“Re-branding” Massachusetts Conservatism

After a horrible election cycle, where even a Republican candidate who received an endorsement from the Boston Globe and Berkshire Eagle Tribune (doesn’t get any farther left than this until you reach Pravda) we should have been given pause to think. Certainly the tax proposal on the ballot gave a superb platform for the progressives to organize state workers (SEIU) and that part of the urban community who is rich with people receiving government benefits.  However, that explanation, while very true, is insufficient.  We are getting beat because we have been “branded”, branded as un-caring…branded as rich…branded as greedy.  The Mass Republican Party has been “branded” as the party of greed, unwilling to share the spoils of her labors.

In fact, conservatives are the ONLY HOPE for the self same populations that were organized against our candidates.  Why aren’t WE branding the Democrats/Progressives as “the Party of Fixed Incomes”? Isn’t THAT the downside of government benefits?  How many of us haven’t heard our retired parents or grandparents bemoan this? Yet the rhetoric of redistributed income, doled out in small allotments to “the needy”, making them only marginally less needy is hailed as kindness.

For the Republican Party to thrive (and for them to “recruit” me as a member), they need to re-brand themselves as the party of workers, the last best hope for the common working person.  And, in the process, the progressives need to be branded as the party of marginalization.

Why? Because it is the stark truth.

About Chip Jones

  • Here is a link to something I posted in another thread that is relevant here as well.


    There is now a class divide in the Republican party. Mitt Romney, the leading establishment candidate for the party’s presidential nomination in 2012, draws support from affluent, college-educated Republicans. Voters without college degrees, on the other hand, look more favorably on Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin – the potential candidates who most consistently rail against “elites” and “country-clubbers.”

    That fraction may help explain why white voters without college degrees – a definition of the white working class that has been embraced by many political scientists – have grown more likely to vote for Republicans, most markedly in the South, not coincidentally home to some of the country’s lowest-cost metropolitan areas. If we assume that these downscale Republicans don’t look to government for their economic security, at least until retirement, it is easy to understand why they feel free to vote according to their values. They may well resist tax increases designed to pay for programs for other people, especially those seen as undeserving.

    The data suggest that conservatives ought to focus more intently on devising an agenda that addresses the concerns of lower-middle-class voters. Formulating such an agenda would have three advantages.

       First, it would help the Republicans to keep and build on their existing working-class vote, which, as we have seen, is especially likely to swing between the parties. Second, it would indirectly help Republicans win upper-middle-class votes. Bereft of a policy agenda that appeals to lower-middle-class voters, Republicans often seek their votes using a cultural message that sounds strident and anti-intellectual to college-educated voters. If Republicans are perceived to be dividing voters into two categories, “real Americans” and “latte-sippers,” voters who fall in the second group understandably recoil. Third, such an agenda might help Republicans make modest inroads among working-class Hispanic voters and even black voters – at least among the considerable number of these voters who make political decisions based on pocketbook concerns rather than identity politics.