Who is the face of the Republican Party? A successful party must have a standard bearer, and yet if you ask around, you’re sure to find different answers. After over 100 days in office, President Obama’s personality is polling significantly better than his policies, and seems to be buoying his agenda and the Democratic Party with his personal approval ratings. Conversely, the GOP — the party that so successfully used to steer debates and classify social issues — seems lost without a leader.
While there are charismatic conservatives like Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal in the pipeline for 2012, the party seems confused as to how to win the midterm elections. Other governors like Florida’s Charlie Crist, Minnesota’s Tim Pawlenty and Utah’s Jon Huntsman Jr. can make a stir in the party, but they may not yet have the national stature and name recognition to appeal to those outside their home states. Historically, the incumbent President’s party usually loses seats during the midterm elections, but without a strong, unified voice, the Republicans have no chance of taking back the House.
The party is due for a changing of the guard. Dick Cheney only reminds voters of the unpopular past with every interview appearance and predictably sensationalized critique of the current administration, and younger Republicans like Meghan McCain seem to understand. She recently told Cheney and Bush adviser Karl Rove to “go away,” and they should heed that advice.
Michael Steele, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, should be the presumptive leader of the party; he will spearhead the midterm election strategy and fundraising, but he had a controversial start, and his leadership took a major blow with the party’s recent loss in New York’s 20th Congressional District to Democrat Scott Murphy. And although Steele may have had his reasons for publicly feuding with Rush Limbaugh, it was only another gift to the Democrats. Without a strong recovery, he will have trouble raising enough money for 2010.
Sarah Palin has tried to squeeze her way back into the attention of the lower forty-eight, but it is unclear just how welcome she is. Her foreign policy knowledge and experience (or lack thereof) as a vice presidential candidate scared off many, and she can only regain so much in a PR makeover. She may poll well on social issues, but at this point her national appeal remains limited and some question whether she has too many skeletons in her closet to truly take the national stage.
Rush Limbaugh, once the voice of the party, is similarly out of the picture. Although the Rush Limbaugh Show has millions of listeners, his feud with Steele exposed his fall from power within the Republican Party. The White House jumped on the issue, deftly calling Limbaugh the “intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party,” much to Republicans’ chagrin. The “man with the golden microphone” is now slowly being alienated by the GOP’s powerbrokers.
Perhaps the best option is former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who has recently shown his willingness to step into the limelight. He is a well-respected member of the party establishment who speaks with more credibility when critiquing the Obama Administration. He forcefully led the minority during the Clinton era, and the Republicans may be in need of yet another “Contract with America.” Gingrich, however, is a potential candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 and may not be too eager to tether his reputation to the results of the midterm election.
Without a recognizable face, the Republican Party is losing its voice. Perhaps the subdued criticisms were just out of respect for Obama’s early popularity, but the Republicans must separate the man from his party. He has shown to be more moderate than many would have expected during last year’s campaign and the Republicans would be wise to form a wedge between him and liberal Congressmen, who are anxious after waiting years in the minority. Although the Republicans controlled the news cycle with their recent tea parties, they seemed unfocused and more libertarian than conservative. Were they protesting taxes, Obama or the stimulus? Publicly hoping for Obama’s failure is cynical and politically unwise. The Republicans cannot remain reactionary in opposition to an appealing president with an excited base.
Last week, Republicans took a first step toward their re-branding. Named the National Council for a New America, the new agenda is aimed at bringing party leaders like Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal and other legislators to town hall formats in battleground states. These town halls might counter the charm Obama showed as a candidate in similar small venue settings on the campaign trail, but will only be effective as long as they attract national media attention. It’s certainly a good first step to see such prominent party figures rallying against the Administration’s accusation as the “party of no,” but with so many wannabe future leaders, they must be careful to present a unified front.
If Republicans want any chance in 2012 they must prime the system now and try to take back a few seats in 2010. The muddled field of faces currently competing for a leadership role leaves the party without a sorely needed unified message. They are in need of a makeover, but first they must find their model.