« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

GOP Classic

Growing up in the South means that you were raised on Coca-Cola. We don’t just call Coke, “Coke,” we call every soda made “Coke.” We believe Coke tastes better in a glass bottle than it does in a can. Every true Southerner has tried the unique concoction of drinking Coke with peanuts (in the bottle). We love Coca-Cola.

However, in the early 1980’s, Pepsi starting outselling Coke. After a few years of hand wringing and worry, on April 23, 1985, the Coca Cola Company—and this is still emotionally straining as I write this–abandoned its century old formula and introduced—sigh—“New Coke.” Oh sure, the consultants said it would be a great idea. The experts believed Coke needed to make a change to compete with Pepsi. Even the polling of focus groups told Coke executives that America would overwhelmingly prefer that new, sweeter mixture. It flopped.

The public outcry was immediate. Protests were organized. Op-ed pieces were written. Hundreds of thousands of angry calls were received by the company. One former Coke executive told me that the new formula “was the best worst decision an American company had made.” The experts, consultants and polling were shockingly wrong. Less than three months after New Coke’s introduction, the company announced the return of the original nectar of the gods in July 1985.

Later, it was determined that notwithstanding the taste tests and the science, the company underestimated the visceral impact such a change would have on its loyal generations of drinkers. They had kicked out the old family dog in favor of a new puppy. Coke was a constant through wars, civil unrest, changing economies, a changing culture, and according to the commercials, Santa Claus’s beverage of choice. The company learned that you just couldn’t change who you are.

Yet, that’s what many in the GOP want to do. The experts, consultants and strategists are wringing their hands and gnashing their teeth trying to come up with the New GOP that can beat the Democrats in the next four years. The problem is that we’ve allowed some of the same people tinker with GOP Classic for a decade; and there are not enough folks who remember the original formula.

Republicans made their first significant alteration to their successful recipe when they abandoned their healthy skepticism and economic concerns of existing entitlement programs by managing the largest overhaul and expansion of Medicare with the creation of Medicare Part D. Not only did we seem to forget we were the party of smaller federal government, but we also seemed to forget our belief in the free market economy. A Republican Congress prohibited the Federal government from negotiating discounts with drug companies in this program.

Apparently, this was a subtle enough change that those loyal to GOP Classic didn’t revolt.

Some time passed, and the “leaders” of the party of Lincoln decided they needed to tinker again. Somewhere a long the way, “they” decided the GOP needed to adopt the language of the Democrats. Very subtly, Republican candidates began referring to the “middle class.” This was akin to Coke abandoning “It’s the real thing,” or “I’d like to buy the world a Coke,” for whatever ad campaign Pepsi was running at the time. The moment my party started to referring to the “middle class,” we gave up on a core belief and gave credibility to the artificial class warfare of the Democrats. Sure America has low- middle- and high- income earners, but the moment we acknowledge a class, we give up on the truism that we live in a country that with hard work and a refusal to quit you can be poor today, rich tomorrow, and (after you pay your taxes) somewhere in the middle next week.

Again, nobody seemed to care.

Our candidates running for federal offices then started promising that they had plans to create jobs. This was like trying to swap a Coke for a Diet Pepsi—it just didn’t taste right. GOP Classic was when Reagan told us the government was not the solution to our problem but rather government is the problem. Apparently the New GOP is trying to sell the intellectually confounding concept that the Democratic government is not the solution to our problem, rather, a REPUBLICAN government is  the solution to our problem. That’s like telling folks that drinking a diet shake WITH their meal will help them lose weight. This idiocy has gotten so bad that some GOP “strategists”—whatever they are—recently blamed the loss of Romney’s presidential bid, in part, on the success of our Republican Governors, observing that states with GOP governors were doing better economically hurt Romney’s message. Apparently there is no room for Federalism and State’s rights in the new GOP formula.

These job promises may have been that one ingredient too many. The culmination of this experimentation has created a situation where the people who have always believed in the party that ended slavery, got our nation out of Vietnam, and reminded us that we are a “Shining City on a Hill,” no longer recognize what they are drinking.

The post mortems of the Romney loss will continue ad nauseam. The critics, experts, Tea Partiers, moderates, fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, strategists, talking heads, contributors, pundits, consultants, Evangelicals, Right-wingers, Catholics and Mormons all have their particular issues which they believe will be the silver bullet to “fix” the GOP. In dealing with the fiscal cliff, we have so few Republicans in Congress now who have ever actually run a small business (or remember when they did); they struggle to articulate solutions to problems they have never personally experienced. (The Democrats have fewer still but this is not about them).

None of these will work until our party remembers the formula for GOP Classic. We believe in a smaller federal government. We believe in strong state and local governments. We believe in the free market. We believe in the individual. And we believe in freedom. Everything else is marketing. That’s the real, real thing.

Patrick Millsaps is the former Chief of Staff for Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign and can occasionally be seen on CNN as a commentator.  He is a partner with the Hall Booth Smith lawfirm.

COMMENTS

  • Brookhaven

    Consider it in relation to the “law of two” (another marketing theory).

    In any market niche, there is only room for two players–the main entrant (usually the one to establish the niche) and the alternative. All others will end up as also-rans.

    The iPhone established the smartphone market, and would be considered the main player. Android has established itself as the alternative to the iPhone (and now has over 70% of the smartphone market–sometimes the alternative ends up being more popular than the main player).

    If you divide soft drinks along flavor lines, then colas would be the main player. 7-Up managed to grab a huge share of the soft drink market by positioning itself as the primary alternative to colas (the uncola).

    You can’t become one of the two main players in any product category by emulating the primary brand (me too). You have to position yourself as the alternative.

    The GOP will only grow larger than the Democratic party by positioning itself as the clear-cut alternative to the Democratic party. It’s not doing that now, and thus will (imho) shrink over time (just as 7-Up’s sales shrunk after they quit positioning themselves as the clear-cut alternative to colas.

    I am not advocating a 3rd party. But, if a 3rd party arises that is a clear-cut alternative to the Democrats, it will draw off more than enough support to kill the “me too” party. If the GOP continues on its present path, this is exactly what will happen. Instead of issuing dire warnings about not starting a 3rd party (which will simply be ignored by anyone leaning that way), why not point the finger at the GOP and ask “why are you pursuing a strategy that will eventually result in a 3rd party and the GOP’s demise?”

  • Colin Carr

    Rush just mentioned this post

  • UpLateAgain

    You couldn’t be more wrong. If a tax cut results in increased, rather than decreased revenues, the tax cut has been paid-for. The whole concept of “Paying for tax cuts” assumes a static economy, where one segment loses if another wins. Free market economies are NOT static. That’s the whole point.

  • tomcatdriver

    “Ask any business person how you increase revenue and they’ll almost unanimously tell you to reduce the price”

    excellent example because it illustrates the imit to which you can reduce the price. A business cannot reduce the price of a product lower then the cost of providing it. Volume doesnt matter when you reach that point.

    When that happens you have two choices if you want to keep cutting prices, identify cuts to lower the price you have to pay (ie find programs to cut) or go ahead and cut prices as a going out of business sale.

  • tomcatdriver

    What distinguishes our current faltering nation-building efforts is the
    refusal of our leaders, especially the current administration, but
    including the libertarian wing of the GOP, to recognize and identify the
    existential threat posed to the West by the growing coalition of
    Islamist nations.”

    the pivot point between US Post war efforts in Germany and Japan as opposed to Iraq is one word: Planning.

    Neither theater of action had a successful conclusion to the war as assured by 1943 but both Ike and Doug had large groups inside their respective commands looking hard at what “post war” Germany and Japan looked liked…so when troops conquered towns (as in Germany) or moved into towns as in Japan they knew EXACTLY what to do, who stayed (the cops and local leadership) and who went…(the political guys)

    There were no scenes in Japan or Germany of massive looting or infrastructure destruction. There were plans how to assembled both nations armies and return them to civilian life or keep some of them…

    Both “Ike” and “Doug” had time in the Philippines and their staffs studied those lessons hard. It paid off. There are other differences and those are important but those were all deal able with.

    The lack of planning in Iraq haunted us to the day the Iraqis finally said “leave”.

  • viperscale

    That’s why Foreign aid has to go…Republicans “say” they do not believe in government stimulus to help the economy when they give foreign aid to other countries to “help” their economy.

  • paxcat

    Great analogy!

  • tomcatdriver

    “The bigger problem in both Iraq & Afghanistan is the assumption we
    had something to offer that they were interested in (other than dumping
    the present regime).”

    I’ll stick with planning as the big issue and I would modify your line to say “…is the assumption we could give them something that they had to earn for themselves”

    The most successful intervention by a foreign country in a regional civil war was the French in what we call “our Revolution” (it really was a civil war). The French were very careful. They started with “covert aide” which was very well implanted, then they slowly upped the anti to direct aide and only when the “Rebels’ had both a functioning army and a sort of civil government then did they move in with troops…but even there they were careful. They only helped Washington and only did things he couldnt do …the French always let Washington and his troops do the heavy lifting.

    At the end of the war the French simply left; they didnt garrison or do anything they just left.

    Then there was some group which had earned legitimacy.

    Look we are all just going to have to sit back and see how things work out; the strong people who ran various countries couldnt last forever and history is sweeping them aside…but I would note this

    In the end the least problem in the region is “religion”. It is a problem now but when things are changing in society some people tend to “move” toward relgion as a comfort. But in the end the era of organized religion affecting politics in a large way is ending almost world wide. The religious right in this country was pretty ineffective in the last election.

    Whats moving the needle overseas is the novelty of having to sort out what things “mean” in a democracy on their own. Its going to be messy and some people are going to die (as happened in ours) but in the end I would be more surprised then not if in say 25 years Iran, Egypt and Iraq are (in that order) both functioning democracies and functioning economies.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    If I read you correctly you are saying, get back to fiscal sanity, small government, and federalism or you will continue to lose! To which I say AMEN.

    But it should be noted that this was never the actual policy of the GOP. It was a policy forced upon it, for a while, by Ronald Reagan. Under the Bush’s the GOP went back to Rockefeller Republicanism, and those guys are more in charge now than they have ever been.

  • http://www.mattmodleski.com mattmodleski

    I think we need leaders who have lived what they believe (not perfectly mind you) because you can’t sell something that you don’t passionately believe. Once you can sell the value of conservatism in terms that make sense to everyday people, and do it with passion, you’ll have the right formula for success. America is waiting to be led and I think most Americans are ready for the truth….the problem is nobody will tell them.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    Try and be serious for a minute and not just sarcastic. Do you really equate our recent bumbling in the near east with our decades long opposition to international communism? I certainly do not.

  • commonsenseobserver

    Paying for tax cuts with spending cuts is the natural conclusion of a starve the beast strategy (which, unfortunately, has been ignored in our zeal for tax-cutting).

    Even if tax cuts do bring in more revenue, number one, the Democrats will still blame them, and number two, it doesn’t remove the need for government spending cuts which would have been a lot more convenient if paired with tax cuts in the first place.

    The problem isn’t revenue itself, nor is it only a lack of revenue, but it’s the bloated size of Washington. Tax cuts do little to solve that on their own.

  • commonsenseobserver

    The US could help the Japanese rebuild because the Japanese didn’t happen to have some kind of military insurgent resistance, and we retained existing constitutional structures in some places.

  • commonsenseobserver

    I agree. I could accept the spending cap, and I do think market-based choice and competition could actually allow us to meet those targets which would be nearly impossible if IPAB controlled the thing through top-down rationing, but while Obamacare did contain some innovative payment reforms like bundled payments which may be good, the top-down approach works against a genuine reform based on competition and choice, with occasional tweaks through a transparent, democratic process.

  • Brookhaven

    Bingo! The problem is spending.

    No matter how much we reduce taxes to stimulate the economy, we’ll never stimulate it enough cover the current level of government spending. We’ve reached the tipping point where we can no longer just “grow” our way out of debt.

    We have to seriously talk about cutting the size of government.

  • commonsenseobserver

    Not really. The difference is, those countries don’t have to pay for it themselves. ^^

  • commonsenseobserver

    It’s not really “paying for the tax cuts” as much as “pairing spending cuts with tax cuts”.

  • commonsenseobserver

    I don’t know, I thought Bush had a well-thought out position in 2000, against nation building while committing to Reaganite peace through strength.

  • perdido

    Mattmodleski,
    You are exactly correct. It’s been mentioned and noticed and that’s why Republicans got a crappy turn-out this year. They talk the game, but as we saw 2001 -2006 (we they were unceremoniously dumped) they don’t actually cut spending.
    Real, actual conservatism works every time. This business of “Common Sense Conservatism ala Heather Wilson (NM) or any other variation of the recipe (GOP-Zero) doesn’t sell.
    You,Sir, are correct. Republicans are not running true conservatives. And they and we are paying the price.

  • perdido

    Oh, America is being led alright… led right down the shi**er.

  • perdido

    Still don’t get it, eh? Pity.

  • diamondreo

    Thankyou for bringing back Washington’s, and many others from that time’s feeling about National Defense. We must always have a Defense proportional to our economic standing in the world, but what they sought is that we kept it ‘close to the vest’ though it might and probably would be immense as we grew in prosperity. Since it hasn’t been tried for a while now, no one knows what that looks like, or how effective that would be. But potentially, it would be a way to satisfy many more hawks and doves than the way we’re doing things today…and probably a lot cheaper yet even more powerful in the most important ways. Of course, it wouldn’t be set-up for nation building.

  • aberdeenvet

    Because the MSM will tell them it is so, and the ignoramuses will wholeheartedly agree.

  • aberdeenvet

    I am sitting here drinking my MexiCoke Classic in a green tinged bottle bemoaning the loss of Classic Republicanism that I am afraid will never be seen again. Instead we have gotten the following:

    “We cannot expect the Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism.”

    Soviet Leader Nikita Khrushchev, 1959