On the surface, Republicans are already doing a good job of beginning to change their party. Gov Bobby Jindal of Louisiana gave a speech to the Republican National Committee calling on Republicans to stop being the stupid party, to stop insulting the intelligence of the American people.
Representative Paul Ryan gave a fine speech to the National Review Institute calling for prudence instead of spasmodic protest. The new senator for Texas, Ted Cruz, gave a speech to the same gathering saying the Republicans should be focusing on the least fortunate 47% of Americans.
But, so far, there have been more calls for change than actual evidence of change. In his speech, for example, Jindal spanked his party for its stale clichs but then repeated the same Republican themes that have earned his party its 33% approval ratings: Government bad. Entrepreneurs good. In this reinvention process, Republicans seem to have spent no time talking to people who didnt already vote for them.
Change is hard because people dont only think on the surface level. Deep down people have mental maps of realityembedded sets of assumptions, narratives and terms that organise thinking. Since Barry Goldwater, the central Republican narrative has been what you might call the Encroachment Story: the core problem of American life is that voracious government has been steadily encroaching upon individuals and local communities. The core American conflict, in this view, is between Big Government and Personal Freedom.
While losing the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections, the flaws of this mentality have become apparent. First, if opposing government is your primary objective, its hard to have a positive governing programme.
As Bill Kristol pointed out at the National Review event, the GOP fiercely opposed the Dodd-Frank financial regulation law but never offered an alternative. The party opposed Obamacare but never offered a replacement. John Podhoretz of Commentary added that as soon as Republicans start talking about what kind of regulations and programmes government should promote, they get accused by colleagues of being Big Government conservatives.
The next problem with this mentality is that it makes it hard for Republicans to analyse social and economic problems that dont flow directly from big government. For example, we are now at the end of the era in which a rising tide lifts all boats. Republicans like Mitt Romney can talk about improving the overall business climate with lower taxes and lighter regulation, but regular voters sense that that wont necessarily help them because wages no longer keep pace with productivity gains.
Americans are still sceptical of Washington. If you shove a big government programme down their throats they will recoil. But many of their immediate problems flow from globalisation, the turmoil of technological change and social decay, and theyre looking for a bit of help. Moreover, given all the antigovernment rhetoric, they will never trust these Republicans to reform cherished programmes like Social Security and Medicare. You cant be for entitlement reform and todays GOP, because politically the two will never go together.
Can current Republicans change their underlying mentality to adapt to these realities Intellectual history says no. People almost never change their underlying narratives or unconscious frameworks. Moreover, in the South and rural West, where most Republicans are from, the Encroachment Story has deep historic and psychological roots. Anti-Washington, anti-urban sentiment has characterised those cultures for decades.
Its probably futile to try to change current Republicans. Its smarter to build a new wing of the Republican Party, one that can compete in the Northeast, the mid-Atlantic states, in the upper Midwest and along the West Coast. Its smarter to build a new division that is different the way the Westin is different than the Sheraton.
The second GOP wouldnt be based on the Encroachment Story. It would be based on the idea that America is being hit simultaneously by two crises, which you might call the Mancur Olson crisis and the Charles Murray crisis.
Olson argued that nations decline because their aging institutions get bloated and sclerotic and retard national dynamism. Murray argues that America is coming apart, dividing into two nationsone with high education levels, stable families and good opportunities and the other with low education levels, unstable families and bad opportunities.
The second GOP would tackle both problems at once. It would be filled with people who recoiled at President Obamas second Inaugural Address because of its excessive faith in centralised power, but who dont share the absolute antigovernment story of the current GOP.
Would a coastal and Midwestern GOP sit easily with the Southern and Western one No, but majority parties are usually coalitions of the incompatible. This is really the only chance Republicans have. The question is: Whos going to build a second GOP