I wanted to add a few quick thoughts to the whole “Jindal Republican response” talk.
First and foremost let me just say this, few people actually watch these responses and almost none of them are ever good. We can all argue that he was reaching out to a different audience, that he was setting the stage for something, but really most people who tuned into the speech undoubtedly watched some of the commentary and then returned to their lives. So any talk of how this may effect Jindal’s future or the conservative movement is silly and a waste. In a week most American’s who are not hard core political junkies won’t remember who Jindal is.
Next, I was not a fan of the speech for many different reasons. Yes I thought the setting was terrible but in the end I don’t really care. The president spoke before a Joint Session of Congress and so Jindal could have spoken anywhere save for in front of an assembly of the Lollipop guild and he would have looked small in comparison.
Yes there are numerous other settings that could have been “revolutionary” or “Web 2.0″ or any number of things better than standing in front of a hallway. He could have opened a bottle of Sprite midway and it would have made the setting more interesting. A dog walking around the back would have given it more atmosphere. That ultimately was not the problem. The speaker sets the stage with words and performance luring viewers in with a new way of explaining the old or an old way of explaining the new. Jindal just didn’t have it together making for a boring talk in a time when the nation is willing to follow Obama because they he isn’t being given much competition.
One of the few rare examples of a decent rebuttal was Jim Webb’s speech after President Bush’s State of the Union in 2007. It was a time in which his years of military service and perspective as a blue dog freshman member of the Senate gave him an authority that had been lacking in almost every Democrat address during the Bush years. The speech came as a growing percentage of the nation was moving away from the War and looking to the Democrats for a new solution. While everything Webb said about the surge and War during that time period proved wrong, his speech was actually one of the few rebuttals of the time that had any resonance. It also ended on a very powerful note with Webb stating:
Tonight we are calling on this president to take similar action…. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.
It was a foreshadowing that gave hope to a Party that had been run into the ground and left for dead during the Bush years. That right there was a model for the end of Jindal’s response and the sentiment that needs to shine through in every Republican response during the first two years of the Obama administration.
I thought Jindal should have introduced himself quickly with one story of his upbringing at the beginning, one at the tail end and none in the middle. His appearance was too much like a campaign commercial. He has an incredible life story but it is one the American people can discover on their own. Had Jindal introduced himself and followed with powerful and resonant words, the American people would have sought him out through Google. By falling flat, there was no need for a follow-up action from viewers, especially those who are not core conservatives.
He should have stated clearly what Republicans believe is wrong with the stimulus and given a hint of the Party’s plans going forward.
1) His plans are too costly
2) Inefficiently target the wrong areas
3) Stand in the way of a natural market rebound
4) Only lead to economic instability, inflation
Put simply Republicans KNOW it is the wrong plan during bad times. He should have highlighted what the Republicans alternative was during the stimulus fight in basic terms like this:
“Republicans decided to head the calls of many economists for a stimulus that was more than a typical Washington spending plan and was instead an actual blueprint for stimulating the economy. We created a stimulus that would have put money into the hands of both business and consumers. Republicans understand that our economy contains a core relationship that relies on businesses producing innovative and competitive products and services that fill a need and add quality to the lives of consumers. The better and more competitive our marketplace, the more will be consumed and the more business will employ.”
Americans need to be constantly reminded of how economics really work and why promises of government involvement sound nice but stand in the way of growth while also defeating the notion that Republicans simply want to “do nothing” and let business run wild:
“We understand the best thing government can do is encourage competition, safety, legality and quality in American enterprise; all ignored during the booming years of our housing market. Republicans know that when a marketplace is both free of corruption and free of excessive and corrupting government intervention, consumers will gladly open their wallets and jobs will be created in response. We also know that if consumers like you can keep more of your money to spend and likewise those who employ you can keep more of their money to produce, then our economy will grow and jobs will be created.”
We also need to start redefining “change” and explaining that bipartisanship is not bowing to the Obama administration’s every whim:
“Our alternative plan was never considered by the President or Democrats. While it seems simple enough for those of us who are a part of this core business and consumer relationship, many in Congress have never had to manage and never had to build. They haven’t met budgets or held the livelihood of employees in their hands. If a plan doesn’t come with a massive price tag or create a lot of bureaucracy, it almost doesn’t make sense to a large percentage of those inside Washington. Even some in the Republican Party have spent so much time locked inside those beautiful marble hallways and sitting in front of a television spotlight, that what seems natural and sensible to the rest of us, has become foreign and objectionable to them. It is our job as working Americans to explain to them it is their way that must change and not the steady hand of self-responsibility and fiscal restraint.”
Jindal then should have ended with a line akin to Jim Webb’s, an acknowledgement that the people are going to wake up soon to an America radically different than the sensible world they used to know but that is OK because throughout our history whenever few wish to embrace radicalism, there are always many standing by to return our nation to what is just, right and responsible. The Republican Party will be there once again.
There was little power or fight in Jindal’s speech, little to explain to people how exactly this stimulus betrays the nation rather than saving it. It was too polite, too bland and too reminiscent of what we have come to expect from the Republican Party in recent years; a soulless mass willing to spin in whatever direction the wind is blowing rather than lay as a moveable but weighty bedrock.
