nhboy
Ubi bene ibi patria
Link to original article.
More here.
"In reading the report on the GOP and young voters from the College Republicans National Committee, one should keep in mind that they were clearly hamstrung in making recommendations for broadening the party's appeal beyond the "old white guy" bloc by the party's core certainty that there is nothing wrong with the policies they've put forward. Written between the lines of the report (and often in the lines themselves) is the belief that issue is marketing and message, not values or beliefs. (This is nothing new: Republicans who have faulted GOP policies, while media darlings, don't seem to have gained traction in the party itself.)"
There's a section in report superficially about policy, but that's just it – it's superficial. The recommendations revolve around how to talk about policy, not engineer it. This isn't the fault of the report's authors, I think: around the edges, there are glimmers of self-awareness, hints that the CRNC would do things differently if they were given the chance.
For example, they emphasize over and over the advantage Obama gained by his attempts to actually pass legislation – even legislation opposed by the "winnable" conservatives and moderates the CNRC interviewed. Even respondents who didn't like Obamacare, for instance, believed "that Obama had attempted to change things." The mere acknowledgment of Obama as someone who, in good faith, "attempted to change things" would be watershed moment for the GOP leadership, and could shift the national conversation from mutual "NANANA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU" to dialogue.
The parties shout at each other rather than converse because we live in the era of the permanent campaign. It's only in campaigns that politics is a winner-take-all scenario, where shouting the loudest is what makes you a success. In crafting policy, it's possible for everyone to win something; this isn't something the authors of the report (following the lead of their elders) emphasize. The belief in, and consequences of, zero-sum politics are painfully evident in the section about the traits young people value and how the GOP might align itself with them.
First, the bad news:
"Asked which words least described the GOP, respondents gravitated toward 'open-minded' (35%), 'tolerant' (25%), 'caring' (22%), and 'cooperative' (21%)."
But, hey!
"Theoretically, the good news in all this is that while the Republican party's negative brand is being driven heavily by a perceived lack of open-mindedness and caring, the other brand attributes that matter to young people – intelligence, a strong work ethic, and competence – are not out of reach and certainly up for grabs."
More here.
"In reading the report on the GOP and young voters from the College Republicans National Committee, one should keep in mind that they were clearly hamstrung in making recommendations for broadening the party's appeal beyond the "old white guy" bloc by the party's core certainty that there is nothing wrong with the policies they've put forward. Written between the lines of the report (and often in the lines themselves) is the belief that issue is marketing and message, not values or beliefs. (This is nothing new: Republicans who have faulted GOP policies, while media darlings, don't seem to have gained traction in the party itself.)"
There's a section in report superficially about policy, but that's just it – it's superficial. The recommendations revolve around how to talk about policy, not engineer it. This isn't the fault of the report's authors, I think: around the edges, there are glimmers of self-awareness, hints that the CRNC would do things differently if they were given the chance.
For example, they emphasize over and over the advantage Obama gained by his attempts to actually pass legislation – even legislation opposed by the "winnable" conservatives and moderates the CNRC interviewed. Even respondents who didn't like Obamacare, for instance, believed "that Obama had attempted to change things." The mere acknowledgment of Obama as someone who, in good faith, "attempted to change things" would be watershed moment for the GOP leadership, and could shift the national conversation from mutual "NANANA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU" to dialogue.
The parties shout at each other rather than converse because we live in the era of the permanent campaign. It's only in campaigns that politics is a winner-take-all scenario, where shouting the loudest is what makes you a success. In crafting policy, it's possible for everyone to win something; this isn't something the authors of the report (following the lead of their elders) emphasize. The belief in, and consequences of, zero-sum politics are painfully evident in the section about the traits young people value and how the GOP might align itself with them.
First, the bad news:
"Asked which words least described the GOP, respondents gravitated toward 'open-minded' (35%), 'tolerant' (25%), 'caring' (22%), and 'cooperative' (21%)."
But, hey!
"Theoretically, the good news in all this is that while the Republican party's negative brand is being driven heavily by a perceived lack of open-mindedness and caring, the other brand attributes that matter to young people – intelligence, a strong work ethic, and competence – are not out of reach and certainly up for grabs."
