Are Republicans Obsolete?
In another departure from our usual editorial policy, we are going to explore the Republican implosion. We thought it might be educational to all in examining how a party can be swept into office with great fanfare, only to dismissed with contempt. It is a lesson that the Republicans may rebuild from, and that the Democrats should look at with great attention.
The Facts on the Ground
- The Republicans, in 1994 swept to power on the promise of "The Contract With America".
- Since then, most publicity has gone to increasingly polarized "wings" of both parties.
- The Republican party has been ineffective in carrying out it's agenda during the Bush Presidency.
- In two years, the government has gone from majority Republican with a Republican President to a Democratic legislature and White House.
Overview
How did such a good idea in 1994 turn out so badly in 2009? How does a Republican Congress under a Democratic President accomplish more of the Republican agenda than a Republican Congress under a Republican President? Simply put, the Republicans did not deliver on the Republican Agenda. We should clarify that... In 1994 Newt Gingrich, a conservative congressman from Georgia, put together a package of conservative goals packaged as the "Contract With America". It was, pure and simple, taken directly from the conservative playbook - lower taxes, cut the deficit, strong defense, welfare reform, job creation and an appeal to the middle class (especially the Reagan Democrats, who went with Clinton over Bush in 1992) to come home to their traditional values. The appeal worked, President Clinton read the handwriting on the wall, and decided to work with the conservatives to accomplish some big things. Welfare was reformed, the deficit was eliminated - things were going surprisingly well until that "thing" happened with "that woman".
Here was the first hiccup - a violation of the first law of Goldwater, Buckley and Reagan - You can give the religious right a seat at the table, but you can't let them chair the meeting. Goldwater was famous for his aversion to the religious right, claiming that they "would be the death of the Republican party". Reagan gave them a seat at the table, but not much else except his belief that abortion was wrong. Buckley's conservatism said that no politician has any rights in a person's home, or within the family circle. Even Bush 41 did not do anything to extend more than a friendly hand to them. And that was okay - really, where were they going to go? Certainly not to the Democrats - who they viewed as Godless sinners promoting homosexuality and the decline of American civilization.
Gingrich looked at the numbers before the election of 1994, and rethought the policy. Gingrich didn't want just a win, he wanted a win with a message - an unmistakable message. A true mandate. He actively sought the votes and advice of the religious right and gave them not only an honorary chairmanship, but bullet points in the "Contract With America" and promised planks in the Republican Party platform. Gingrich got his unmistakable message, but in doing so, he created an actual power base for who were now called the "social conservatives". They now had the ability to make demands. And they did.
While Gingrich was out delivering on the Contract, the "social conservatives" were whipping their crowds into a frenzy, prepping themselves for 1996 and 1998. Bob Dole lost the Presidency in 1996, not so much because Clinton was riding a wave of popularity, but because Bob Dole scared the public at large by all the lurches right that he had to make. The lurches right were not on the traditional conservative platform, where he always stood firmly on the right - but on what "social conservatism" made important. Issues that were not traditionally part of the political process, but private matters - religious affiliation, personal morality. They were issues prone to soundbites but with no easy answers - abortion, gay rights, social justice; and the debate was not meant to be civilized - opponents were meant to be cowed. As time moved on the "getting things done" that Gingrich was able to accomplish, became the sideshow to the Clinton impeachment, and the scandal of the week.
In 2000, the questionable advantage of the religious right became apparent. George W Bush was definitely their candidate - a rock solid social conservative. They voted for him in overwhelming numbers and delivered him to the Supreme Court, which delivered him to the White House. Bush did his own damage to the Republican Party from there. Bush started as an policy conservative and campaigned on strong defense, limited government and low taxes. To give him proper credit, he did start down that path, but history crashed into his presidency on 9/11. This piece is not to serve as an indictment of the Bush Presidency - he did what he had to do. Things went overboard, and to favor the strong national defense, the limited government and fiscal restraint went overboard without much hesitation. With it came a massive restructure and buildup of government (through the Dept of Homeland Security), some questionable surgery to the Bill of Rights, and spending money like the winner of Power Ball on a drunken spree. We can argue forever if it was necessary - what it was not was Republican or Conservative. George W Bush went against brand.
While Bush was rebranding, the leadership in the House and Senate stewed in confusion. They were not happy with the reckless spending, the ballooning deficit, or the early results in Iraq. They were also not willing to take on their President, and call him back to fiscal conservatism. There was pretty much anarchy - Republicans hounded for backing Bush, Republicans bending over for the religious right, Republicans trashing the religious right, and Republicans trying to act like Democrats. Pretty much everything but Republicans acting like the conservatives who signed the Contract With America (the thing they won on.). The result was that the Democrats put together a big win in 2006 and reclaimed the House and almost the Senate. In a shrieking flight to the center (which to a Republican means going left) the Republicans nominated John McCain to run in 2006, with Sarah Palin as a bone to the religious right. The tone of the campaign went from experience vs. the newbie, to change for change's sake. Faced with the choice of a repackaged Republican acting a bit unstable, and a new face pulling off the "coolness" of the new brand of superhero, the public shrugged and went with Obama. Obama's good fortune chased down the ticket too, solidifying the Democratic majority.
Analysis
Well that was the history - what would have worked better? And Democrats - pay attention, this is the same fickle public that saw 2 years of you in the majority with President Bush holding you off single-handedly. The people who put you there can turn on you just as quickly if you don't produce. It seems pretty easy to keep your power base if you follow a few simple rules:
- Define your positions and argue them intelligently - say no to the party of no - have a plan B ready
- Avoid the kook fringe - they are stuck with you. Sean Hannity and his minions will never vote Democratic. Move On dot Org will never vote Republican.
- Don't mimic the other side. If the country wants a Democrat, they'll vote for one. If they want a Republican they will vote for one. If all they see is two of the same, they'll vote for the guy who always had those positions.
- As Rush Limbaugh is fond of saying "True conservatism wins every time it's tried" - stick with a winner. Reagan may be dead, but Reaganism (a positive outlook on America) never will be dead.
- Democrats - your patron saint JFK, would be run out of the Democratic Party today - he lowered taxes, expanded the military, cut the budget and deficits, and reached out to the world to promote American interests. He served Americans, not an assembly of every faction and interest group that this country has fractured into. Lose your kook fringe as well.
- Regardless of the campaigning, when you get to DC you need to talk to each other. We expect the work to get done, and we don't want to see a Democratic / Republican split on every bill. If only Democrats support the bill, it's wrong; if only Republicans support the bill, it is still wrong. This 3 Republican votes for approval of the stimulus does not make a bipartisan effort. Packages coming out of the legislative branch needs to carry with a majority of both parties agreeing to passage for the people to feel that partisanship is ebbing.If you can't achieve your grandest plan, it might be too grand - lower your sights and get more opposition on board. That does not mean sacrificing your principles. It means negotiating in good faith and meeting on common ground. Common ground exists - 80% of the public lives there. Congress needs to visit now and then.
- Live up to your promises and deliver on them - If you don't, you're just another liar.
Common Sense Dictates
In this past election, America elected to change. It was not so much about failed ideologies, but about failed opportunities. In the split government of the late 1990's President Clinton worked with the Republicans to make positive change happen. With a Republican President and a Republican majority, we expected more, and received far less. With a Republican President and a Democratic legislature we got nothing at all. We are now back to a Democratic President, and the last model to work well was to give him a committed Republican Congress - unless the Democrats step up and bring the Republicans along. Are the Republicans obsolete? Common Sense says no - good ideas spring from both sides of the aisle. What is obsolete is turning a deaf ear to the good ideas, wherever they come from.
RLB
Categories: Partisan Politics
Tags: bipartisanship
Couldn't have said it better myself - the Republicans abandoned their core principles to chase after Democrats. That was never going to work. For a change the Democrats took their cue from the Republican playbook - firm up the base, generate excitement, and expand your constituency. Reid and Pelosi are doing their best to undo Obama, but Obama certainly got the message. It will be interesting to see if he can hold it together now that he has to govern. It's been a mixed bag so far.
Reply to this
I think both Goldwater and Reagan are spinning in their graves right now. A true conservative looks to limited government, and like Reagan said "getting government off of the backs of people". Under the W, our defense was restored, but now you have the government raking out phonecalls and emails with "suspicious" words, and the "social conservatives" peeping into people's bedroom windows. I'm sure both would have reacted forcefully to 9/11 - wait - I don't think 9/11 would have happened under either of them - BUT, I think we could have counted on them to do what was necessary without going overboard or subverting the rights of Americans.
Reply to this
Goldwater - the guy from the atomic bomb commercial... I think that was ALL about him going overboard.
Reply to this
Goldwater is famous for saying that "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice". The atom bomb commercial was the democratic response to his feelings that the VietNam war was not worth the lives of U.S. soldiers (and by wars' end it was more than 53,000 American service members lives lost). His feeling was that it was VietNam's problem - not ours, and if we had to be involved, better that we arm them and let them deal with it, or just drop a bomb. That was the same thinking that Harry Truman (a Democrat) had when faced with the prospect of lives lost in an invasion of Japan at the end of WWII. He actually did opt for the bomb. The war ended with little further American loss of life. Patton said that the aim of war was not to die for your country, but to make the other SOB die for his. Losing our soldiers, even for a good cause is a tragedy. Losing them on a fool's errand is even worse. I have no problem with Goldwater's words or actions. Truman's either. We need more of that now.
Reply to this
Now there's some good conservative defense for Barry. Well thought out and passionate. Everything that McCain / Palin was not. The Republicans could learn from this article, and the Democrats really should pay attention. The country is in a big mess right now, and if something serious to improve things doesn't happen fairly soon, the American public might be ready to give the right another try - especially if they have a counter-offer to what Obama is pushing.
Reply to this
There really is a lesson for the Deomcrats here. Nothing at all came out of the 2006 - 2008 congress except the minimum wage adjustment. All of the other promises (ending the war, healthcare reform, cutting the deficit, immigration reform) went away like they were never made. They really were a do nothing congress, but at least we got to blame Bush for stopping any progress, but how sad is that really? With Obama in charge, there's no excuse for getting nothing done. I hope President Obama drives the change. I think Pelosi is to busy being Speaker.
Reply to this
All Americans are looking to elect "normal" people. The problem right now is that the nut jobs run both parties - it's the uber left hippie anarchists vs. the uber right nazi thought police. The reason Obama won is not so much his policies, but that he acted like a normal person while McCain was sputtering all over the country looking a lot like a crazy old man. Obama emphasized those issues people care about, and minimized all of the wacko left wing fringe issues. McCain's problem was that he tried to be "moderate" by appearing to be a Democrat - which he is not - and then sucked up to the Palin people. It sounded like he was talking out of both sides of his mouth, and angry to boot. He should have gone by this playbook - then he might have the nice crib in DC.
Reply to this
bullfrog is onto something - that's why I voted for Obama. He seemed more normal, more stable. It's funny too, because I really think that I'm more in tune with Republican economics and government policy. All of that government intervention has been a problem for me. I can't go with them though, because their social policy is insane. It marginalizes or disenfranchises whole chunks of the country on personal issues. They all trail back to the "religious right". Goldwater was a huge defender of gay rights - because he was offended by the Republicans trying to score points by turning up fear and hatred. Fear and hatred is the first step to removing liberty. Republicans have always stood for liberty. If they could clean house and lose the social bigots, I could vote Republican. That doesn't seem likely though.
Reply to this
That might be why the swing vote is so big now. It's hard to say that either party reflects my views very well - especially on social issues. The choice isn't between a puritan lifestyle and a Roman orgy, but that's how the political parties present themselves on it. There are differences in the political parties on economics, defense, state issues and all of that stuff the government is actually responsible for. Those differences all seem to be able to be worked through most of the time. It would be better for those things to be the definition of party rather than screaming at each other about issues that don't really concern government, and then carry the screaming to all other issues too,
Reply to this
I can still readily identify myself as a Democrat, and with their issues. I don't think that I'm in the wacko corner. I just believe that if the grown-ups aren't watching the kids get in trouble. Just look at Wall Street and the Morgage industry - as the two latest examples. Now don't get me wrong - there's nothing wrong with being rich, and I hope to get there myself, bbut just like every country is not the United States, there will always be crooks around who just want to work the system by taking advantage of others. Providing a legitimate service for even a ridiculous profit is okay, if people are willing to pay for it. Stealing from people, for even a small fee is not to be tolerated.
Reply to this
If you like the Republican conservative policy, but can't stand the social policy, the Libertarians are the ticket for you. All of the limited government and low taxes, with the government removed from you bedroom, your house, your property, and as much as possible, your life. Check them out at:
http://www.lp.org/
Reply to this
The Libertarians really are your ticket if you want to stay Republican but lose the social baggage. Everyone always argues against third parties, but the Republicans were a third party til Abe Lincoln came along. It only takes one.
Reply to this
I've been middle of the road for longer then I was ever party affiliated. When times change, the formulas to deal with them have to. Tax cuts aren't always right, throwing money at stuff isn't necessarily the answer either. Myy problem over the past few years is that both parties spend so much time on the culture wars that nothing actually gets done with regard to the country. They are elected to do an actual job, and as far as I can tell, none are doing it. Even in the miracle age of Obama, we have a spending bill loaded with goodies, and no real substance. As close as they get is sending some pork home, and bickering with the other side over silliness. If either party would get back to the business of governing, I would support them 100%. It's hope you can hope for.
Reply to this
Don't know if you can call them obsolete, but they are pretty useless in their current state. It's pretty bad when those Blue Dog democrats are to the right of half of the Republicans. It's a good thing Ronnie can't see this.
Reply to this
Hey, I voted for one of those Blue Dogs, and I'm already happier than I was with my old Congressman. Fiscal conservative, social liberal - that's where it's at baby!
Reply to this
Never thought I'd see the day when the Dems were more organized than the Reps. They're still not getting anything done, but at least they march in formation now. It's sort of weird to watch though, sort of like that bulldog on a skateboard. It just doesn't fit right in my mind.
Reply to this
Obsolete, I don't know - but definitely the oldest people on the planet - 3 dead guys (Reagan, Goldwater and Buckley) and McCain himself looks like he fought in the Revolution. Their mouthpiece is an overweight blowhard. It's no wonder people are having trouble taking them seriously. They need to join the 21st Century (or at least the 20th). If they want to be relevant anymore, they need to define what they stand for, and then do it. The last prez campaign was a joke - all sorts of fire and brimstone for the right wingers, and McCain doing his best to sound like John Q Democrat. As a younger voter, I can see value in Republican and conservative ideas - I just don't see anyone practicing them. If that's the case I might as well vote for the real Democrats.
Reply to this
I came over to the Republicans with the Reagan Democrats in 1980, stayed til Bill Clinton, and have been confused ever since. It's hard enough to find a candidate that represents my beliefs, no less a party. Somebody said that Obama got elected by sounding the most normal, but most normal out of who? A field that included Kucinich, Huckabee and the DA from Law & Order. Obama never sounded all that normal to me - he was always trying to out-Hillary Hillary. He played the race card like Hillary played the woman card - mostly very subtle, but very effectively. All of them are just in it for the power trip as far as I can tell. We haven't had a statesman since Reagan, and we haven't had someone even moderately qualified and talented running for President since Bill Clinton. This might be beyond what a party tune-up can fix. We need some serious talent to step up, and make some serious choices.
Reply to this
AC has a good point - maybe the whole system is broken. I voted for Obama expecting some change and fresh ideas. What I got was a bunch of Clinton retreads, and no visible break from Bush policy on anything - except in words. I'm disappointed so far - especially since this is on the heels of Pelosi and Reid taking over the Congress and Senate 2 years ago, and nothing happening. Maybe that's good - I'm not a fanatical Democrat - I don't share a lot of the crusading for fringe groups mentality, when the normal middle class (most of us)are hurting. But generally, I like their ideas better than the Republicans who just seem like penny-pinchers. I'm all out of my honeymoon phase now though, and wondering when what I voted for will get delivered.
Reply to this
I agree that the conservatives have thrown out fiscal responsibility as a key issue - it was one they always owned, and now they don't anymore, thanks to the W. I disagree about shucking off the social agenda though. These are issues that deeply resonate with many voters, and in changing times like these, we like to have an idea on where elected officials stand on these social issues. It's a legitimate thing to look at as these people may be involved in crafting laws affecting these very issues. I'd like to know what I'm getting before I buy it.
Reply to this
How old an argument is this? In 1988 you had Ross Perot arguing that there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the Republicans and the Democrats? Now all they do is scream at each other and nothing gets done - and - according to some of you, there's still no difference between the two sides. Maybe this is how it's supposed to be - make progress horribly slow so that it takes massive effort to get anything done. This way it's hard to screw up what the founding fathers set up. Major changes in policy require all three branches of government and the people of the USA to all be on board. If any are not, change is almost impossible.
Reply to this
The Republicans, as they currently are, have just joined the Democrats in being ineffective at governing. As far as I can tell, the switch in government was 6 years with the Republicans in charge left us with war 24 - 7 and nothing else getting done. The people tried goosing Bush in 2006 by switching up the Congress, but the Democrats got nothing done and we went back to War 24 - 7. So the people put in a Democrat President, but there's still not really a whole lot going on. Now that could just be Obama's style - he likes to throw ideas around before acting on anything, but he's done speeches on just about every subject so far, and there's been no real action on anything at all yet. That's the frustration.
Reply to this
That really is the issue - it's like we have all of these 3 year-olds throwing temper tantrums and not doing anything constructive on either side. Do we really need a 9/11 type thing to happen again to get us pulling together again instead of ripping things apart. We need an adult to supervise the kiddies in Congress, but Pres. Obama - reasoning with a 3 year-old is a waste of time for the adult, and annoys the 3 year old. Give them a swat on the butt and tell them to behave and clean up their mess.
Reply to this
Excellent analysis on this subject. The Republicans have absolutely lost their voice. The Democrats are still rabbling, but Obama caught on and remained steady. He didn't have exactly the message that America wanted, but it beat the no message and scrambling that the McCain campaign was reduced to. Republicans always won by being the responsible grown-ups in the room. Bush 43 lost the responsible part (the spending mostly), the Congress shot itself in the foot by not doing anything with their mandate for 6 years except 1 tax cut and 2 wars (and approving all of that spending). McCain lost what was left by alienating both the conservatives and the moderates, and by appearing unable to keep up with events. Follow the plan boys - you'll be on top again in no time.
Reply to this
A lot of the problem has been with the Republicans going after demographics instead of ideals we all can relate too. There was the effort to get the Hispanic vote, and the African-American vote. They claimed the "Party of Lincoln" as a way to say that slavery ended because of them - they are good for African-Americans. Guess what? That was a hundred and fifty years ago - what have Republicans done for minorities lately? You could say that it was the Southern Democrats who fought against integration in the 1950s and 60s - that was over 50 years ago - again, what have you done lately? The Republican Party can appeal to the minority vote - but on the basis of it's ideals, not by pretending to pander. The Republican ideals of liberty, independence,and self-reliance are traditional values among minority families. Republicans need to promote that they want to give minorities the tools they need to succeed - education, training, independence - and then the freedom to succeed by reducing the burdens of government on them. Republicans need to share their core value that everyone is born equal, and all should be allowed to rise as far as their ability and talents can take them. Republicans need to stress that it is the responsibility of government to provide the opportunity, and the responsibility of the individual to strive for his dreams. Republicans need to stress that their aim is Dr. King's - a society that is color blind and family oriented. These are values shared by all Americans - not just whites or minorities. The Republican "social" agenda, needs to be in compliance with it's political agenda - stressing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - that an individual's life is his own, and the decisions made by the individual are only the business of government when the rights of others are involved in the individual decision. Homosexuality should not be a political scapegoat. All can agree that no one is actually pro-abortion - most would be comfortable with abortion being safe, legal and RARE. Encouraging Families to succeed is a value shared by all, regardless of the make-up of that family. This is how the Republicans can open their "tent" - by staying true to their ideals, not by gimmicks like "the Party of Lincoln" or the elevation of Michael Steele (though it would be good if Mr. Steele tries some of these ideas). Then, maybe, the Republicans will be relevant again.
Reply to this
The roots of the Republican party go back to Jefferson, who fought for freedom from government. He believed that Federal government should be limited to necessary public service (pursuing diplomatic and trade missions abroad, having the States speak with one voice internationally)and defense (raising and maintaining a credible military). He believed that all other matters were either the domain of the States, or the local communities within them. He fought against the Federalist argument for a strong central government was necessary to preserve rights, and argued that a strong Federal government was actually a roadblock to the full enjoyment of a person's God given natural rights (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). He used the Alien & Sedition Acts of the 1790s to support his argument that all government grows towards tyranny and intrusion. Jefferson was not the perfect standard bearer, and his Presidency had the need to step away from his ideals at times, but the ideals voiced by his words are still relevant today. "All men are created equal and are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights." This has traditionally been the Republican stand - we only need to return to it to regain our footing, and our standing.
Reply to this
These things tend to cycle, and the Republicans are out now and the Democrats are in. Just because they are in doesn't mean a whole lot is going to get done, as is witnessed by the GOPs lack of results from 2000 - 2006 - they really did much more with Clinton in charge. Obama has been tripping over his own people now - calling out Dodd about the AIG bonuses, only to have Dodd say that it was all Geithner's idea. If the Bush White House was the Keystone Cops, the Obama Administration is starting to look like the Marx Brothers meet Abbott & Costello - only none of this is very funny. Somebody better get their act together or there will be no one to vote for in 2010.
Reply to this
Looks to me like both parties are obsolete. Back in the days of the smoke-filled rooms the parties would nominate two people who were actually qualified to be President, stick them up there at convention, and we would pick between them. This whole process now is more like American Idol political style. We shave it down from 12 contestants, and hear them perform over a few weeks (months, years) and the winner is the cute one who performs the best. That is not how the leader of the free world should be picked. Truly qualified people find the process demeaning and intrusive, leaving the field to the egomaniacs. Face it - JFK couldn't get elected today - Daddy was a bootlegger and Nazi-lover. It's just sad.
Reply to this
I'm never quite sure what to do with a Republican. Not your basic government issues Republican - low taxes, strong defense, law and order - that would be my normal affiliation. My confusion comes with the social Republicans. I agree with some of the stands, though in a less absolute sense. Abortion is wrong, but there are some cases when forcing the pregnancy would be more wrong. As a member of a group that has experienced some discrimination, I empathize with the gays, though I do not endorese their lifestyle. The 'religious right" are the scariest to me. While I appreciate their zealous support of Israel, it's not lost on me that the reason for the support is so that their Jesus can come back and bring all of the Christians to "heaven" and the rest of us are not invited. That would seem to be the worst sort of bigotry - one disguised as friendship. It would be helpful to me for them to lose the social agenda. Until then, I am stuck with equally imperfect Democrats.
Reply to this
Republicans in their current state are not obsolete - they are just irrelevant. They got their support in the 90's by presenting better ideas and working with Clinton to get them accomplished. Once they won everything in 2000, they stopped thinking, got lost behind Bush Jr. and did nothing. The Democrats are giving the Republicans an opportunity by presenting ideas, but not very good ones. Go back to the playbook - better ideas, work with people. Otherwise you'll never get back in power.
Reply to this
The conversation was started with Barry Goldwater, and he was a pillar of keeping the religious right out of the Republican Party. He felt that they would take over and destroy the message of economic prudence and maximizing liberty, and substitute a moral agenda that would alienate more people than it will draw. That seems to have come to pass. If he were alive and in charge, the first thing he would do is send them packing, and restorethe traditional conservative platform. There is nothing wrong with a message that promotes hard work leading to success, and trusting an individual to manage his own liberty.
Reply to this
As far as I'm concerned, both major parties are obsolete, and neither speaks well to my views. The analysis is right - the extremists have kidnapped both parties and left rational people to guess which one will do less damage. This is no way to run a democracy. Obama has been promising change since day one, and even he's hitting a brick wall. I don't do party politics anymore as a rule - I vote for the individual candidate, and his individual positions. Many times that is Democrat, but I no longer rule out voting Republican.
Reply to this
I think the core of solving the partisanship problem at the heart of all this is captured in point 6. When every vote breaks down party lines, the losing party feels disenfranchised, and comes away thinking that the government does not represent their interests. If more votes carried a majority of both parties, more people would have the impression that Congress is actually working for the good of the country - sort of like in the post 911 days, but prior to Iraq. If nothing else, if a big majority of the Democrats and a big majority of the Republicans thought something was a good idea, and could agree on a way to accomplish it together, something might actually get done. That would suprise people right there.
Reply to this
I hope that the Republicans get it together soon. I've had mixed feelings about Obama since day one. His foreign policy has seemed amazingly smart so far, but his domestic policy - especially on economic issues has been reckless at best. The auto manufacturer deal this weekend really got me going. Chasing the CEO out of GM might make people feel good, but as I understand the terms of the deal, they took the money and were given 90 days to come up with a restructure for further funding. I don't remember anything about Obama making personnel decisions. One of the other "conditions" are that GM stresses fuel efficiency. Out of all of the vehicle models that GM makes, 20 models are profitable. Out of those 11 are trucks and SUVs - under government mandate, those 11 profitable products are to be canceled and not offered anymore. Are we trying to fix GM financially or socially? I'm nervous about the government dictating what a private company produces - what does a congressman know about the automobile business or market? Shouldn't we get some expertise in here? Iaccoca got a bailout for Chrysler in the 70's, was left to fix things as he saw fit, and paid the government back with interest early. There was none of this screwing around with day to day operations by a bunch of political windbags who know nothing about running a business.
Reply to this
I've been getting the same sinking feeling over Obama for a few weeks now. He "acts" but either by 1) not thinking about it and reacting or 2) by defaulting to liberal agenda. It's not that he's not trying to be moderate - he says the right words - but his actions default to ultra-liberal. His taking it upon himself to have Waggoner removed from GM, and altering their product line (to eliminate 11 of their 20 profitable models) seems to be a model of government "damn the profits, lets experiment socially". You would think they would drop the low performers to increase productivity. This is what happens when the theorists partner up with the idealists, but forget to consult people out in the trenches who actually know what's going on, and what needs to be done to fix things. Time for a reality check Prez Obama.
Reply to this