The attacks are so familiar, virtually every Republican repeats them with ease. They are so simple, even the least effective can use them and the best communicators can make them stick. The basic principle is: those rich, educated people living on the coasts know nothing about you; they want to run your life; they're the reason for your problems. Of course the attack is not really about regions; it's one of the Republicans' best class warfare weapons, pitting struggling workers against the party that wants to help them. Simply, it's how you hold together a coalition of business leaders and the workers and consumers they often exploit. You give the money to the businesses and spurn resentment among the masses. Resentment, I would argue, is about as effective as fear, which is to say very.
It's important to remember that this attack, once again, is not about region; it plays on the disparities in education level, standard of living and access to health care just as much as it focuses on religion and a fundamentally flawed definition of individual liberties. The reason I emphasize this point is because the Democratic party has programs that will alleviate many of the reasons for the underlying resentment altogether. The ability to win elections partly based on this attack has always been a motivation for the Republican party to not focus on the needs of the worst off, and, just as likely, work against those people's best interests.
My point is the argument does not need to be defended against. It needs to be defeated. It needs to be exposed for its ridiculousness so it can never again motivate a politician to work against the best interests of even the voters who put him or her in power.
The attack becomes even more ironic and tragic when one remembers the third, and often most influential, member of the Republican coalition, which is an intellectual elite whose roots are in Goldwater and Buckley, and who have always forced themselves further and further into an intellectual bubble whenever the Republican party gained enough power to ostensibly implement their inherently contradictory view of government. Yet, the leadership of the Republican party always has numerous of their disciples for one reason: their work at developing a core philosophy to define conservatism has attracted just enough Ivy Leaguers, just enough government majors and just enough intellectually curious people to add to their ranks. Enough to fill think tanks, stuff editorial boards, as well as cast votes on legislation. Bush 41 sent his son George to Yale for a reason; although I would argue they failed to impart the education I would expect of such a prominent institution.
Try as you might, you will likely never find a 10 second attack to effectively fight the "culture war." The goal of this Republican tactic is to distract. Once one engages in the argument, too often, they become an unwilling accomplice towards its effectiveness. It's not a war that can be fought to victory; it must be ended. Oh, the metaphors.
You end the culture wars by acting in defiance of its assumptions. You raise the minimum wage, lower taxes on middle and lower class Americans, provide mothers with day care, give children opportunity from pre-K to college. You keep religion as much as possible out of government, but equally diminish the derision that too often comes from those who have spent decades in the trenches of this political battle. You open campaign offices in the reddest states and districts and talk to as many of the people possible who have fallen for this particular ploy.
In short, this source of division can only be ended through a period of Democratic leadership, during which the policies being proposed now are put into effect; but the roots of that success can be implemented now, which to a large extent they are. The result is new combinations of states electorally in play, as well as different margins in states that remain easily defined.
For this reason, tactically, the Republican party really only has one option: double down on every possible culture war attack; find any source of division within the electorate. This falls perfectly into their grand strategy of tactical decisiveness regardless of changes in the contours of the field of battle. This is because, simply, their only other strategic option would be to truly run against President Bush, admit their failure, and develop new and innovative policies that meet the reality they have created. This would be smart for the future of the Republican party, but suicide for their immediate electoral goals.
So we know their plan. We know pretty much exactly how they're going to implement it. We know their motivations, as well as their desperation. We know America's economic and foreign policy position will make fewer voters susceptible to distraction.
One piece remains to set up inevitable checkmate. Thankfully, it's filled with enough irony to fit its consequence. The Democratic political and intellectual leadership, that so called eastern elite that has been a focal point of this particular engagement must stand down in the culture war. The battle is raging over how to save our economy and end the war in Iraq, where our inherent strengths provide decisive strategic advantages. Why waste the time fighting what could become an inconsequential skirmish in our victory.