The team at Rebuild the Party is hosting an online forum for candidates in the race for RNC Chair.
The effort is notable since Rebuild the Party is gaining significant attention within Republican ranks - including questions from two of its founders Patrick Ruffini and Mindy Finn at Grover Norquist's RNC Chair forum. The answers from the RNC candidates, watchable in the above linked videos, are worth viewing.
It's also notable because the candidates are engaging, and amidst the usual riff-raff of online video submissions are some gems, such as this from Ruffini:
Great question for RNC Chair candidates to speak to prior to the 168 members of the RNC casting their ballot.
Posted by Eric Earling at January 14, 2009 10:02 PM | Email ThisIn my experience, there is one thing that reasonable people harp about all the time, regardless of political affiliation, is that government is way to big, gets in your way and costs to much for the half-arsed "service" that they provide. They also all hate crooked politicians so there is not need to cling to proven crooks. Why the GOP doesn't play to this grand majority of the population is way beyond any explanation from me.
Posted by: G Jiggy on January 15, 2009 11:48 AMI remember back during the Clinton years there was a policy proposed called 'Know your customer' that required banks to report to the feds customers engaged in suspicious transactions (e.g. large cash deposits).
There was a public comment period and the feds got something like a couple hundred thousand letters, calls, and emails against the policy, maybe 10 or 20 in favor.
Nonetheless, the policy today has been adopted. That was how the Elliot Spitzer came to the attention of the FBI. He was moving around so much cash to pay his escorts that he triggered 'suspicious activity reports' from his bank to the feds. They investigated him because they thought it might be a case of bribery, blackmail or something like that.
It is counter-intuitive, but popular sentiment does not necessarily translate to results in a democratic process.
Posted by: russell garrard on January 15, 2009 12:23 PMThis is slightly old data but Karlyn Bowman of the AEI did a study of whether Americans prefer bigger or smaller gov't. She studied from 1976 to 2004 and in all years Americans preferred smaller gov't. The closest spread was 49%-45% in 1988. Since then the pct who prefer smaller gov't has steadily grown. In 2004 she found that 64% of Americans wanted smaller gov't, and only 22% wanted larger gov't.
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.18988/pub_detail.asp
If it was not for the Ron Paul campaign I would say you are right. However having seen the number of young people involved in the Paul campaign in 07 and 08 and now in the campaign for liberty I think there is a chance of saving this party.
Posted by: Lysander on January 15, 2009 07:24 PMCan we settle on a common definition of Conservatism, to bridge social conservatives and libertarians in the party, as well as communicate our shared vision better to the voting public?
I'd like to offer my answer to this. It's simple really: federalism. Stop trying to control people by scaling back government. Since when to social conservatives think that they know what's best for other people?
If we scale back government and re-instate federalism, the social conservatives will be more than welcome to self-segregate themselves into small enclave towns where they can pass all of the draconian social control ordinances they want. The rest of us will happily enjoy our newly refreshed liberty by drinking, smoking, defending ourselves with guns, and forming legal unions with our same-sex partners.
Posted by: blindman on January 16, 2009 10:33 PMWith smaller government and more liberty, the GOP could support legal unions between homosexuals while preserving marriage as a religious institution simply by deregulating marriage and providing a simple legal union status for all of the things that the state cares about (e.g. taxation, liability, power of attorney, child custody and support, etc). This takes the homosexual vote away from the Dems by out-flanking them.
With smaller government and more liberty, the GOP could support school vouchers as the way out of the inner city schools mess. They'll have to fight the teacher's unions who don't want to lose their monopoly, but it is a fight worth fighting. Bringing school choice to inner city kids and opening up the school system to competition is the only way to save it. Better schools for poor urban kids would win massive support for the GOP in traditional Democrat strongholds.
I could go on and on...there are many places where the GOP could erect a new "big tent" under the banner of individual liberty and steal traditional Democrats away from the Democrat Party.
Posted by: blindman on January 16, 2009 10:41 PMThat means that we need to engage with homosexuals and show them how liberty allows them to achieve the equal status in society that they so strongly desire. It means we show the people of faith how liberty ensures that their faith is once again welcome in schools and the public square. It means we show parents how liberty gives them better options for their kid's schooling.
If we have the integrity to fully embrace liberty, the GOP message will not look much like the "we hate you" Republican party of the last 14 years.
The reason the GOP keeps losing is because the liberal "diversity" brainwashing has successfully reframed the policy debate in such a way that any policies that limit the liberty of certain segments of the population come off as hateful. Like it or not, that's how people are now seeing it. A more libertarian message is truly inclusive and free from the hate undertones. It's the only way we're ever going to make a comeback and I personally believe it is the only way we'll be able to save the United States from sliding into an oligarchy.
Posted by: blindman on January 16, 2009 10:51 PMThe incentive structure is good once we have arrived at libertarian nirvana, but it's hard to get from here to there.
First the bureaucrats will fight you tooth and nail--they are well-organized and are fighting for their meal ticket, not some pie-in-the-sky ideal.
Second, while the voters may even prefer your ideas, they will be worried about 'amateur night' catastrophes. The incumbents are if nothing else pros at running the gov't. They may not be very good, but they are experienced.
Look up what the platform of the GOP was when Howard Taft ran, and won, the Presidency.
It draws many similar lines to what I'm proposing. I'm convinced that the LP wouldn't exist today if the GOP hadn't become the part of the Puritans back in the 80's.
Posted by: blindman on January 17, 2009 08:52 AMIt would be possible to have a state with very low taxation, liberal gun laws, school vouchers, etc. right now but it is not done (it is being tried in NH with the 'Free State Project.') I guess time will tell how successfully.
I guess my point is, if we already do not use what power we have under federalism to advance liberty, what good would it do if we had more?
Posted by: russell garrard on January 17, 2009 01:32 PM