How the Republican Party can win in 2008

Common knowledge has it that this year's elections, representative and presidential, are for the most part an easy win for the Democrats. This, presumably, you already know; if for no other reason than having read my earlier post, "Can the Dems Fumble the Ball?" So, here's a point-by-point analysis of the GOP's chances, and what it can do to win.

1) The Economy: I was perversely satisfied when polls showed that most voters believe the economy is the most important issue facing them this election, rather than what I would have expected: the war. The economy is taking a definite down-turn, and that's bad for all of us. This is an advantage for the liberals because a bad economic situation makes people yearn for New Deal-like government intervention. However, the refund-thing-check that many taxpayers will be getting this year is a good thing: it's putting more money back in the pocket of the consumer, rather than the government. This is a sure-fire, old-fashioned way to stimulate the economy, and will probably be popular. So, my analysis is that this issue could go either way, but still leans left. What that means is that voters who think the economy is the greatest concern will probably go Democratic.

2) The War: It was on everyone's minds in 2006, and the liberal media forecasted that it would be the deciding factor in 2008. That doesn't look like it will happen, but it's certainly a nearly-top priority. Many Americans see our presence in the Middle East as a greedy intrusion, only to safeguard our oil. Frankly, they might be right about the oil part. I mean, think about it. Darfur and North Korea and other places have more or equally tyrannical governments than Iraq or Afghanistan. However, we leave them pretty much alone. Why? Because, in my opinion, they don't have oil. Black gold. I don't see much wrong with this actually. We secured a needed resource and liberated two peoples in the process. I don't think that's a problem. It's as defensible as a nation invading its' corrupt, evil food-producing neighbor with two motives in mind, (1) liberate the people, and (2) safeguard our access to a vital resource. Which brings me back to my central view on the war: we can't lose, we can't leave, so we might as well win. Losing would end America as a world power. Leaving would abandon Iraq to the dogs--the very tyrants who had power before we invaded. Winning, however, would bring one more functioning democracy into the world, give us another ally in the middle east, and make quite certain that our oil supplies are not impeded. This, I think, should be clear to most people--even the voting ones--and thus although at first glance it seems like a cert for the Democrats, I think that we can convince voters of this view. Conclusion: This issue tends Right.

(3) Health Care: HillaryCare, the debacle that sounded the end of President Clinton's honeymoon back in 1994, has been resurrected by Hillary Clinton as one of her campaign promises. What is HillaryCare? Quite simply, it's a complete socialization of the health care system, making it a government program instead of a private sector enterprise. At first glance, that seems ideal. Something about health-care-for-profit does tickles a deep, Robin Hood bone in me, but I have to suppress it. The government would ruin health care like it has ruined public education, and like every other wealthy, industrialized nation has ruined health care. Our health care system is the best in the world, and getting better. Canada, for example, instituted socialized health care and now many citizens are calling for the old system. I won't go into it here, but for an in-depth analysis of the subject, I suggest David Gratzer's "The Cure." His conclusions are interesting, not necessarily a good way, but his data on socialized health care is eye-opening. Not wanting to be left of the band-wagon, Mr. Originality Barack Obama has also started trumpeting a version of socialized health care. However, if the issue gets accurate reporting, the Right has the advantage: if socialized health care gets the stigma it deserves, this issue is a cert for the Right. Conclusion: Right-Leaning.

4) Abortion & Euthanasia: The country has mixed messages about Abortion: polls indicate that a majority of Americans strongly support Roe, but are in favor of restricting Abortion. This is an interesting side-effect of the deification of Roe, and an interesting cultural phenomenon. The partial-birth abortion debate turned the country right-ward on Abortion, and that trend continues. Informed-consent laws, a dearth of government funding for abortions, and a general skittishness about the whole issue have turned the tide against the so-called "Pro-Choice Majority." Re-reading Ponnurru's "Party of Death," I'm confident that Abortion will one day be seen as a national nightmare--on the scale of slavery. Euthanasia, brought into the headlines with the Terri Schiavo debacle, is another issue the Democrats have embraced. Ponnurru reports that a Democratic operative reported, in the wake of the controversy, that "We can't just be the party of death all the time." Which brings me to my conclusion: the Republicans can win this year. We can win by exploiting these issues, and by pulling no punches on anything.

In conclusion, liberals make up a smaller portion of the electorate than conservatives. Hypothetically, that means that they must work harder every election. Forty-five years ago, this was opposite. What changed? The Democrats became the party of death. Although the tide is against us this election year in many ways, we can win.