By Tim Peacock
Over the past few weeks the GOP has demonstrated time and again the main argument I made after the 2012 elections: the Republican brand (as well as their way of communicating with the general public) is broken beyond repair. Last election cycle the infamous conservative bubble (and those controlling the message within it) assured their core supporters that the nation was ready for change, and that their far-right message would be well-received by the masses. They felt certain that Obama was so defeatable that they could continue their virulently anti-"other" (other being those scary minorities, feminists and gays) policy positions while still winning the election by a landslide. And when they lost - when the conservative brand was soundly rebuked across the nation not just in the presidential race but in a majority of congressional races as well - the GOP collectively scratched their heads and began wondering aloud how they could've lost. It seemed unbelievable to them. The rest of the nation, however, saw the writing on the wall well before Romney tried to fire Big Bird and claim he had a binder full of women.
Immediately after losing what they thought was a sure thing, Republicans began turning on one another in attempting to place blame. The generally accepted notion among (semi-sane) Republicans was that the party had a messaging problem (not a core belief problem). Within six months discussion surrounding outreach died down on the whole with the only voices remaining on the topic predicting disaster (such as Bob Dole). Did the GOP solve their messaging problem? Are they ready to head into 2016? The answer to both of those questions is no, but not for the obvious reasons.
While media pundits have a different explanation or solution to the GOP messaging problem each Sunday (it seems), most everyone (sans a handful of left-leaning commentators) still believes the problem lies in how the GOP is getting their message across to those outside their core base. That's not the problem; those outside the rock-solid conservative core understand loud and clear what the current Republican party wants and believes in. Rather, the GOP's problem is with its brand... its core set of beliefs - not how those ideals are communicated.
 |
| Marco Rubio |
To find evidence of this you need only look at the current field of 2016 GOP contenders. In particular Marco Rubio supported two solid, GOP-supported and core-popular positions on national issues recently that do not mesh with overall national opinion: the first relates to employment non-discrimination and the other to the GOP's last hope to remain relevant - immigration reform. In the first instance Rubio took a stark anti-gay stance and basically said he would not support legislation that would prevent employers from firing someone for being gay. The Employment Non Discrimination Act of 2013 (ENDA) aims to add sexual orientation to the list of other marginalized groups that have historically been targeted for discrimination in everything from public accommodation to employment. When asked why he supports race and gender protections in employment and not sexual orientation, he cited the age-old conservative "special rights" reasoning and claimed that because race and gender were already law, they were okay. What kind of backward reasoning is that? A need existed at some point in history to protect both race and gender, and those groups were added to federal law to prevent further discrimination. That we did not evolve on the subject of sexual orientation at the same time makes it special or different?
Then again, Rubio also made similar claims in response to questions about his baby - the comprehensive immigration legislation meant to overhaul the current system. This is the GOP's last real attempt at policy-making (rather than policy obstruction). The Democratic party willingly let the GOP take the lead on this hoping to come to a bipartisan compromise. And the GOP has (for the most part) run with it. When even the thought of including gays and lesbians in the legislation was mentioned though, Rubio shut down and threatened to burn the initiative to the ground. "If this bill has something in it that gives gay couples immigration rights and so forth, it kills the bill. I'm done," Rubio said. "I'm off it, and I've said that repeatedly. I don't think that's going to happen and it shouldn't happen. This is already a difficult enough issue as it is." His extreme anti-gay positions aren't unique; they're at the core of the GOP's platform despite running counter to the general population's opinion on gay rights.
 |
Rick Perry signing "Merry Christmas" bill into law
Source: Office of the Gov. Rick Perry
|
He's not the only one though. A 2012 GOP contender who exited the race early on seems to be trapped inside the conservative bubble as well: Rick Perry. Just last week Perry signed into Texas law a "Merry Christmas" bill that makes saying the holiday greeting "legal" (you know, since it was completely illegal to say Merry Christmas prior to that). In signing the bill, Perry continued his erroneous line of thinking that atheism isn't legal by saying, "I realize it’s only June. But it’s a good June and the holidays are coming early this year. It’s a shame that a bill like this one I’m signing today is even required, but I’m glad that we’re standing up for religious freedom in this state. Religious freedom does not mean freedom from religion." [emphasis mine] Actually, had Perry or one of his advisors performed an ounce of research, they would've discovered that Americans actually do enjoy a legal freedom from religion - it was confirmed in Lemon v. Kurtzman forty-two years ago in 1971.
In that landmark decision, the Supreme Court established a test (called the Lemon test) to determine if something violates the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment. This test is still used today. The Lemon test requires three things of legislation:
- The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
- The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
- The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.
A cursory view of the test and Perry's new Christmas law would seem to indicate that the bill not only has blatant religious purpose, but also has the primary effect of advancing religion (specifically, Christianity). Again, this is nothing new for Perry. In his campaign ads last election cycle, Perry proudly proclaimed his Christianity and lambasted liberals for trying to "remove" our religious heritage (just before saying he wanted to get the evil gays out of the military again).
Are you seeing a pattern?
Just for kicks, let's look at one other 2016 GOP hopeful: Rand Paul. When not claiming that the Civil Rights Act shouldn't have been passed (and then lying about that claim later thinking he wouldn't be called out on it), advocating "traditional marriage," or expressing manufactured outrage over terrorist organizations that don't actually exist, Rand Paul seems to believe misogyny and religious intolerance still make him a competent GOP politician. Just a few months ago he launched a preemptive attack on Ashley Judd over speculation that she might run for office in her home state. "Ashley Judd is a famous actress, she’s an attractive woman and presents herself well and — from what I understand — is articulate. But the thing is she doesn’t really represent Kentucky. I mean, she was a representative for Tennessee last year. She lives in Tennessee. So, I think you do need to make sure people know about that so people don’t think she’s really from Kentucky or lives here," Paul said. Except, Judd is actually an eighth generation Eastern Kentuckian. That's not even the worst of Paul's recent comments though.
At the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s Road to the Majority Conference recently, Paul stoked the fires in the "us versus them" manufactured war against Christians (that virtually every 2016 GOP candidate must claim in order to be a 2016 GOP candidate). "It saddens me to see these countries that are supposedly our allies that they continue to persecute Christians," he said. Paul went on to say "There is a war on Christianity. Not just from liberal elites here at home, but worldwide."
This isn't a communication problem - nor is it a branding problem. Taking a far right belief that marginalizes large swaths of the American population and placing a new label on it won't change the message (nor will it make that belief more popular). The sad truth of the matter is that to exist as a true GOP national-office-contender, you have to not only believe in but also advertise ideals the American population by and large disagree with. The American public believes the LGBT community shouldn't be discriminated against. They believe women should have adequate protections from their abusers (yes, I'm looking at each of you who voted against the Violence Against Women Act). They believe the immigration system should be overhauled and that petty squabbles and "I'm going home if we include the gays!" talk is childish and petty. The majority of the public views the core Republican party as mostly un-electable right now because of these things.
Where does that leave the GOP? Indeed it leaves them in a conundrum. Do they close their doors and re-write their anti-minority, anti-woman, anti-gay core beliefs and return in 2016 a changed party ready to legitimately challenge their Democratic counterparts? Or do they continue living in the three ring circus conservative bubble and continue promoting the Michele Bachmanns and Rick Santorums that could never win a national election? I for one look forward to the day when we have two policy options to choose from rather than one. Government only works when two (or more) points of view are presented, one is selected, and one is implemented. Currently, Republicans only seem to want to obstruct Democratic initiatives rather than propose their own side. And when they do actually offer policy suggestions, they refuse to compromise (and instead choose to obstruct with the threat of filibuster). That's not government - that's failure. Unless the GOP steps up to the plate and begins living up to their former glory, they'll be doomed to lose elections for the foreseeable future.
For virtually his entire life, Tim has been writing. Over the years he's dabbled in mainstream fiction, science fiction, dystopian fiction, and personal essays. The one consistent thread through his entire writing career has been blogging - he's been doing it since 1997 in one form or another. In creating Peacock Panache, he's combined two of his favorite hobbies: blogging and current events/politics. When not working here, Tim toils away at editing & rewriting the novels he's completed over the years. You can read samples of his other work here.
You can find Tim elsewhere online at his personal website. You can also find him on LinkedIn as well as on Twitter as @timsimms.
