th, 2008 in Misc. Elephantitis and Misc. Politics. 0 Comments

In today’s New York Post, I take a look at the drubbing the GOP took out West and what it means for the party that’s left behind:

What does it all add up to? A party resting on an ever-shrinking geographic base: Dixie. Look at John McCain’s likely final 173 electoral votes: 113 of them come from the South (defined as the 11 states of the old Confederacy plus Kentucky and Oklahoma). That’s 65 percent of his electoral vote - and much of the rest comes from the sparsely populated Plains states.

With even Virginia and North Carolina trending blue this cycle (voting for Obama and voting out Republican senators), the need to expand this base is apparent.

So where does the Republican Party go from here? Three options present themselves at this early date…

…those are, broadly speaking: The Palin Plan, The Huckabee Diet, and The Bloomberg Scenario. Of course, my sympathies lie with the nasal New York-Boston Jew riding to the rescue of the Party of Palin. (If the Italian New York City mayor with a lisp couldn’t do it, damn it, this quixotic candidate can!)

I’m not saying it would have to be Bloomberg (once upon a time, Mitt Romney could have been the moderate, business-friendly, technocratic Republican — but he threw that all away to become the favorite conservative of National Review and Hugh Hewitt), but it would work best with a reformer/wonk from the West or Northeast.

Who’s Hailin’ Palin?

Published by Ryan Sager November 7th, 2008 in Misc. Elephantitis and Misc. Politics. 0 Comments

McCain’s loss, of course, means that it’s now time for recriminations, back-biting, and arguments about the way forward. I look forward to getting into all that over the coming days and weeks and months. But for now, my quick take: We’ve arrived at the Southern-centric Republican Party I warned of in my book (George Will: “The South is beginning to look less like the firm foundation of a national party than the embattled redoubt of a regional one.”). Now, the GOP can either pull out of this downward spiral or not.

It’s way too early to get a sense of which way things will go, but let’s just say it’s less than encouraging that this Rasmussen survey finds Sarah Palin topping the list of Republicans’ choices for president in 2012 — with Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney coming in behind her.

It’s way too early for 2012 speculation (though, man would that feel good). But if die-hard Republicans are unable to get over their (in many cases creepily sexual) infatuation with Palin — and are unable to understand what makes her so repulsive to non-die-hard Republicans — it will be a long four years.

Happy Election Day (for some of us)

Published by Ryan Sager November 4th, 2008 in Misc. Elephantitis and Misc. Politics. 0 Comments

Not too long a wait in Brooklyn Heights, depending on when you went and in which district you voted. I got in and out in about an hour. Other folks, at the same polling place but in another election district, had been there for three hours. One very patient poll worker was doing a heroic job holding it all together.

Heavy turnout, I suppose. But it’s not any great mystery for whom my neighbors (and I) were voting; nor is it any great mystery what color New York will turn tonight — other than perhaps purple-with-rage if Obama loses.

The real mysteries lie elsewhere. One reader writes in:

“Revisiting America’s Purple Mtns.” was right on the money. It is truer today than 2 1/2 years ago when it was written. The Republican Party needs a major overhaul and to re-establish it’s libertarian ideology of the past. But how could a libertarian vote for Obama? I know of some who have. In the wake of what I believe will be an overwhelming GOP defeat tomorrow, there will be an opportunity to take the party back from the religious right. I have discussed this with many staunch Republicans and have yet to find one who is even remotely satisfied with the direction of their Grand Ol’ Party. Failure to do so will doom the GOP to more future failures, especially in the Mountain West.

Sincerely,

Mark Mahlum

Bayfield, Co.

We’ll see what color everything turns when the dust settles. While it could be an early election night for some (if Pennsylvania stays in the Obama column, as expected, that’s pretty much game, set, match; if Virginia goes blue, too, strike up the band), I’m going to be very interested to see what happens west of the Bush belt (Texas to North Dakota).

Mountain Man

Published by Ryan Sager October 31st, 2008 in Misc. Elephantitis and Misc. Politics. 0 Comments

Have New Mexico and Colorado already won the election for Barack Obama?

Maybe that’s taking things a little far, but if he wins those states (and he’s got a big edge in early voting locked down), McCain has to win Pennsylvania (extremely unlikely) — but even with Pennsylvania, Obama would still likely take it back with Nevada, Virginia, and Iowa.

But, who knows? Maybe Drudge is right, and it’s time to welcome out new Maverick overlords.

McCain’s Back Yard

Published by Ryan Sager October 24th, 2008 in Misc. Elephantitis and Misc. Politics. 0 Comments

This election season, I’ve found the polling site 538 invaluable, both as a source of electoral projections and as a corrective to whatever random poll Matt Drudge decides to unwarrantedly hype day-to-day. So, I wasn’t surprised to see an insightful article from 538’s Nate Silver turn up at The New Republic: “How the West Was Lost.”

Now, of course, that’s lost by the GOP. And I believe Nate is more on the Obama side of things. So, really maybe that should be how the West was won (at least from a left-leaning perspective)? Nonetheless, given that the GOP has alienated the region more than the Democrats have won it over, I suppose the title makes sense. And I’ll just stop talking about it.

Anyway…

Having written in my book about the changes in the Interior West, I’ve hardly been surprised this year to see the region emerge as the second battleground, after the more traditional battleground, the Midwest. And the Interior West is an important battleground, because as I’ve noted ad nauseum, even if McCain wins every other Bush 2004 state (cough), CO, NM, and NV alone would throw the election to the Democrats. And, behold, Obama leads in all three — comfortably in CO and NM, where he’s led all year, and narrowly in NV.

Silver notes a couple of the important reasons things have shaken out this way. Folks have been moving from both coasts to the Interior West at a steady clip, transplanting their blue selves into traditionally red states. And, more Hispanic voters are in these states every year (which is a “blue” trend, even if McCain has bucked his base on immigration).

What Silver leaves out is the religious factor. The Interior West has far fewer Evangelicals than the Republican Party’s solid southern states (around 30% in each of the Interior West states versus ~60-70% in the Southern ones). This has meant that Interior West voters are far less attached to today’s Republican Party than their southern counterparts. See, for instance, this chart from Pew, showing how various religious denominations have been behaving this election cycle. While Evangelicals seem to have been unaffected, politically, by the financial crisis, mainline Protestants have switched from advantage McCain by 10 points to advantage Obama by (currently) 5 points.

For all the talk about Florida, Ohio, and even Pennsylvania in these final days, this election was over as soon as McCain wasn’t able to hold onto the states in his own back yard.

How exactly did the “Maverick” lose the ability to hold on to his own back yard? Let’s just say it has something to do with the campaign he’s run. It’ll be time soon enough for post-election recriminations.

I can’t wait.

The New Battleground

Published by Ryan Sager July 23rd, 2008 in Misc. Elephantitis. 0 Comments

The Washington Times picks up the trend in a story yesterday: Political showdown in West.

It’s an argument I’ve been putting forward for a while (OK, ad nauseum), but now an actual presidential campaign is trying to capitalize on the fact that the Interior West has become a swing region:

Republicans, with few exceptions in recent decades, have become accustomed to sweeping the Plains and Mountain States from the Canadian border to the Rio Grande - President Bush carried all of them in 2004 and all but one in 2000.

However, the Illinois Democrat is aggressively challenging Sen. John McCain in at least six of them, including Republican strongholds New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Montana and North and South Dakota, where polls show the race between the two rivals is close or in a dead heat.

I’m actually interested to see this strategy extend to North and South Dakota. They don’t fit neatly into my Interior West thesis — in that my general impression is these states are culturally conservative at a level on par with the rest of the Midwest (as opposed to the more libertarian Interior West). But maybe it’s worth some further consideration.

AFF in Minneapolis: Has the GOP Gotten the Message?

Published by Ryan Sager July 21st, 2008 in Misc. Self Promotion and Misc. Elephantitis. 0 Comments

If you happen to be in Minneapolis this Thursday, July 24, America’s Future Foundation will be holding a panel in advance of the GOP convention hitting the city in September:

“AFF on the Road” next stop: Minneapolis, Minnesota! On Thursday, July 24th America’s Future Foundation will host “The Pre-convention Debate: Has the GOP gotten the message?” just a few short months before the Republican convention.

Coming off special election losses and into its convention, has the GOP gotten the message? Conservatives and libertarians have demanded that Republicans live up to their limited government principles. And yet, many Republicans in Congress voted for further increases in spending in the recent 2008 Farm Bill. At the convention, does McCain and the GOP leadership have what it takes to pull the party together around a program of limited government? Or, are the concerns of the conservative and libertarian “base” irrelevant as Obama and McCain vie for independent-minded swing voters? Join America’s Future Foundation to find out.

I’ll be on the panel, along with Jeff Larson, CEO of the Minneapolis St. Paul 2008 Host Committee for the 2008 Republican convention and founding partner of Feather, Larson & Synhorst.

UPDATE (7/23/08): The panel also includes David Freddoso, of National Review, and Annette Meeks, founder and president of the Freedom Foundation of Minnesota.

Podcast of the AFF Denver Talk

Published by Ryan Sager April 6th, 2008 in Misc. Self Promotion and Misc. Elephantitis. 0 Comments

For those interested in the fate of the West (interior West, that is), AFF has a podcast up of the panel it held in Denver last week.

My portion of the panel starts at around 42:00. The real heat came, though, in the Q&A, which follows immediately after my portion.

And, yes, I really do subscribe to the Focus on the Family email blast just to enrage myself on a daily basis. Those people sure do hate teh gays.

N.Y. Post: GOP Achilles’ Heel

Published by Ryan Sager March 28th, 2008 in Misc. Elephantitis. 0 Comments

My column in the Post this morning gives my rundown of the GOP’s prospects in the interior West this cycle and recounts Wednesday’s panel:

DENVER — CHEERED as Republicans may be by the Clinton-Obama wars, the fact is that long-term trends still favor the Democrats this fall. To see the problem, consider the interior West - the eight states between the Midwest and the Pacific Coast: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming.

This week, I spoke at a panel put on here in Denver by the America’s Future Foundation, a youth-oriented libertarian-conservative group. The topic: “How the West Will Be Lost.”

In fact, having heard my fellow panelists’ takes on the situation in Colorado and the rest of the region, the use of the future tense looks optimistic: The GOP is already well on its way to losing the West.

The reasons were well summed up by the president of Colorado’s Independence Institute and a popular conservative radio talk-show host in the state, Jon Caldara: “We lost our values. We lost our way.”

There is one way the GOP can pull it out: The Democrats can nominate Hillary.

Deep Blue in Colorado

Published by Ryan Sager March 27th, 2008 in Misc. Elephantitis. 1 Comment

The Rocky Mountain News this morning runs an account of the America’s Future Foundation panel I spoke at last night in Denver (cheery panel title: “How the West Will Be Lost”):

A group of conservative writers and thinkers gathered for a panel discussion Wednesday night at the Oxford Hotel where the beer was free, the talk was fast and the mood - at least when it came to the 2008 presidential race - was a deep blue funk.

The title of the forum - presented by Face the State, America’s Future Foundation and the Independence Institute - summed up the general pessimism, “How the West Will Be Lost - Democrats’ Strategy to turn the Mountain West Blue and What Libertarians and Conservatives Can Do About It.”

The speakers generally agreed that the coalition Ronald Reagan assembled of social conservatives, libertarians, limited-government proponents and free-marketeers is fractured.

They differed, however, on the extent of the split or what can be done to put that coalition together again.

I’m quoted in the story as the voice of pessimism — which will hardly be earth-shattering news to friends and family. Hey, I’m a gloomy guy.

It was a great panel and a great audience in a part of the country usually relegated to fly-over status. While we did disagree on how bad things have gotten and what the chances are for repairing them out here in the interior West, the one thing we all agreed on was that Colorado is Ground Zero in the changes that are coming to the region politically. Both houses of the Legislature taken over by the Dems in 2004, the governorship taken over in 2006. A Senate seat gone. Another House seat gone. All that’s left is for the state to get colored blue in November.

I’ll have more on the panel and why that may or may not happen shortly. In the meantime, thanks to AFF and Face the State for having me and to everyone who came out.

How the West Will Be Lost

Published by Ryan Sager March 20th, 2008 in Misc. Self Promotion and Misc. Elephantitis. 0 Comments

If you happen to be in the Denver area next Wednesday evening (March 26), I’ll be on an America’s Future Foundation panel about the political fortunes of the GOP in the West (a topic, of course, close to my heart): “How the West Will Be Lost.”

Pessimistic, but I think correctly so (at least it’s pessimistic from a partisan, GOP perspective). Here’s the description from the Web site:

It’s no mistake that Democrats will be hosting their national convention in Denver. Liberal funders have invested heavily in Colorado as part of a multi-cycle strategy to turn traditionally red states in the mountain west blue. But have Republicans and the Religious Right put more libertarian-leaning mountain states up for grabs? Looking at the primaries, does Huckabee’s success indicate the growing or waning influence of evangelicals in the Republican Party? Does Ron Paul’s fundraising success indicate a growing influence of libertarians? And what to make of McCain? Join our panelists as we discuss the future of libertarians, conservatives, and evangelicals in the West.

Also on the panel will be Gene Healy of the Cato Institute, Jim Pfaff, president of the Colorado Family Institute, and Jon Caldara, president of the Independence Institute. It will be moderated by Brad Jones of FaceTheState.com.

Should be a fun time. Colorado really is ground zero in the West-turning-Blue story.

N.Y. Post: Gone Baby Gone

Published by Ryan Sager March 16th, 2008 in Misc. Elephantitis. 0 Comments

In today’s Post, I review Grover Norquist’s new book, Leave Us Alone:

[Norquist’s] book manages to diagnose and prescribe treatment for the ills of the modern-day Republican Party with hardly a mention of the tumor in its guts: Bush-Rove-style Big Government Conservatism.

Norquist breaks down modern political actors into two camps: the Leave Us Alone Coalition and the Takings Coalition. The Leave Us Alone Coalition, he says, consists of taxpayers (the ones who want lower taxes, anyway) businessmen, property owners, gun owners, homeschoolers and conservative religious types threatened by the secular mainstream - Catholics, evangelical Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims and Mormons. The Takings Coalition consists of government workers, labor unions, trial lawyers, welfare recipients and much of academia - or, as Norquist puts it, folks who “raise your taxes to subsidize Piss Christ while explaining that your church cannot be used for child care until you cover up all those icky crucifixes.”

But has the Republican Party of the last 10 years really been under the sway of a Leave Me Alone Coalition? Far from it. That’s the sort of coalition libertarian Republicans wish they had, but it’s certainly not what’s existed in practice.

It would be nice if the GOP’s problems were as minor and self-correcting as Norquist argues — requiring, mainly, that Red Staters breed and New Deal liberals die (in the natural course of getting old, of course, nothing more drastic). They are, however, not.

Speaking of the Interior West…

Published by Ryan Sager February 14th, 2008 in Misc. Elephantitis and Misc. Politics. 0 Comments

I’ve been making the argument for a little while now (btw: you can now read my old Atlantic piece on this for free, since they opened up their archives): the Democrats’ key to victory in 2008 is the interior West.

And, so, along comes some interesting polling data from Rasmussen out of Colorado. It should be clear to anyone watching the primary results that Obama is the strongest Democratic candidate in the interior West. But here are some numbers: He’d start out the race with a seven-point, 46-39 percent, advantage over John McCain. Hillary? She’d start down 14 points. 35-49 percent.

Just something for all those superdelegates to think about.

(via Sullivan)

Boomers…

Published by Ryan Sager December 28th, 2007 in Misc. Elephantitis and Misc. Politics. 0 Comments

…move West.

Not sure precisely how this affects my thesis about the changing interior West, though I’m sure it does. On first thought, I’d say these boomers are unlikely to be social-conservative firebrands. At the same time, they’re probably not fiscal conservatives either. So, socially liberal (at least moderate) fiscal populists (at least as relates to Social Security and Medicare)? That sounds like straight-up Democrats to me.

Yet another reason the Mountains are turning purple.

Romney’s America: No Room for Non-Believers

Published by Ryan Sager December 6th, 2007 in Misc. Elephantitis and Misc. Politics. 4 Comments

Watching Mitt Romney’s big Mormon Speech this morning, I found myself unsurprised that I was unmoved; one probably wasn’t going to like this speech terribly unless one were already decided for Mitt Romney. I was (moderately) surprised, however, at how utterly cynical and offensive Romney’s speech ended up being. In short, if we didn’t know it before, we now know that in Mitt Romney’s America, there is no room for those without “faith.” What’s more — and this we already did know — Mitt Romney is willing to mislead people about his religion, while categorizing all follow-up questions about his religion as a form of “religious test.”

The most remarkable thing about Romney’s address — and even folks at National Review picked this out, notably Ramesh Ponnuru — is that is wrote atheists and agnostics out of the American nation. Whereas even President Bush, whose own cynical politics have done so much to pit believers versus non-believers, has long gone out of his way to include “good people of no faith at all” in his vision of America. While the president’s need to qualify that phrase with the word “good” might be offensive, it’s a warm embrace of the faithless compared to Romney’s declaration that “freedom requires religion.”

Got that? Those of us who don’t believe in Christianity, those of us who don’t believe in God, those of us who don’t believe in the divinity of human-written holy books have no place in the American experiment, can’t be relied on to uphold the principles of our Constitution, and don’t have the morality necessary to keep a Republic.

If any of this is not what the former governor meant, by all means let him correct himself. I emailed the Romney campaign this morning asking where atheists and agnostics fit into his vision of America. I’ve gotten no response of any kind, and I don’t expect one. Marginalizing non-believers is too central to Romney’s primary strategy for him to speak one word on their behalf. Romney may say that, “A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.” But his vision of who constitutes “the people” includes only the faithful.

As to Romney’s disingenuousness about his own religion, one need only note that the word “Mormon” appeared but once in his speech. (Kennedy mentioned the word Catholic roughly 20 times.) What’s more, he pulled this little number.

On the one hand, he declared:

There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.

So, presidential candidates shouldn’t delve into the doctrines of their churches? I suppose the key word is “distinctive.” Romney is more than willing to talk about the doctrines of his faith when it might accrue to his benefit. Such as … a paragraph earlier in the same speech:

There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind.

It wasn’t quite as misleading as his comments about the Bible in the last debate (where he declared it the “word of God,” despite major differences Mormons have with Christians over the reliability of the Bible).

So, it’s OK to talk about the tenets of Mormonism so far as it presents Evangelical Christians with the impression that there are no major differences between the two faiths. Talking about it any further, dastardly religious test. Got it.

There was at least one line from Romney, though, that was worth the price of admission: “Americans do not respect believers of convenience.”

Amen, brother.

UPDATE: David Frum has a related observation about picking and choosing among theological questions that are “appropriate” to ask. If belief in Jesus is a prerequisite to the presidency, what else might be?

UPDATE II: Another interesting take: “threatened with political … exile.”

N.Y. Post: Crackpot Revolution

Published by Ryan Sager December 1st, 2007 in Misc. Self Promotion, Misc. Elephantitis and Misc. Politics. 0 Comments

In today’s New York Post, I make the argument that Ron Paul’s success has far less to do with any “libertarian moment” than it has to do with an unfortunate rise of populist sentiment in the Republican Party:

December 1, 2007 — FOLKS in Washington seem to think that the unexpected success of Ron Paul in the Republican primary suggests the country is in some kind of “libertarian moment” that will reshape American politics. Sorry: While I’d be delighted if the GOP were gripped by libertarianism - that is, a resurgent commitment to economic and social freedom - the truth is actually quite the opposite.

Both The Washington Times and The Washington Post ran pieces over the weekend reading big things into Paul’s showing in the polls. He’s at around 5 percent nationally and in Iowa - far above the 1 percent blip you’d expect from a fringe candidate. And he’s done phenomenally in fund-raising, bringing in $9 million-plus so far this quarter (which may put him ahead of John McCain in the cash race).

But what does the Ron Paul Revolution, as it’s dubbed itself, really represent? Paul, a 10-term congressman from Texas and the 1988 Libertarian Party candidate for president, has a well-deserved reputation as a principled constitutionalist. But his success now has more to do with anti-war populism than radical libertarianism.

How else to reconcile the simultaneous rise of Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee?

The Libertarian West

Published by Ryan Sager September 11th, 2007 in Misc. Elephantitis. 0 Comments

Jesse Walker at Reason takes a look, in this, the era of Larry Craig and Bill Richardson.

McCain Still Disliked by Fiscal Conservatives

Published by Ryan Sager January 12th, 2007 in Misc. Elephantitis. 2 Comments

An rhsager.com exclusive…

On Thursday, I got hold of some early results from a large survey the fiscally conservative Club For Growth is doing of its membership. McCain is near the rock-bottom of the pack when Club For Growth members are asked whom they would like to see made the GOP presidential nominee in 2008, and he comes in at the very top when members of the group are asked whom they would not like to see nominated. His favorable/unfavorable rating is also very poor with this crowd.

The Club For Growth is in the midst of conducting an extensive presidential survey of its 40,000 members, by phone and by email. So far, they’ve gotten roughly 3,300 responses.

The preliminary numbers I have obtained are as follows:

* Club members’ top choice for 2008 GOP nominee for president: McCain received 5%

* Club members’ least favorite choice: McCain received 43% (first place)

* McCain’s favorable/unfavorable rating with Club members: Favorable 16% / Unfavorable 76%

(On those first two questions, Club members were asked to pick from a list, including: Romney, Pataki, McCain, Gingrich, Hunter, Huckabee, Hagel, Giuliani, Brownback, or no answer.)

Asked to comment, Club For Growth President Pat Toomey offered a rather bleak assessment of McCain’s chances at wooing fiscal conservatives in the GOP primary.

“This is a real reflection of a serious challenge McCain has with free-market conservatives and with limited-government conservatives,” Toomey said. “He very prominently spoke out against the Bush tax cuts … He spouted class-warfare rhetoric usually voiced by the Democrats.”

What’s more, Toomey said it would be a mistake to underestimate the importance of McCain’s role in bringing campaign-finance reform to American politics with his McCain-Feingold bill. “Frankly, our members, almost by definition, are concerned with weighing in on issues and having a voice in American politics,” Toomey said. “His willingness to diminish the First Amendment is a matter of great concern.”

Despite the fact that McCain is good on trade policy and on opposing pork-barrel spending, Toomey said, “Fundamentally, limited government requires limited taxes, and economic growth requires lower marginal taxes.”

Asked whether McCain could do anything to woo back fiscal conservatives, Toomey offered only: “You never say never in politics.”

Of course, McCain has already spent some considerable time trying to win back fiscal conservatives, flip-flopping on the Bush tax cuts (calling for their renewal after having opposed their original passage) and flip-flopping on the estate (a.k.a. death) tax.

McCain and the Club For Growth — a so-called “527″ organization — have long been at odds. McCain has repeatedly cited the Club For Growth as the type of group that made his campaign-finance-reform bill necessary, because they run lots of hard-hitting (and sometimes even negative) ads in House and Senate races in the days leading up to federal elections. In 2000, the Club ran ads boosting the candidacy of now-Rep. Jeff Flake, a rising fiscal-conservative star, for an Arizona congressional seat — leading to the defeat of an opposing candidate hand-picked by McCain.

Nonetheless, the vehemence of the opposition to the purported GOP frontrunner by the leadership and membership of the Club For Growth is pretty striking this early in the game.

Developing…�