This looks like a terrific read:
In THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM, New York Post and RealClearPolitics.com columnist Ryan Sager argues that the GOP has lost its way and that its wrong turn will cost it — not just in conservative dreams deferred, but ultimately at the ballot box.
The problem — the elephant in the room, if you will — is the so-called “big-government conservatism” embraced by President Bush and the leaders of the GOP Congress. The conservative movement has long been a fusion of social conservatives and libertarian conservatives around a shared commitment to minimizing the power of Washington, D.C. But as the GOP has taken over the nation’s capital, it’s gone native — and now all bets are off.
What’s more, as the nation’s population and electoral map shift South and West, the current Republican Party increasingly favors southern values (religion, morality, and tradition) over western ones (freedom, independence, and privacy). The result? The party is in danger of losing crucial ground in the interior West — specifically in “leave-me-alone” states such as Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, and Montana.
…
All hope is not lost, however, as Sager proposes a way out of the mangled mess. He calls it a renewal of fusionism, a better blend between liberty and tradition, between freedom and responsibility; one that emphasizes small government instead of Republican-controlled government, morality instead of moralism, and principles instead of politics.
The book’s subtitle is "Evangelicals, Libertarians, and the Battle to Control the Republican Party." Read Bruce Bartlett’s review at Human Events. Read the first chapter of the book at TCS Daily. I’m ordering a copy.
I suspect the only thing preventing even more libertarian-minded, limited-government Republicans from bailing on the party is the thought of what a Congress led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would be like.
Apparently, quite a few Americans are having second thoughts about that prospect. Throughout the spring and summer, the polling numbers for the GOP have been grim, and every media pundit in Washington has said that the Dems practically have a lock on taking control of the House and a good shot at the Senate. But Mike Franc at Human Events thinks the prognosticators may be all wet, and he points to recent polling showing significant shifts (emphasis added):
The September consensus: nearly unanimous. “Voter anxiety over the economy, health care and financial security,” the Washington Post’s Dan Balz observed, “threatens to put Republican candidates across the country on the defensive this fall.” Veteran Congress watcher Stuart Rothenberg predicted “a heavy-damage scenario for the Republicans.” The House minority leader even guaranteed that “we’re going to win the House back.”
Those prognostications were made in September 2002, before the last mid-term election, and they were all wrong. …
…
Four years later, Republican lawmakers are again facing ominous headlines: “GOP’s Hold On House Shakier” (Los Angeles Times), “GOP Seen to Be in Peril of Losing House” (New York Times) and “More GOP Districts Counted as Vulnerable: Number Doubled Over the Summer” (Washington Post). … With independent voters “alienated” and the Democratic base “energized,” once-safe Republican incumbents are now “on the defensive.”
Ignored was a Gallup Poll released in late August that found an unexpected tightening in what pollsters call the “generic ballot” question: “If the election were being held today, which party’s candidate would you vote for in your congressional district?” …
… The advantage for the generic Democratic candidate slipped from 11 points in late July, to nine points in early August, and then to a statistically insignificant two points (47% to 45%) in its August 18-20 survey. Among those most likely to vote, moreover, the Democrats’ advantage disappeared entirely, with Gallup reporting a dead heat: 48% to 48%.
Anxious to understand this movement toward Republican candidates, Gallup sorted the responses to the generic-ballot question into two new categories. Are Democrats, it wanted to know, “competitive in U.S. House districts currently held by Republicans,” or “just getting a larger-than-normal share of the vote in the districts they already hold”? …
Using area codes and exchanges to identify whether the voter resides in a district represented by a Democrat or a Republican, Gallup reviewed the 13 polls in 2006 in which it asked this question. Through July, Democrats not only posted two-to-one margins in districts they currently represent, but were unusually competitive in Republican-held districts as well.
For example, Democrats outpaced Republicans in Republican-held districts in several polls, with their advantage peaking at an astounding 11-point margin (51% to 40%) in late June. This verifies the widespread perception in conservative circles that Republican base voters were in open revolt against their party earlier this year.
But then Democrats began to lose favor in Republican districts, falling steadily from 51% in late June, to 46% a month later, then to 43% in early August, and finally to the current low of 40% in the August 18-20 survey. Support for Republicans, in contrast, rose 14 points in six weeks, from a low of 40% to its current level of 54%.
Personally, I think a good portion of that turnaround isn’t due to anything the GOP did — it’s disgruntled Republicans looking at and listening to the country’s leading Democrats, and saying, "Whoa… are these folks for real?!?" — and then swallowing real hard and deciding that the good-for-nothing, unprincipled Republican who they had no use for a few weeks ago may be tolerable after all.
I can understand that. I hate that things are that way, but I can understand it. My best-case scenario for this November’s election is that the Republican base is just pissed enough to badly scare and chasten the GOP, and maybe get some of them listening to people like Sager (or even Gingrich) — but that we avoid having to live with Speaker Pelosi. [shudder]
