The Ricochet Podcast - A Punch In The Nose

Episode Date: December 14, 2012

This week on the Ricochet Podcast, we’re joined by political consultant Mike Murphy for a look at the GOP’s future. Are demographics destiny? Is gay marriage a bellwether issue. We tackle those issues ourselves, with Mike, and later with The Transom’s (required reading around these parts) Ben Domenech, who takes the opposing view from Mike. It’s a passionate and spirited conversation about right... Source

Activate program. What is it about right to work that you oppose so much? Get the f*** out of my face! You do your work, and we will do our best. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall. It's the Ricochet Podcast with Peter Robinson and Rob Long. I'm James Lytleks, and on this iteration of the flagship Yak Fest, we've got Mike Murphy and Ben Domenick. Man, with smart guys like these, How come we're not winning more elections?

Let's have ourselves a podcast and find out why. There you go again. Welcome, everybody. This is the Ricochet Podcast, and it's number 147. This app's brought to you by Audible.com, the internet's leading provider of audiobooks. You knew that, right? How many of you have 100,000 downloadable titles across all types of literature, fiction, nonfiction, periodicals? Free? You got it.

Free audiobook of your choice. Go to audiblepodcast.com slash ricochet. Hi, folks. I'm James Lilacs with Rob and Peter, and it's beginning to look a lot like Cliffmas out there as we discuss what's happening with taxes, the economy, the party, and all the rest of it. How are you guys today?

In awe of you, as usual. Within the first 30 seconds, you came up with something totally fresh, original, memorable. I just made it up. I'm on my seventh cup of coffee. It's been that kind of a morning. And I assume that things out there don't look at all like Christmas. Here, the trees are bedecked by frosting. The ground has got at least a foot and a half of snow on it.

It's beautiful. It's the way it ought to be. I know I was complaining about a white by brown Christmas before, but this is at one time where you actually, in the back of your brain, can put everything aside and not worry about politics and the future of the republic and actually look at the smile on a young child's face and hear the tunes of yore and think there are things other than politics. The things other than politics, of course, will ruin our lives down the road and cause the society to collapse. But there are other things. And here we just have to take time away from it all. Or maybe it's like Christmas, like Cliffmas, to use your brilliant – I don't know what that would be, comparison.

Neologism. Neologism. It doesn't seem like it's that bad or that good. It seems like it's always been oversold. Right now I'm sort of scanning a bunch of stuff that I get, the Ricochet stuff, just to keep up with the current events. That's kind of the business we're in. And now suddenly the tide has turned a little bit. I notice that people say, well, it's not the worst thing in the world. Oh, this gigantic disaster that was

looming two weeks ago would bring the republic to its knees. Now they say, well, we'd be able to get around it. It wouldn't be so bad. And so I'm thinking that maybe like Christmas, it's like one of those things that, you know, it happens. It's nice.

It'll happen again next year. People make too big a deal about it. It's the new normal, right? Yeah. Not so bad actually. Peter, increasing debt, financial – No, I mean – well, to get – I just – this struck me about 10 days ago. I'm sure I was slow as usual but it struck me about 10 days ago. I'm sure I was slow as usual but it struck me about 10 days ago and I have had no reason to change my mind about it ever since.

Going over the so-called cliff means raising taxes, cutting Pentagon spending and giving the republicans all the blame. It's just – it's clear the democrats actually want to do this. Furthermore, as Rob points out, we've been hearing now from various economists, mostly on the other side, saying, well, you know, it really wouldn't be that bad. Each department of the government has certain cash reserves. They could continue to spend money until those cash reserves come down. The tax hikes would kick in slowly. We'd still have another couple of months to work out some kind of compromise. It will happen.

We're going over the cliff. That's what I think. I agree. There's no downside for them and there's no upside for us, ergo. So, I mean, if you want essentially to enshrine the concepts of progressive governance, one of the things you've got to do is destroy the opposition. And since it's hard in this society to get people comfortable with guillotining them in the public square, and there would be a market for that. There would be a great reality show for that. That's not a good – I think we should bring that back, by the way. You're still going to have some pushback from some people if we start executing the opposition. As we saw in Michigan this week, however, one thing that the left finally has come out of the closet about, so to speak, is that, you know, political violence is kind of fun. It's kind of fun to beat up the other guys,

especially when they got a punchable mug and they've been asking for it. A gawker of all places, of course, legitimate side has come out and said, you know, do we really have to be all sad and down at the mouth about the fact that Stephen Crowder got his butt whooped and his face kicked at a union rally? Isn't that really sort of the thing that progressives ought to celebrate? we do all the time and that one guy gets a punch in the nose and then we go nuts and complain about it and whine and and and moan and say oh they're just as good look at you you guys are doing this terrible thing just like you just like you say we should do and and it always seems to me like we always we always come out of the wrong side of that and then look and become even more furious and look even more childish. Look, I mean it's not breaking news that union thugs were punching the notes. So I'm a little bit – like I get it.

I understand the principle. But I'm a little tired of hearing about the fact that, yes, I get it. A Fox News contributor got his nose punched. OK. OK. Hold on. If you're tired of hearing about it, cover your ears for the next 27 seconds, because that's how long it's going to take me to remind everybody that when there was that terrible shooting in Arizona, the president of the United States flew to Arizona and gave a speech in which he, by broad but unmistakable implication, suggested that talk show hosts, conservative talk show hosts had created an atmosphere in which violence could take place. And in Michigan last week, the president of the United States went to Michigan and on one day, he defied the duly elected Republicans in the state legislature and the duly elected governor of the state

and said to union members, this is about reducing your ability to earn fair wages. And the next day, union guys roughed somebody up and nobody suggested that Barack Obama had contributed to an atmosphere in which violence could take place. It's just outrageous. Now, Bob, you can take your hands off your ears. No, I heard – yes, you're right. I'm not – yes, correct. It's lopsided. Boo-hoo.

Now we argue as we always do about what the media lets us get away with and how unfair everything is when we should be saying – we should be using our precious airtime, which is very, very little, to talk about right to work. No. Us, the three of us, we have as much as we want. Go ahead. Talk about the right to work. Just that to me is the psychosis that we fall into where all we want to do is talk about Stephen Crowder got punched. Who cares? I don't care. It is not important. It is not relevant.

It does not help us get right toto-work states in the contiguous 48. What does help – and this is not news to anybody. What does help us is to continually talk about – not that the president didn't say anything about Steven Crowder. Who cares? That he didn't – that he's wrong about right-to-work. He's wrong. I'll grant you that. I'll say this and then it will be the last thing I say.

But patrolling the borders of what is and is not acceptable political discourse is important. And when people start slugging each other and the other side says nothing about it except in Gawker and a few other places they seem to chortle about it, then we we ought to say we ought to call foul. We ought to call foul. I've called foul. Now we'll go on and talk about right to work, which actually I do think it is astonishing that the Republicans in Michigan had the resolve to pull themselves together and enact this. It is just amazing. It is just a big story. That is the biggest story. And we're killing it by talking about some – No, I'm not talking about it anymore. I'm done. All right.

We're not killing it because it's not penetrating the media. It's not dominating the other side of the information sphere. It's chatter on the right, which is fine. I don't have a problem with spending time talking about this. It's not taking time away from anything else really, and I like to have this point made publicly a few times because I'm tired of dealing with relatives who never, ever, ever see this kind of stuff because it's blocked for them by the rest of the media. I tire of it very much because they're the ones who will tell me at the Thanksgiving and the

Christmas table, frankly, that all the political violence in this country is from right-wing thugs. They read the newspaper. They read the New York Times. So the New York Times says this thing was peaceful and that there were fingers jabbed, and that was the extent of the emotions outside of the Michigan state capitol. And you talk to them and say, no, actually, these guys punched out a journalist. Is that what you like? Then they look at you with blank eyes. It didn't happen because it was in the Times. I'm tired of these people doing it doesn't, Rob, it's not as if we can't do both. We can't.

We never do. All we do is now talk about how we use their language. I'm sorry, it was a union rally, somebody got punched. I'm not that surprised. I don't think that that's big news. I don't think Stephen Crowder is our new martyr. I don't think he's

a journalist. I mean, maybe it's just the fact that I don't think Stephen Crowder is our new martyr. I don't think he's a journalist. I mean maybe it's just the fact that I don't think he's really – I think he went there to make trouble. I'm not making him into any of those things, a journalist or a martyr. I'm just saying that if you let the media continue to shade these things as they wish, then your argument never gets up. You never get to talk about what you want to talk about because your relatives are looking at you with crossed eyes. Question. Question. Question. Question. Question.

OK. Violence done. They've enacted the right to work measure. As far as I can tell, this is the sort of fine-grained stuff that hasn't appeared on the front pages. As far as I can tell, it takes effect more or less immediately or January 1st or sometime very soon. The union officials, the democrats in Michigan have said, we will not give up the fight. We will fight on until 2014 and we will recapture the state legislature. Question. In Wisconsin, we now know it was only a matter of months after Scott Walker and the Republicans

put through their very courageous measure to limit union dues and change the rules for collective bargaining at schools and so forth. It was only a matter of months before good things began to happen. Across the state, we now know school budgets began – school boards began to be able to balance their budgets to negotiate new kinds of healthcare, which were actually perfectly adequate, more than adequate, but much better priced. And people in the state were able to see that good things had happened. How long will it be before good things happen in Michigan? What concerns me is I don't actually see much prospect for the economy in Michigan to turn around before 2014. Do you? Well, no, but you never know what the green shoots could be. That's a good point.

I mean, you're right. Our strategy on our side should be more Michigans, more Wisconsin's, more areas where we've been trounced traditionally, and we seem to have the conversation on our side. I don't even mean that people agree with us, but at least we're talking about the same things. We're talking about right to work. We're talking about entrepreneurialism. We're talking about cutting public sector unions. And in Michigan, they're talking about more than that. They're talking about giant public – giant labor unions. I mean we are – this is where we – this is a battleground that we can win in. We've won in before and we've won in that region before, and it seems to me that this is exciting stuff. That's why I think we should be celebrating and advancing.

I agree. I am celebrating. This is exactly – and the president went there, and we should say this president is out of step. He's out of step. We could get the argument back if we made it. Yes, and I think that we should. I have no problem with that. The only thing that I'm saying is that you buttress the argument with the emotive, blockbuster, very useful psychological imagery of big, fat, donut-eating, out-of-touch parasites punching people in the face. I mean one of the reasons the other side has gotten as much as they have is their ability

to emotionally shade and control the population's ability to perceive right-wingers as this. We're all Klansmen essentially. Yeah, but what does that even mean? Look, I don't even – I don't know. I mean we're now circling back to the other argument, but I just don't think that's true. I think we're – I think we freak out every time this happens and every time the media doesn't report it, and we go back, and I know we go back to Gabby Giffords. But that didn't really have any political effect. I mean I just think it's better that we continually march on with our ideas. We don't – we are behind, and this just makes us look like whining little babies.

Steven Crowder is fine. He's fine. It didn't hurt him. He didn't get shot. He got punched in the nose, and for all I know – and maybe this just reveals my own bias about Steven Crowder, he might have deserved it. I mean, you know what I mean? Like it's not the biggest, biggest deal in the world. He's not Rosa Parks. A guy gets punched in the face and Rob says he might have deserved it. I'm trying really hard to bring out the brass band at stage a parade here in honor of right to work. And I put that, you know, Rob, you can't say that to work. He was in a union rally. I mean, I'm not saying he deserved it.

I'm just saying if you go to these things, you could be a truck. I mean, I'm just a television journalist. He may actually even have not hoped for a little information. He was there as a partisan. He was arguing with them. He was like, that's I mean, I'm sorry. I just – it's not – Done. Done. It's not a big deal. I register – we register your protest. All right. So here's the deal then. If somebody on a news show said, well, you know the Tea Party people, they're all green and they speak in Serbian, you think somebody would challenge that or look at them and say, I'm sorry, what do you mean by that? They would say, uh, the reason these people can get to say what they want to say about the T-PAR is that they're ignorant.

They're gun running or they're gun owning snake morons is because the attitude rhythm has been shaped by a variety of people who are clever and cool. And that's why you get clever and cool presidents as opposed to ones who are actually smart and know what they're doing. You have to be able to control, not control, but you have to be able to influence the way people view your group. And that means standing up and pointing out what the other side looks like as well. It's a two-track thing. Rob's talking about making the intellectual arguments, and I agree with that. But you've got to make the emotional arguments as well for people who don't – go on.

I just don't think there's an American alive who is surprised that a bunch of union guys didn't punch out a little weenie stand-up comic. I just don't think that's news. Yes, of course they did. Of course they did. I mean I don't think that's a big deal. I think, yeah, yeah, he came and he got him a troublemaker. A bunch of union guys, they punched him in the nose. I just don't think that's – I mean to me, I just don't – I don't think that's brand – I don't think that's going to shock anybody.

And you're right. They do. They paint us. They paint the Tea Party. They paint all of us as thugs and violent. And that's correct and I agree with you. I just don't think this is the ground on which we want to stand. This Fox –

None of them are, Rob. None of them are. It's just one after the other after the other after the other after the other. That's what I'm talking about. If you make a point of it every time and how the media doesn't do anything about it every time, then cumulatively you get something. No, it's not that you want to die on. No, he's not the martyr in the Rosa Parks. You don't get anywhere.

You don't get anywhere. All you do is you sit in the corner and you whine and you complain. That's all that happens. We do it to ourselves all the time. That's all we do. We sit in the corner and say, why are we – we never get any coverage. We never get this. We never get that, and that's all we do.

And we – I'm not whining and complaining. I'm winning a bet. In our media. And so it's just this constant thing where we watch Fox News and we get angry about it. We watch Fox News and we get angry about it, and nothing ever changes. That's how we get the cool, hip president. He slips in there while we're complaining about the New York Times.

Yeah. I don't watch Fox News, and I'm not actually writing a letter to the New York Times. I'm going to the editor of the paper where I work and pointing this stuff out. Well, that's great. That's – That's what I'm doing. I'm not sitting around chattering on websites about it. That's – I think, that's the only... We're allowed to get pissed about this. And it doesn't mean that it drives out, there's no Gresham's Law here that drives out other good ideas.

It's just something to keep in mind. That's all I'm saying. Book-wise, you know? I'd buy that. So I would love to put together a compendium of all of the things that our side sometimes worries about and the other side doesn't care anything about because it would be sort of like a Reader's Digest sampler, a treasury of things the mainstream media ignored. And perhaps we could get Rob to read it. If he was hired to read the audiobook version, he would be contractually unable to just inject himself and say, by the way, this doesn't matter.

By the way, this is a bunch of BS. But I'd love to hear him read it because, of course, he's got the voice that says funny, smart things are coming, right? Well, one of these days when he does a book, it's going to come up in Audible, right? And Audible.com is our podcast sponsor, the Internet's leading provider of audiobooks. You know that. How many do they have? I said it before.

Were you taking notes? It's 100,000, okay? That means you're going to find literature, nonfiction. You're going to find periodicals, all sorts of stuff, even the New York Times bestseller list. That's right. All right, for our listeners, Audible is offering a free audiobook, and you know how this works, right? You go to audiblepodcast.com slash ricochet. That's audiblepodcast.com slash ricochet. And maybe you'll find something else there also by, well, if they've got periodicals, they might have Mike Murphy, right? Now, Mike, I've got to tell you about this guy here. You've been around Ricochet for a while.

You know that most of the folks sort of just roll their eyes because nothing brings out studious indifference like Mike Murphy, part of our audience. The Oiber political consultant. He's also a time contributor, regular on Meet the Press and Morning Joe, my senior fellow at Harvard JFK better, I'm sorry, I've been pronounced that, this JFK, talk show things, okay? And he's a writer, producer in Hollywood as well. Mike, welcome to the podcast again, and how are you doing today? I'm good. It's good to be here. That's great. Listen, I read your Time Magazine piece. As far as I understand it, unless the GOP just takes a chainsaw and hacks off the social con wing, they're pretty much doomed. Is that it?

No, no, no. It's more complicated than that. What I'm saying is that for all the talk about new turnout software and better bumper sticker glue and all the other technical stuff, we have to look that we do have policy issues that divorce us from the rest of the country. And the two I mentioned, which I think are the real two, I also mentioned middle class economics, where I think we'd need to do a lot better job. But it's gay marriage and a path to citizenship with some sort of fine or something for illegal immigrants. Those two things, a gay marriage among young voters, soon to be all voters, and a path to citizenship among Latinos who see it as kind of an acceptance issue are a huge problem. They're cotton in the years of too many voters. So it becomes mathematically impossible for us to win in presidential years.

So if we want to be the minority party of the gated community and have no power and watch Elizabeth Warren get elected president, sure, let's hang on to what we got. But the country's changing and we have to decide if we're going to be part of the future or left in the past. Mike, Peter Robinson here. I am more or less obligated to ask the following question. I put up a post this morning entitled Why Mike Murphy Isn't Nuts. I extend every professional courtesy, Mike. There's so many things wrong with that headline, by the way.

I am nuts, but I can do arithmetic. Yeah, no, no. And I put up some arithmetic. So fine. Someone put up – Tom Williams, Ricochet member, put up a post which raises a very good point. There were four states in which there was a marriage ballot initiative. That's what we call it in California. I don't know whether it's called that in other states, but there was effectively an initiative on marriage, defining it as between one man and one woman. Four states,

Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington state. And in all four states, the marriage initiative outpolled Mitt Romney. And I think the argument would be that Mitt Romney was trying his best to do what you suggest Republican candidates ought to do, which is to mute the social issues and run almost entirely on economics. And yet Mitt Romney underperformed the marriage initiative in four states. How come? Well, one, I don't buy your premise that Romney did not. I mean, he was pretty explicit of where he was on DOMA and everything.

I don't think any voter perceived that Mitt Romney was for legalization of same-sex marriage. Now, here's the problem when you cherry-pick referendums in specific states. You've got to look at the country as a whole, and you've got to look at trends. So here are some numbers from the Wall Street Journal poll. In 2004, 62% of Americans opposed same-sex marriage and 30% supported it. That's registered voters in the entire country. In 2009, 41 supported, 49 opposed. That's why many of these referendums over time have failed. In 2012, at the beginning of this year, in March, 49% supported, 40% opposed. The poll was out yesterday, and the latest number, December 12th, is 51% support, 40% opposed. So it works on two levels.

One, you can have state referendums, but you can see the trend of the numbers. The trend. It also becomes a defining issue of who a candidate is based on where he or she stands. It's kind of a wedge issue, so to speak, in a campaign where it has a lot of power. What we see, and this just isn't complicated, among younger voters, it's overwhelmingly supported. Among older voters, it's opposed. But every day, older voters die and younger voters become more voters. Well, older voters die and younger voters, but younger voters become older voters. Do we know whether younger voters are retaining

their pro-gay marriage views as they become older? We don't have enough time to tell that for sure. Here's what I'm thinking, Mike, is that back in the Reagan days, Reagan's strongest support was among the youngest cohort. And then along comes Bill Clinton, and his strongest support was among the youngest cohort. And then along comes Bill Clinton and his strongest support was among the youngest cohort. Kids are a notoriously malleable cohort in polling. They flop and flip and shift around.

Well, Clinton, they've stuck pretty, pretty democratic to be honest. I mean, we look at the average age of yes on same sex marriage and every year it gets older. It does. All right. There could be a reversal. I can't deny a hypothetical. But the trends, at least on this issue, have been pretty sticky. And so if – this election, we won the dying vote of 65-plus by 18 points. We lost the younger vote by about 24 points.

OK. by about 24 points. Okay. So now back to Mitt Romney then on this issue, Mike. You're – I mean one way of interpreting what you're saying is Republicans may believe what they want to believe but they shouldn't talk about it or at least it's a question of tone. And that is the way that I read Mitt Romney's approach in this past campaign. Yes, he was on record as opposing same-sex marriage. He had taken – he had put himself on record in Massachusetts as opposing same-sex marriage as governor. So he was on record and under direct questioning, he would give you his position. But he talked about it as little as he possibly could.

And what you're saying is what? That that's not good enough? That Republicans actually have to shift on policy? We have to embrace same-sex marriage? Well, it's really simple. If, as conservatives, people who support banning same-sex marriage, favor traditional marriage, want to use the state to enforce that or, you know, however you define the policy change you want, you can go out and persuade the country. And you may be successful. And politics will change. But in the cruel business of winning and losing elections, where it's basic arithmetic calculation, the fact that we oppose this issue

and the same thing on immigration reform, escrows a bunch of vote out of our reach. So we have to understand as a matter of practical politics, do we want to use the Republican Party or, you know, do you, because I actually, I support same-sex marriage. Do we want to use it as a mechanism to try to change, persuade people in the country on something they think we're wrong on and then ask them for their votes? We can try that. I can tell you in practical politics, we're going to lose. Or do we understand that the opinion in the country is changing and we either have to carve this out or have a position that reflects the country? Now I see some of the posts on Ricochet where people say, ah, you just want to be a bunch

of Democrats. We – if really the only thing that keeps us from being Democrats is same-sex marriage and immigration reform, I would say there are a lot of other issues that keep us from being Democrats. So I think it's just a narrow way to … Peter Robinson, Jr.: Mike, one last question from Peter before Rob comes barreling in, which I know he wants to do. So I'm just probing here for – probing your immense knowledge of the actual practical politics. So in this last election cycle, are you aware of any Republican governors or house – members of the House. I'm not aware of any in the Senate. I can't think of have any Republicans successfully come out in favor of same sex marriage and been elected. I can't go ahead.

Who didn't campaign on it? You know, I don't know. I'll bet you could find a couple of members of Congress or the odd senator. But what I'm trying to do is show you the future demographics that are hurtling toward us. So so where as a matter of practical politics, where would you expect Republican candidates to be testing your thesis? Let's put it that way. State legislatures? What Republicans are going to be the first to embrace the Murphy position and present themselves to the voters as in favor – where California would be, right? I'm trying to figure out where is this going to happen? Where will we see the experiments take place?

I'm not sure. The truth is, I don't think we'll do it. I think we may nominate a McGovern, and we'll have another four years of debate. We will then pass, by the way, the losing record of the Washington Generals, who are professionally paid to lose globeplates. It's 20 years long.

Ours is 20 years of solid loss of the popular vote. We're probably going to 24. But the place that ought to happen is our next nominee for president. Hey, Mike, it's Rob here. I got a question. I think this will be as big of a factor necessarily in two years. So I think it would be accretive. But in four years, it's going to be huge.

Hey, Mike, it's Rob here. Obviously, as the resident Rhino, I totally agree with you on gay marriage. It should not define the Republican Party. But what troubled me and I think what still troubles me about the drift of the party now or the way it's being perceived, the way it's presenting itself is that we have lost this kind of Main Street middle class economic argument that things are getting worse for people who should be Republican voters. That they voted – a lot of them voted for Obama and voted for the other side because they think he's better for them economically. How do we get that back? Yeah. No, you're right. That's the third thing I mentioned in the article and it's true.

We're perceived as a tool of Wall Street and the – how would I describe it? The financial engineers. And it was an unfortunate thing that Mitt, because he came from private equity, was easily lumped into that. Now, I thought strategically Mitt ran a horrible campaign and they could have done a lot more. But we have to understand life has not gotten better for the middle class, and we have become easy villains. And that is why this stupid class warfare stuff has a lot of teeth. Over 60 percent of Americans say we need to dramatically raise taxes on big corporations. For some horrible reason, the word corporation is becoming an ugly word.

And what's strange about that is that both the president and the republicans think it should be lower. Yeah, yeah, but the president doesn't really think about it. See, what we want to do is tackle entitlement spending and have a more growth-oriented tax code. The president uses that rhetoric, but it's kind of like going on a diet by subscribing to a jogging magazine. What the president really wants to do is create a more regressive tax system, and he doesn't really want to do much about entitlements,

and that's going to be the real battle next year. And if we had more political power, we'd win it. But because we lose elections with problems like same-sex marriage and immigration, we don't have enough political power, and we're not going to win it as much as we ought to, maybe not at all. So on middle-class economics, I'd say we need to communicate people basic kind of clarity about what it means in their lives. How do we create more manufacturing jobs? I actually thought Santorum, who, of course, I disagree upon the other stuff, did a pretty good job of that in the primary. Not always talk about macro tax rates.

Like, you know, look, I'm not in these negotiations, of course, but I wish we should have just passed in the House the Schumer thing to make it a million dollars to cut off instead of this loophole, which, frankly, most people don't think their home mortgage interest deduction is a loophole. So, you know, we're going to have to understand that our voters are really 30 to 300,000. And we just got to own that segment. And right now we don't. They don't perceive we're on their side, particularly under 100,000.

Mike, Peter here once again. This is the first time we've had a chance. I guess you and Rob have seen each other, but I haven't had a chance to chat with you since the election. You said a moment ago in passing, I think you used – the word you used for Mitt Romney's campaign was strategically horrible. I think that was the phrase you just used. Can you just give us – I don't want to go back. I don't want to relive the campaign. It's over.

It's done. He lost. We lost. I get that. But what would you have done differently? Can you give us sort of the headlines? I would have taken chances in the Republican primary, not in the general election, because we have a Republican primary, particularly when we had Luna Tuchman and others running, getting all that free attention from the process and from far too many debates because nobody, particularly in the Romney organization, had the guts to say no to a debate. That moved the Republican brand very bad.

Do you realize that today the Republican Party as a brand is far less popular than Joe Biden? And it was the primary. So what should Romney have done? He should have just skipped a bunch of debates and not permitted himself to have been seen on the same stage with Michelle Bachman and Newt and Rick Santorum. You know, only Sinatra plays the main room. Second, he should have not made his attack on Perry on the immigration stuff, which cemented that in the wrong way for him. Third, I wouldn't have done the gay marriage thing. I would have had a very scary Romney primary campaign.

Murray might have lost and everybody in Ricochet was against him. But I think he could have still won with kind of the body weight and money that he had because his opponents were pretty weak and pathetic. I think Santorum was most capable of them. But if he'd done that, he would have protected his brand and actually been electable in the general election. Then I would have run on middle class economics a lot better. I would have fought out the Bain thing from day one. I would have understood that during the campaign, the perception of the, quote, off track country changed dramatically. And the Romney campaign did not change with it.

And there were hundreds. You would have seen a lot more of debate one Romney, even in the prime, which took a huge risk. But what they did instead was took no risk in the primary. They pandered and they just use overwhelming financial resources. And they put themselves in a horrible position, horrible position in the general. And they got clobbered. There really was a't a strategy. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Rob. You're a Michigan native. Do you think Michigan and Wisconsin and those areas, especially Michigan now these days, as a right-to-work state, do you think that's our future? Six years ago, I paid a poll out of my own pocket of about that.

Whoa. I think people need to know how rare that is. I think it is a fabulous thing for Michigan. So I've been in this beginning, and I couldn't be happier. That said, we have to defend Snyder and defend the law in 2014. They're coming for it, and it can get reversed. So I'm very happy about it, and I want more people in my home state to work in manufacturing. It's something I care about. Who are the governors out there that you think are interesting?

Or who are the Republican politicians you think are interesting right now? I'm not asking you to pick a pick or anything. Just who are the ones you think, wow, that's pretty cool. For me, it's Scott Walker in Wisconsin. But who else? A bit of a hero in Michigan now. You know, nationally, I like Christie. I like Rubio. I like Jindal. I think he was talking a lot of sense into the election. I was very impressed with him.

You know, I like Eric Cantor. I think there's a whole new generation coming up. There are good speakers and a couple of state legislators. There's a group coming in with Rutherford in Florida. Mike, you think Rubio or Jindal is going to embrace gay marriage? No, I think they will. Let me put it this way. Yeah. You're using a loaded primary term. So embrace gay marriage equals won't get nominated. But understand the third rail of this going forward. And I think they will try to crowd it out with other issues and won't make it a point of emphasis. I would encourage them to change their position.

I doubt they will because the Republican Party – the fact is most conservatives now are just dug in. Well, the dog ate my homework. Well, we'll show them next time. Well, we're mad at Roe. It's fine. It's totally delusional. We're going to lose again. But I understand the market of the Republican primary.

I would encourage any of them to push that line as much as possible because, you know, here's the deal. We we think we can like hold our breath and the country's not changing. OK, let's try that. And then we'll get ready for the Hillary Clinton. No, I'm just I'm I'm I'm just trying to understand your how far you're how far you think the next. But you said a moment ago that it's going to be crucial for the Republican presidential candidate in 2016. So would a Jindal or a Ruby – would it be acceptable to you? Well, I'm not – I don't mean acceptable to you. Do you think a Republican could win simply by talking about it less, by crowding out the question of gay marriage with other issues? That's what the Republican – if I understand you – so let me – if I understand Mike, he's saying you have to do it that way to win the primary but it's still iffy in the general because gay marriage will be such a big issue four years from now.

Is that right? What they ought to do is what I wrote then just like in 2009 when I wrote The Coming Republican Ice Age in time. Mike, one last question. Here's Peter. This is James Lalix. What you're saying, if I hear all this, is that the Republican Party, the GOP establishment, has to realize that the country they knew is gone and lost for them. In your time piece, you say – you define the paleos as people who are opposed to emerging social trends like multiculturalism and secularization. Well, multiculturalism is antithetical to the basic American idea. It's a balkanization of the people, and it's a celebration of race and skin color.

And secularization, which used to mean having the car dealership open on a Sabbath, now means the active opposition of the appearance or manifestation advice and just get rid of them, means essentially abandoning the philosophical bedrock of conservatism in favor of this nimble, let's get along, go along, and hope we can do something about the schools. All wrong, because I did not advocate multiculturalism or secularism. I said the country is becoming more multicultural. Right, I know. That's what you said. Are less secular. So therefore, when we talk about issues like gay marriage or perceived, and I'm for being a pro-life party. I think it's a very different issue.

If we're perceived but is intolerant on the pro-life issues and our tone that we're going to be enforcers, not persuaders, we're not going to get those votes, and we're going to lose because that group is growing. So we have a political engineering problem of how we align conservatism. I like to use the phrase modernized conservatism on this issue. And as far as, you know, multicultural, what I'm talking about is the Latino vote. America under 18, which is the future America conservatism is going to have to learn how to prosper in is only 57% Caucasian, 43% African-American, Latino, Asian, or mixed.

And collectible. Hey, Mike, why did you rob me? But that's not multiculturalism. That's acclimatizing these people to the American culture. Multiculturalism is saying come on in, come one, come all, and you don't have anything to adopt to the society that we have. I'm advocating multiculturalism. I'm not. I'm English first. But what I'm saying is with our current tone on issues like immigration, when we ought to be a party of aspiration, we ought to be

about social mobility. I also mentioned it in the column. We've got a shot there. But we don't understand our fundamental formula is wrong. We can put up a fort and have 4% of the country on ricochet, all agreeing that we're right. We're politically irrelevant. We have no power. Socialism, it's a huge victory for them. So we're going to do something about it, or we're just going to hit our radio. It drives me crazy that the fundamental communications medium of the Republican Party is AM radio. You have to be in intensive care to tune in AM radio. So here's the, here's the interesting thing, Mike, is that you've been talking to myself and Peter and Rob, and not one of us has understood a word you said, because our Skype connection is so bad. We've been making up this conversation

and saying, well, what do we think Mike is going to say to this? And so it's, it's been all improv on our part. And I can't wait to go back to the podcast and listen to actually what you said to our questions, which I assume were on point and brilliant. But we have to let you go, and we thank you for coming on the podcast today. Read them in Time Magazine. Go to Ricochet.com and argue about the points that Mike makes. They're good ones, and they're necessary ones, and we've got to have this debate. We'll have it on Ricochet.

And we hope to have you on the podcast after the schlacking in 2014 and perhaps the utter and complete and total pasting in 2016. Thanks for joining us today, Mike. Mike Murphy. 14 will be the day. Because the demographics are so different than the presidential race. It's 16 we're worried about. But thank you, guys.

Thanks, Mike. Hey, Mike's the hopeful guy. He thinks we're going to win in 2014. Well, kind of. I think he kind of does, actually. All right. Okay. Now, are you guys hearing me okay here? Am I...

Because... Ollie Blue here at the Ricochet Podcast. The point that I was making, and I don't know if I made it, and I have the faintest flippin' frackin' idea of what Mike said in response to it. He did talk about... He didn't use the term multicult. Let me read the quote. In fact, battle this is from time the epic battle we republicans face now

is a choice between two definitions of conservatism one offers steadfast opposition to emerging social trends like multiculturalism and secularization all right those are the way that if those are the terms we're going to use to phrase the debate. I got a problem with this because while I understand that you can't pretend that America is simply a white monolithic culture where everybody trots off the church in their church clothes every Sunday. There's a difference between that and saying that we are a country of individual racial identities that just happens to get along in the big salad bowl and that anybody who believes in religion has got to be banished from the public sphere. Otherwise, what's the point of having a bloody Republican Party? Sorry. Excellent question. I'm with you on every last word of that, James. Every last word, every last impulse. The reason I don't myself get so exercised on immigration is that it's not a problem. It has ceased to be a problem. For the last couple of years now, all the evidence is that more recent arrivals from Mexico left the United States to return to Mexico than entered this country. That's right.

And although what dominates the headlines from Mexico is the drug war, as well it should. It's violent. It's horrible. In fact, Mexico has achieved a lot of economic growth. It now has a very substantial middle class. The birth rate is not quite as low as ours but it's nothing like what it was a quarter of a century ago when it was very high. Mexico is a country that seems to be working. That is to say there's less incentive for Mexicans to leave Mexico to come to this country.

But that's not quite the point.. But that's not quite the point. I mean that's not quite the point. The point is the largest growing segment of American citizens. No, there's no doubt. I'm making a somewhat different point, which is that to me of whatever mistakes Mike thinks Mitt Romney made – excuse me, Mike did include this, that he should not have tried to get to the right of the governor of Texas on immigration. The notion that the Republican Party insults Latino Americans or at a minimum makes them feel uneasy or under some kind of

suspicion is because of this strident tone, which Romney picked up and out stridented everybody else on immigration, illegal immigration. In my judgment, what Americans are upset about and quite rightly so is much less immigration itself than the total failure of the federal government to enforce the law at the border. They're not angry at immigrants. They're angry at the feds for failing to stick up for the law, point one. Point two, immigration is now reversing. It's simply – Illegal immigration. Illegal immigration.

Yeah. The best – Immigration full stop is reversing at least as regards Mexico. The best thing that ever happened in Mexico was our economic crash. An 8 percent unemployment in America has a chilling effect on people crossing the border. That's true. That had a huge effect. But the stuff I've seen suggests that even if the American economy

suddenly starts to grow at 10%, then people will want to come here from all over the world all over again. But that doesn't seem to be in prospect. We get up to 2.5%, 3%, 3.5%. People are not going to be clamoring to cross the Rio Grande illegally to get into this country. So what that means – here's what I'm coming to. Here's the point I'm making and on this I think I agree with Mike as I understand what Mike is saying is that if you don't have constant streams of illegal immigration, then you've got a moment when the federal government – it won't under Obama but it should – can enforce the law at the border and the Republican Party can talk to Latinos. Of course it's on my mind so much because here in California, a huge proportion – the Caucasians are already the minority in California.

Either the Republican Party finds a way to talk to recent immigrants and their children and grandchildren, or we're just plain doomed. And my argument is that we have an opportunity to do so now. Okay, I'm done. No, you're, you're right. I look forward to, but James is right. It does not mean, mean multiculturalism, right? But I also look forward to America. It means welcome. And I want to bring them into America. That's the whole point of America. The whole point is everybody comes here, learns something, adds something. I'm looking forward to the point that we can get to where somebody can stand up on the stage in front of these people and say essentially what we've just been saying here, but also point out that it's really not a good idea to give a driver's license to an illegal when we have no idea if he has insurance or a criminal record or anything of the sort that we have to make a distinction between citizenship and non-citizenship and that this is not akin to racism and nativism and that when somebody on the

other side makes the point to shut them down because right now when the other side and i know rob stop your ears up because i'm about to talk about perception again but when the other side starts to make the point and and paint anybody who's got any opposition whatsoever to any aspect of immigration and says that they're a nativist and a racist, then this demographic that Mike's talking about, which is young and dumb as a box of stones, doesn't want to be uncool and vote for the people who are uncool because they're mean. They want to vote for the party that makes them feel good about themselves because we've managed to instill emotions and feminized reactions into almost every element of American politics. But that's that. Anyway, we got a guest who's- Wait, wait, wait, wait.

I was with you about two thirds of the way there, James, but I can't for the life of me identify exactly the point at which you lost me. No, no. I would just like to say that I agree with you. I think you're right. A hundred percent? Well, I mean to the extent that I agree with anybody a hundred percent. Yeah, I agree with Jay. I think that's exactly right. But I think our problem is that the growing voting base in America who should be with us isn't.

And we need to figure out – and we are turning them off in some way. And I don't think it's – I mean I think you're right. You can't give up enforcing the borders, and you can't give up certain things, but we are not delivering them the message that is intuitively they know is true, which is that you succeed in this country by building businesses, by going – getting a job, by integrating into the greater American society. And we're not – for some reason, we're not selling that hard. And a lot of it is – a lot of it is that it's just a natural or unnatural or unfair tilt in the conversation. We've got to figure that out. Now, I have a running argument with Murphy about whether we don't skip that group and go for the fastest growing immigrant group in America.

Asians. Asians. But I think we need a little bit of everything. We need to be selling the same message to both of them, and it's a good Republican, good conservative message. I mean, that's what I would say about Mike, and I'd ask Ben too. It's like – and I get this on the site a lot and most of it doesn't bother me because I make it myself. But I don't really know what people mean by when they say rhino because I am as conservative as anybody on all of the big economic issues, probably more conservative than some people. I'm more conservative on sort of law and order and guns. I'm just not that conservative when it comes to two issues, really only two. And that doesn't make me – a rhino traditionally is a Republican.

Which two are they? Gay marriage and abortion. OK. That's what people mean. Exactly. That's not complicated. No. A rhino – You are officially a rhino. I understand. But there are some people who will say that –

Fiscally conservative, socially liberal position. That makes you a rhino. I think that's what I generally understand by rhino. A guy who gets into a Republican office holder who when he gets in, votes with the Democrats. Oh, I see. Like Charlie Crist in Florida. Somebody like that. Yeah.

Gotcha. Okay. You know, we can sit here and blather on. We got a smart guy that we should get to. And I love the way I just brought everybody down to my level of diligence by saying that that that we're all the idiots here. No, I'm sorry. Peter will have a conversation. I'll explain exactly what I mean. But in the meantime, Ben, you know, Ben Dominick, what can you say? He writes The Transom. He appears on The Blaze. He's a research fellow for the Heartland Institute, managing editor of Healthcare News, also editor-in-chief of The City, an academic journal on politics.

He is so busy. He is so busy that the Ben Dominick joining us right now is just a hologram. The real Ben is off recording something else, I'm sure. Ben, we've been arguing about Mike Murphy for some strange thing. Imagine that. Mike comes on and we have a polarizing discussion. What did you think of his timepiece? You know, here's the thing that I think is sort of interesting.

There's a bunch of different camps in how you respond to the election. There are people who are criticizing based on candidates, on message, on policy, and on mechanics. I think that when you sort of break those down into their various parts, the thing that I keep hearing the most in the media, because I think it's one of the most convenient arguments to advance, and it's the one that's been around the longest, is the one that Murphy really advanced, which is that in order to remake the party,

we have to move from a three-legged stool to two. And I think that that is a... You'd better explain the three legs. Explain the three legs, Ben. Well, you know, fiscal conservatism, social conservatism, and then strong national defense has been the approach since the Reagan era, since he expanded it out to bring in all these rising tide of evangelicals

who proved to be more conservative on social issues. And I think that ever since then, Murphy has been advancing this thesis that we need to cut those people off, which I find amusing, considering that it's the one area of agreement that we apparently have with the Hispanic community in America is the social conservatism. And this is, I have to go back to what Rob was saying just a few minutes ago. He talked about people who should be with us who aren't. I'm not sure that they should be with us.

The things that I actually see in this poll data seem to indicate that a lot of these folks like big government, like big services, are willing to have higher taxes in order to pay for them. And I wonder sometimes whether this sort of they should be with us, their natural conservative sort of talk when it either comes to Asians and the fiscal issues or Hispanics and the social issues, ignores the fact that there are a lot of beliefs that are ingrained in these communities that really we've allowed to continue to grow because there's been no conservative voice there pushing back against them

or offering a different view in terms of making a strong case for a more liberty-based approach to society. Instead, we allow the left to create this false situation where you're either wallowing in this sort of Hopkin clawing for the last bottle of water situation or you have their government taking care of everyone's life of Julia situation. And that's a false comparison, and it's one we've allowed to exist away from. Ben, no, you have to take a number, Rob, because I'm so eager. I call dibs on this one. Let the love fest begin. Yes, exactly.

Thank you. Thank you. Ben, Ben, baby, it's so good to have you on. I've been putting up with Rob and Murphy and James Lilacs has been doing a wonderful – I have to say though, I've been in love with James all day. OK. So Reagan, three data points and then a question. And data point number one is the Reagan Democrats were largely Catholics who were brought in to the Republican coalition, if only temporarily, partly by Reagan's – well, partly by the other two legs of the stool. That is the strong defense and the willingness to get the insistence on getting the economy growing again but also to a large extent because of Reagan's pro-life position. One. Two. 1994, the House of Representatives went Republican for the first time in four decades

because the Republican Party picked up 54 new seats. Of those 54 new members of the House, how many were pro-life? And the answer is 54. Final point, Amendment 8, the anti-gay marriage or the definition of marriage amendment ballot initiative here in California, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman and which the courts immediate, not immediately, but the courts have overturned and it's an endless litigation. Nevertheless, it passed and it passed by a pretty healthy margin and it passed substantially because it was so thoroughly embraced by Latinos and African-Americans. I am just adducing all of that in support of Ben's argument. However, we did lose this last election, Ben. And as Ramesh Panuru pointed out on National Review, it wasn't just because Romney was a weak candidate. Let's see, Ramesh, the Republican, it wasn't that he was a drag on the Republican Party. The Republican Party was a drag on him. Romney ran ahead of most Republican Senate candidates.

So what is Ben's prescription for doing better? Murphy at least has a plausible answer to the problem. Well, I think I think the getting better actually starts with fixing the Republican Party's economic message. And the reason that I sort of start with that is that I think that a key element that we've missed over the past 10 to 20 years has been how much the perception of the middle class and the lower class has shifted in regards to what the Republican Party represents, to the point where in the Bloomberg poll released today, 58% of independents say that Republicans are the party that is more interested in protecting

the wealthy than in helping anyone else. And I think that really what that cuts at is the idea that while we still have essentially the same principles in play, the same low taxes, the same understanding of the left or the left lacks, we have not recategorized our argument into something that actually meets the middle class and the rising lower class, aspirational lower class, where they live with the challenges that they face. And the point that I would sort of go back to on all of this is I think in a lot of respects, Romney is sort of the perfect Murphy candidate. He's a guy who diminishes the social issues, doesn't really want to fight over them in the public square, talks about these sort of big issues that everybody should agree about in terms of you know a moderate that sort of approach to the energy and tax policy not being from arch uh... conservative

if you spent a ton of money on on advertising did all the sort of glorious you know mormon rockwell kind of uh... events that he did uh... all across the country looked like the kind of candidate would play well on tb and didn't part of well on TV, and he didn't. Part of the reason that I think he didn't is because he was completely incapable to connect on that economic message that says, from the perspective of the voter, you care about me and my success and the success of my children. And I think that that gets back to the ideas that really drove the 1994 takeover, which is becoming a party of reform.

And I think that that gets back to real strength that the Republican Party has on issues like education, where we've won. We have won the argument definitively. The big city mayors are clawing over each other to try to come in our direction and to cut off things from the teachers unions before they get dragged down by it. And I think that this is an area where – yes. Ben, Peter here. I want to clarify what you're saying. Genuinely clarify. This is – not only is this not tendentious.

I'm just trying to get your point. So if I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that the Republican Party, as personified by Mitt Romney and in general, I guess you're saying, had permitted its economic message to get narrowed to something like the following. If you want to go start a company, if you want to become an entrepreneur, we're on your side. Whereas most Americans don't want to start companies. They want a job. They want to be able to pay their mortgage. They want to be able to go out, get a second income

so they can have a nicer vacation. That most Americans just have zero interest in becoming entrepreneurs. They're less worried about capital gains than they are about rising health care costs and rising health costs. So that's what you're saying, that we somehow or other have failed to appeal to ordinary people with a mortgage to pay, whose kids go to public schools. They want to just take a little vacation and not have to keep a car eight years and maybe get a new car every five or six.

Is that your point? You know, it really is. I think there's a good race that sort of shows this in the sense that in the North Dakota race between Heitkamp and Byrd, you saw a candidate on the Democratic side who consistently sort of ran to the middle on all these issues, said, oh, we'll fix what's wrong with Obama here by repealing some of it, and started fights with Byrd over actually being to his right on some energy issues and caring more about the paychecks that people were taking home, talking about health care costs, talking about college costs, things of that nature.

I think that no matter if you have a good candidate at the top of the ticket or a bad candidate, no matter whether you fix the mechanics problems, the technology problems or not, you have to have a message that connects with people where they live, with the problems that they've had in front of their face at the kitchen table. And you can't be the party that is more focused on the needs of the boardroom, the needs of Wall Street, the needs of corporations and the needs of sort of, as you say, the entrepreneurial set and ignore the challenges that I think the lower and the middle class are facing.

Ben, hold on a second. I just knocked my headphones off gesturing. All right. We just had an election where supposedly everybody voted yay, big government. Would it work well for the Republicans in a cycle or two to come if they started pointing out that actually government is the problem and looked at people and said, your schools are bad because of government. Your gas is high because of government.

Your paychecks are small because of government. And bring back that, oh, how dare I say it, that question authority up against the wall, establishment man stuff that we had in the 60s, which played so well in birth the horrible counterculture, to make government uncool again. Is that even possible at this late stage? Are we so locked into a European model that people automatically assume that the state is there for them? You know, I sure hope, I think you have completely encapsulated

the importance of this message, and I sure hope that we are not past that point. However, I will say this. In the absence of a compelling narrative, a story that can be told to people about the dangers of government, the only thing that they have to go on is the experiences that they have. And we have a school system that has essentially approached the educational process by pretending the 1970s didn't happen, that pretending the Soviet Union wasn't all that bad, pretending that these are just differences of ideology and the sort like that. Sometimes it takes the reminder of having it right in front of your face to figure out that big government doesn't work. It takes standing in line at the DMV or standing in line to get your health care to figure it out. The thing that I think that we have, though, right now is an opportunity to retake a little

bit of that fervor in the sense that you're right. I mean, you know, the people who wanted revolution, now they're the institution. And I think that that's the thing that we need to really keep in mind as we reframe things going forward. We shouldn't be so quick to tear apart a coalition that I think has done great things in the country. And we should also keep in mind this. In the next election, you're going to look back on 10 years of Democrats having control of two of the three houses in all likelihood, a decade of Democratic dominance, including two years where they controlled all three. And I think that this is, in terms of power in government in Washington. And if they come out at the end of it, having only really achieved

Obamacare as their big sweeping social change, I actually think that that's a pretty good thing to run against, given how much of a failure it's likely to be. And I think holding the line on a lot of these other things when it comes to remaking the coalition is something that is important as opposed to just slicing it in bits and pieces. Well, hey, Ben, it's Rob in L.A. I mean, I'm sort of in general agreement with you, although I don't know about this Obamacare business. It seems to me that in 10 years, they'll be able to say, like, we gave you free health

care. And people will say, well, you know, I know it's bad, but so are the schools. And we haven't gotten any meaningful school reform in 30 years. You know, I think that there are two things that I think are changing that in terms of the way that people perceive things going forward. Number one, those lower and middle class people that I talked about who are going to be either going to be changes or or how to put the right care yesterday the commonwealth foundation came out with study which basically said uh... and their liberal meaning group

that uh... the best case scenario at the end of obama's uh... second term we're looking at a six thousand seven hundred dollar hike uh... in cream costs on average whatever the president in terms of bringing down the, you know, $2,500 by the end of this term, people are going to continue to see health care costs go up. And I think that that's the kind of message that the next, you know, sort of Republican needs to take up in the sense that it's something that fits the middle class's pocketbook in a very tangible way, in a heck of a lot more way than the capital gains package.

But I guess here's what frightens me about that, right? Just from my own sort of cold Republican heart, then I think that what we end up doing is we end up running as the reformers and the optimizers of big government, which doesn't seem to be a very winning position. I mean I said this to Peter and James over and over again. You look at the drift of government and government intrusion in our lives and just general socialism

from 1964 to today and it is a steady I mean it slows down here and there for Reagan but it's a steady move to the left. And at this point, is that the best thing we can hope for is that we'll get in after they make a mess of it and we'll be charged by the voters as like the fiscal pit bull to kind of come in and prune and optimize, but really not

change. We'll still be guaranteeing socialized medicine to every American. You know, I think that on the one hand, I think that you're right to be concerned about the scale of this. You know, we're looking at, you know, in terms of percentage per GDP, you know, we're looking at, you know, in terms of percentage per GDP, you know, we're basically up, you know, 25% over where we were before over the past 50 years under just under the first four years of Obama. I think that in terms of size of government issues,

there is a lot of concern and reasonable concern in the sense that we're never going to be able to get the genie all the way back into the model. But I think sometimes these programs have to be tried and fail in order for someone to be able to come in and say, we have to reform them from the ground up. I think that's happening within the education system where parents suddenly are exposed to the fact that their schools are getting D's and F's. And the only person in the state who wants to keep their child locked in that school is the teachers' union. And I think in the health care system, the same sort of thing is going to happen in the sense that

the people who are going to be crammed on the Medicaid, who are going to be crammed in these exchanges, are going to be confronted by these costs and are going to demand a solution. I think the important thing is that Republicans prepare that solution now. They learn how to talk about it. They learn how to sell it. They learn how to connect that narrative to the way that people live, you know, in terms of the challenges that they face. And if they don't have that, it won't matter how good the candidate is.

It won't matter whether they get the technology right. They have to get that part right, I think. Well, maybe the genie can't go back in the bottle, especially if you're running Chris Christie as your presidential candidate. Not so much the bottle as the container crate. But maybe we could tell people that we can put the genie back into 50 different ones. I mean, to say we know you all love government, that's pretty obvious. But here's the thing.

We got this big, huge, wobbly, tentacular creature out of Washington, which is not your friend, whereas the local government you can do something about. Here in Minnesota, a phrase I know always makes people prick up their ears. We just had the Minneapolis City Council say, yeah, that's right. OK, we're going to raise your taxes for the school board. And people are just screeching because there's going to be more money spent on the schools. And they're explaining, well, you know what? That's because changes in the way the state does it means that the localities have to shoulder more of the bill. And I like that. I like the fact that people are saying, huh, because the state isn't taking money from one part of the state and giving it to us. We actually have to fund the things that we keep

voting for. I like that. That's instructive, isn't it, Ben? I mean, federalism might be our, you know, the state as a laboratory of democracy might be one of our rhetorical and ideological aces in the hole. If there's a great solace that Republicans should take out of this election, it's that they have unitary control in basically 24 states. They have 30 governors. The vast majority of them are very talented executives who are both, I think, ideologically and pragmatic in terms of how they apply that ideology. But I think they're also more savvy at getting things done in terms of actually having reforms that come to fruition and that really push the ball forward in terms of connecting with people where they are and making it clear to them the costs and the

penalties, the choices that they have to make as a state. I think you're exactly right in the sense that we have to bring this down to more of a local level in terms of how people are affected and the choices that they make. I actually think Obamacare implementation is going to achieve some of that just in terms of the differences between states. But there's one more aspect of this that I do want to touch on, and that's the youth vote thing. I keep hearing all these people talk about the youth vote

and how the youth is going for Obama, and it's just this sort of inevitability and things like that. The way I look at it, I was sort of surprised to see that Romney won white voters under 30 and that he won white women under 30, just because I would have thought that it would have been even more in the other direction. I don't think that the youth is this entire lost cause, but I do think that we have to figure out how to talk to them, mostly because we have to recognize how little memory they

have for history. I think that one of the ways to talk to them about this is to give them things that stare them in the face in terms of these local taxes and in terms of the global decisions, because then you're not trying to explain to them, well, this is what welfare reform was about 15 years ago, and that sort of stuff. I think it's much more something that has to be stuck right in front of their faces, because, frankly, they all basically have ADD. Couldn't agree more, Ben.

Peter here, if we could, if we could, what we cannot, take every American under the age of 25 and cause him to live one week in the year 1979, he would come out a staunch Republican forevermore. Ben, last question from me, Peter. Back to Murphy. Mike Murphy read us statistics on how the country just in the last decade and in fact the change is dramatic in the polls just over the the next presidential candidate, Republican presidential candidate had to embrace gay marriage. But Mike was insistent that at least you ought to crowd it out with other issues by talking about other issues. I think that was the – I think I'm quoting him pretty – I think his point is to leave it up to the states. Fine.

OK. So question for Ben. In 2016, not 2014, but 2016, Bobby Jindal, Margot Rubio, whoever the nominee is, this nominee will, A, take a firm stance in favor of marriage as an institution between one man and one woman and talk about it. B, take a firm stance but talk about it as little as possible. C, go ahead and embrace gay marriage or – excuse me. No. C would be demonstrate total ease with whatever the states decide, which is of course a way of approving what by then will be state initiatives in at least half a dozen states where gay marriage has been approved.

So what do you think is actually going to – a prediction rather than what ought to happen? I think in terms of what 2016 is going to look like, assuming that you have one of the people you just mentioned, I think that you're actually going to see them stick fairly closely to the current conservative line when it comes to gay marriage, mostly because I think they're going to recraft it in terms of the way that they talk about it. And I think it's going to get back to talking about family as opposed to talking about the issue of marriage in terms of saying that kids deserve a mom and dad,

talking about the fact that you've passed the point where the majority of births are now out of wedlock, etc. And I think that that's something that Republicans have sort of been shifting toward within the marriage conversation for a while. I also think that they'll talk about religious liberty. I think it's interesting that the court is sort of going to be taking up that in the context of Obamacare, but you're also going to see that, I think, in the context of churches and companies that are going to have legal fights and squabbles over the implementation of this. So we'll see how that plays out a little bit. I don't think that you're going to see that rapid of a transition, though, mostly because Rubio's been consistent on this point. Tyndall's been consistent on this point. You know, Ryan, I think, is certainly just as Federalist as anybody else.

And so maybe he is the one who would sort of kick it more in that direction. But, you know, unless barring a Christie nomination or something like that, I really can't see the Republican Party shifting that dramatically. I think that what would happen is more along the lines of reframing the issue as one that I think is more about government's important role in sort of making sure that kids, that families stay together in the best interest of kids. I don't think that you're going to see that transition. However, I do think that lost outfits prediction that Republicans will eventually nominate someone who both favors gay marriage and is both thoroughly pro-life

is probably one that bears consideration in the long run. Well, that would be the Murphy candidate, probably. That would be the... That sort of fits his profile. Hey, Ben, before you go, and I know it's late, I just have to ask you because you're so plugged in. What should we expect with this fiscal cliff stuff?

What should we expect to happen? What should we fear is going to happen? And what will constitute a victory for us? These are just easy questions. for the true millionaire and above earners are going to propose something that essentially retroactive to January 1st, 2013, creates a scenario where you've got cuts for the middle class and for people who are below that, but you have the hikes in place or a return to the higher ones. I think that's really where Republicans are going to end up.

And I think that's mostly because they simply don't have enough leverage in the current situation to change the dynamic. And without that sort of leverage, there's no real push for protecting the tax rates for higher earners. Americans are going to get what they voted for in that sense. I think one of the critical parts of this, though, is going to be protecting pass-through income for small business owners. If that doesn't get protected, there's going to be some big fallback for that. The good part is that when Republicans do finally agree to higher taxes on people who make a million dollars or more or something, that's when you're going to have an awful lot of people from Jon Stewart on down saying, hmm, I'm going to take another look at this party because their ideological flexibility really impresses me. Maybe there's

more I can learn by studying their ideas. Yeah, that'll work. Exactly. Listen, Ben, you suffer interruptions. You agree with what we say and then you expand on it and make us seem even smarter for having asked the question. I don't know why we don't have you back every single week. But we thank you. We'll see you at all the usual spaces and we'll see you at Ricochet. Thanks, Ben. Thanks, Ben. Smartest man in politics, ladies and gentlemen.

Absolutely. Absolutely. Go there and give money for the transom. After, of course, you've given money to Ricochet, you know, because a lot of things coming up next year at Ricochet as people generally drift away from the podcast thinking, well, the guests are done. What can there possibly be?

Oh, no, no, no, no. There's more arguments to come. I've got it, guys. I've got the slogan now for the Republican Party. This is it. Ben was talking about the stool, the three-legged stool, right, and how Murphy and his ilk want to remove one leg. What do you have when you have a two-legged stool, right?

You fall over? Not if you call it a ladder. So you stop saying it's a stool on which the party is going to sit down and go nowhere. It's a ladder to climb to greater electoral victory. And while Ross may be right in that the party at some point will nominate somebody who is in favor of gay marriage and is pro-choice. What that essentially will mean is that the Democrat Party at that point will be advocating polygamy and the mandatory evacuation of all wombs after six months. I mean, because when I look at these things, I just say the culture war. Yeah, that was an interesting battle, but we lost. And a lot of what I'm hearing is the fact that a lot of republicans don't get that that war i think in large part was lost that it's you're not going to be able to remake and refashion

the humpty dumpty culture into something that it was before the progressives came along in the 60s it's just i'd love to say we can go on. Can I be slightly hopeful here? I agree with you, but here's my hopeful point. My hopeful point is that you can criticize by creating. That's what – Michelangelo actually said that. There will be some states that are attractive, that seem to be running on free market and sort of conservative lines. There are going to be cities that are run that way, schools, certain schools will be running that way, and people – if we have an active and non-theoretical product, not a concrete product for people to go to and say, oh, this is what it is. This is what conservatism is.

I think that we could win it back. Well, we won't win it back. We will win something new that will resemble what we used to have, and it'll be different in other areas. Because, I mean, everything does change and everything has to change. And when we talk about the culture that was lost in the 50s and the early 60s, there was a lot of that culture I don't want

to go back to. There's a reason that I'm not a hardcore social conservative on a lot of issues, because there's been progress made, and I like it. There's been a change and a shift, and it's not all bad. And I think that we come off as the party of fusty beard pickers when we say, I wish it was like, you know, leave it to Beaver again. No, I don't want to go back. So saying on the, I was having this long conversation with the spy, the New York magazine spy on

the National Review cruise. One of the things that the Society for Commercial Archaeology recently unearthed was a series of green books, they called them. These were guidebooks that were handed out to African Americans, to black people who were taking trips all over the country so that when they went to a town and they had a flat, they knew who would be able to fix their car without running them out, without calling the guys in the sheets. Now, while we may look back at the social cohesion and cultural confidence of the country in the previous, in the post-war era and the pre-war era, you got to say there's something wrong with a culture where people have to have guidebooks to make sure that they know where they can get a tooth filled without getting their head caped in. mix back there. And when you consider, for example, that in the 30s, I mean, the dominant collectivism and downright proto-fascism that you had in some of the media and some of the popular

culture, FDR being the hero of the masses, for God's sakes, we've been down this road and we've come back from it. So you change every time you get back in the main drag, but it's not lost as a culture. That battle was lost, but it's not lost as a culture. That battle was lost, but it doesn't mean the country or the future is lost. That would be ridiculous. And that would mean I'm just going to sit in my house here and scan old magazines and say, boo-hoo. It doesn't look like Life magazine. I totally agree.

And look, if you're Calvin Coolidge, we're all rhinos. Right. Exactly. So, you know, it's why we have Ricochet. It's where we can get and hash these things out and not succumb to the glumps. Although, you know, really, when I hear that the inauguration hasn't even happened yet, I do feel, as I've said before, like somebody who's, you know, who's waking up from the dental anesthetic and the guys, the guys just leaning over.

Hold on. Wait, wait, wait, wait. That's very true. Why could they just had it the day after? Just get it done. Yeah, just get it done. Just slam it in. But we got to go to the parties.

Oh, yeah. That's going to be specials on TV. Oh, it's going to be awful. Oh, God. Why can't they? specials on TV. Oh, it's going to be awful. Oh, God. Why can't they? The NRCrews should be that week. Yeah. We could just go away and miss it. Well, we've got a podcast coming up next week, right? We have to do something

that's a little bit, we've got to have some fun here as well. We have to, we should have some cultural messages, not just political messages, but some, you know, discuss, for example, how – the politics of Christmas music and whether or not that's changed over the years because I have a theory. Oh, absolutely. I've got a theory. You can sort of chart where the American middle class culture is by looking at the Christmas albums that are put up from year to year to year.

I did that on your site all the time. I used to love that. You still do that on your site? We put up the covers because some of those covers – you kind of – I remember having this kind of crazy flashback, instant flashback when I saw on your site the cover of – was it the Goodyear Christmas album? Yeah, exactly. Exactly. I remember hearing that as a kid. I'm thinking – and I just – I looked at the cover on the website.

It was like an electrifying time machine. I just went right back. God, I can remember every song on that album. So as do I. You might want to go to the site these days too, Rob. It's still going on. There's something – I was just leading you into this plot.

Today's entry has something on a series of records put out by the W.T. Grant Company. Grant was, I mean, they weren't even Kresge's. They had 1,200 stores across the country. They're forgotten now, and they really flamed out spectacularly in the 70s. But they put out Christmas albums like everybody else did, and they had Arthur Fiedler and E.Power Biggs on his organ and Jim Neighbors singing along. I mean, you have this middle-brow collection that goes from

Simon and Garfunkel to these over-orchestrated lovely pieces, and it's what people used. It was the dominant sound of what Christmas sounded like. Now, when I listen to some of the drivel and meretricious crep that my daughter has piping through the system, it's auto-tuned voices with the female vocal fry.

Too much emotion, absolutely not a scintilla of genuinenosity to it. That's not a word, which it isn't. Anyway, so we should talk about this. But who knows? Maybe we'll be at war with Syria or Iran perhaps, and there'll be something else to discuss. Peter, you still there? I'm still here, boys.

But I've got to run. Next week? Rob's got to run. I've got to run. Next week? Rob's got to run. I've got to run. Everybody's got to run. We will see you at Ricochet.com, folks. Join now. Join for the year.

Lock in that low rate and be one of those people who keeps the fastest-growing center-right civil conversation site on the web prosperous in 2013. All right, guys. See you down the road. See you soon, guys. Take care. Take care. All lies in jest Till the man hears What he wants to hear And disregards the rest When I left my home

And my family I was no more than a boy In the company of strangers In the quiet of the railway station when it's scared They know, seeking out the poorer quarters Where the ragged people go Looking for the places only they would know Thank you. Ricochet. Join the conversation. Thank you. Bye.