If Republicans want to make any headway at the polls they need to be inclusive. Many times I have heard Party leaders claim that we are the Big Tent Party but I see little real evidence to support that claim. Perhaps by Big Tent Party they mean different categories of conservative, but again I don't see the evidence.
I count three categories of conservative, Fiscal, Political and Social. Aficionados subdivide the categories further. It's fun to play with the combinations. They raise some interesting questions. For instance, if you are a political conservative but not a social conservative are you still a conservative? Currently if you want to be counted as a Real Republican you must appear to support all three.
Real Republicans are quick to apply the label RINO. Every time I hear RINO pronounced I think of a 44 Magnum round fired directly into the top of our electoral foot.
We need to admit to ourselves that the modern Washington State electorate is made up mostly of independent voters who are increasingly oblivious to the distinction between the different types of conservatives.
Young urban independent voters in particular lump us all together as a goon squad stifling freedom, burning books and stamping out science. It's still a free country and they can think what they will, but their perception is not doing us much good at the ballot box. We will not change this group's perception while they confuse fiscal conservatives with social conservatives.
So why do so many young people think this? I've seen it happen many times; just before an election some civic leader pushes a social hot button and the Real Republicans whip themselves into a frenzy. We take the bait every time, the mainstream media has a heyday, and the Democrats chuckle all the way to victory.
We don't need to sacrifice our principles; we do need to allow people who might not agree with every plank in the platform to speak their mind without being marginalized or labeled RINO. It's already a tough enough environment for our candidates. Remember, we are a political party not an exclusive club.
We have at least one thing in common with independent voters: The national debt bothers us both. Independents want government to stop the wild spending spree that they attribute to us.
Independents might vote Republican if they believed that we would actually do something about the debt instead of shouting slogans. The debt grew at an unprecedented pace on our watch so we have a big job ahead convincing voters that we are not a bunch of Borrow and Spend conservatives trying to starve the beast with debt. Dave Reichert took a step in this direction when he voted against the Wall Street bailout both times and it probably saved his bacon on Election Day.
Seattle voters view the Republican Party as consumed by social issues. As an Economic Hawk I'm held hostage by the Republican obsession with gay marriage and abortion. We are powerless to initiate positive solutions to pressing problems such as health care costs or transportation because we have no influence at the polls. We are junior citizens, ignored by the population at large.
New candidates have to pander to the King County Party base to get an enthusiastic Republican endorsement. Unless Party management is satisfied with the pitiful few wins as of late we should drop the litmus test and let the fiscal conservatives take the lead from the social conservatives. We might rack up a few extra wins on Election Day.
Hmmm. Immigration. Political or Social? Maybe if you want to put up a fence it is political, if you want to give services it's social.
Hairy
Posted by: Hairy Buddah on December 10, 2008 10:51 PMFailing to do this will turn the party over to the left because George Bush's neoconservativism already looks a lot like the altruism of the left, but with a theological bent instead of a collectivist one.
The whole "we are going to rebuild from the ground up" approach is bunk. As well as all of the social conservatives who are overly focused on abortion and enamored with losers like Huckabee. Huckabee is just a different strain of McCain. Neither has the encompassing chops needed to win.
The best way to win is to show the American people that the massive expansion of government and corresponding loss of freedom has got them nowhere.
And note this is not a libertarian platform. That won't fly either. An individual oriented, fiscally restrained platform can be built without the wacky Ron Paul like ideas that instantly marginalize.
The left will do a great job of metering out a lot of rope under Obama, and then hang themselves. There's no way that their bloated, socialist, union dominated ideology can stay upright under its own weight. And their eyes are much bigger than the taxpayers wallets. Especially in a downturn. And their hedonistic ways speak for themselves without the need for religious lecturing from the right.
I knew that we were in for a dreadful outcome when I spoke with a PCO friend last November and he confided that McCain was the party insider approved choice.
It's going to take a new Obama like charismatic with good values, but who still respects the separation of church and state, and who can focus like a laser on a limited set of core conservative ideas that are quite visibly the opposite of the Democrats.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 11, 2008 12:16 AMHere's how I see foreign policy conservatism. If we are going to engage in war, which we can and should do at times for the protection of the US, it must be in conflicts where we fully intend to dominate quickly and decisively. There can't be any waffling and cowardly efforts where soldiers need to call for JAG core approval of every shot. Either we go big, or we stay home. And I'm very hawkish. But I don't think we can get anywhere with the meandering George Bush war mentality. I don't want to see us cower and give peace a chance like the naive fools on the left do, but all eyes are on the US, so we have to be clear and decisive about our military deployment.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 11, 2008 12:21 AMI can't tell you how many great friends I have who have struggled though our archaic immigration legal system, when they already have everything it takes to be a great American. And if fact most immigrants appreciate the US, and are far more right leaning on account of the despotic nightmares from whence they came. Ours for the taking if we embrace them. The closed border right is just like the religious right, a big dead end.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 11, 2008 12:28 AMI don't like abortion, especially late term. It's ugly killing. But that said, religious right types who put all of their political chips on that one issue are just plain foolish. It won't sell to a larger audience. And especially one that lives in the indoctrinated Hollywood culture that glorifies sex, hedonism and instant gratification.
This is why conservatives need to abandon the religious issues and focus on the much more encompassing issues of fiscal responsibility, freedom, responsible yet unapologetic human use of the earth's resources, etc.
What's life under an expanding statist tyranny anyway.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 11, 2008 12:36 AMWHATEVER a Republican is, it's easy to determine what they are not.
Sam Reed, for example, doesn't have a Republican bone in his body. He IS a RINO, because his affiliation with the GOP is utterly meaningless, and when it is meaningless, we have the choice of being partisan-driven automatons and voting for a moron like that anyway; or we can send a message by holding him and those like him responsible for their rank incompetence.
You would, it would seem, have us ignore the party's basic tenets in the name of political expediency. There's something to be said for standing for something, for the party MEANING something, for party discipline.
Down here in Clark County, we've had, in the recent past, a county executive board member working on a democrat commissioner's campaign... making money off the democrats, while I busted my ass to get the Republican elected. Would you call someone like that a RINO? And what of local party leadership that did nothing about it? Or one GOP commissioner endorsing a democrat commissioner? Or a GOP PCO running for PUD Commissioner endorsing the entirety of the democrat ticket, from the US Senate on down back in 06? (He's still a PCO, BTW, and his endorsement was in the county dem's newsletter and website)
I believe, as a former state GOP executive director, that our problems are not based on our ideas nearly as much as they are based on our inability to present those ideas in a targeted way to effectively impact the discussion.
We have precisely zero minority outreach in this state. None. And as the minority voter's numbers increase, we become increasingly irrelevant if we cannot appeal to the minority voting segment.
Social issues have their place; one need look no farther then Prop 8, where, for example, 70% of black voters supported that law... so, after voting democrat they embraced the social issue that you would suggest we abandon.
I disagree. Instead, we need to drill down and determine why we cannot connect with this segment. Not only do we not know, there doesn't appear to be any real effort to find out, yet we cannot deny the fundamental appeal of the social issues where each and every one of those 70% of black voters SHOULD have been in the GOP.
Frankly, until we can find a way to connect with the ever-increasing minority voter demographic, many of which share our views on ALL of these issues but still, apparently, feel ignored by the GOP; the rest of this is eyewash.
Without the proper and targeted infrastructure we need; without the ability to present vetted, smart, trained and capable candidates with adequate funding... the issue of ideas fades into nothingness, for without those things, no one hears the ideas anyway.
I see you notice how Gregoire, like Cantwell, slaughtered the Toro (the R opponent) the same way. Through thousands of small cuts (red herrings disguised as issues- minimum wage, health care, PDC deposition etc. from this election), Rossi and McGavick were slaughtered. The Rs don't have a chance against the matadors.
Posted by: swatter on December 11, 2008 07:04 AMI probably should have worded it better. Economic Hawks will be kept out of the action in Seattle politics until Republicans begin to battle for common sense spending as fiercely as they defend life and marriage.
Posted by: SteveLondon on December 11, 2008 12:11 PMBut the usual suspects are out there in the meantime using newsprint and megaphones to pound home their message that conservatives and Republicans should either abandon fiscal conservatism/small-government predilections or abandon "social issues" that in the words of the obnoxious Kathleen Parker make its adherents into an "oogedy-boogedy" caucus.
The groups having the conversations are acting constructively. The others can stuff it.
The usual suspects pushing for conservatives to drop essential and longstanding tenets of conservatism are asking conservatives to stop being conservatives. That's like asking Catholics to stop being Catholics, or like demanding that Red Sox fans start wearing Orioles uniforms.
Forget it. ...
I agree. How dare you say that social conservative issues should have no seat at the table?
It takes a fool not to see that EVERYTHING else stems out of those social mores.
... Wait. What's that? Oh, I see?. The usual suspects protest that they have our best interests at heart. They say their advice is for our own good, because if we want to win in this brave new political world, we'll need to adjust. Adjust our thinking. Adjust our beliefs. Adjust our values.
No way....
... Therefore, all of this supposedly wise tactical advice to the effect that we should abandon, or significantly play down, any of the main principles that animate us is neither wise nor tactically clever, nor even realistic. It assumes that conservatives could be successful acting as if we're something that we're not. But in the long run, inauthenticity never works. Integrity is more powerful. ...
Shame on you people so willing to give up and give in to the least common denominator. Do you realize how much in common that is with the ugliness that has become liberalism?
There can be nothing without liberty, decreased statism, and the acknowledgment that above all else, man has a right to pursue his own ends and to shape the world around him and form his values and use them to aquire his wealth, property and the good relationships that allow him to share in the joy of his achievement.
The LCD is not religion, love, or even life, it is freedom.
Conservatives need to get back to the basics of defending freedom. The rest will follow.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 11, 2008 10:06 PMPoint of clarification - neoconservatism, much maligned, is the simple little belief that freedom isn't merely an American value. It's a human value. And America, enriched with the knowledge that freedom is so valuable, has an obligation to help other people who aren't so lucky.
Paleo-conservatives live in the world of yesterday - a world when we didn't have to concern ourselves with other things that went on in the world, ie "our oceans protect us."
But in the spirit of Steve London's very nice and inclusive piece, I'd say that paleocons are welcome in our party. reluctantly. :)
Posted by: AD on December 12, 2008 06:12 AMI don't agree that social conservative issues necessarily decreases our vote total. Considering the recent results of referenda in other states (including California), a case could be made that social conservative issues can increase, not decrease, our appeal to some Democrats, and to independents, and minority voters. Whether it actually increases or decreases our vote, of course, depends on the office being sought, the county or state in which the election is held, and overall political factors that change from year to year.
But there is a more important point.
In my view, policies and issues are not means towards the end of winning elections. I look at it the other way around: winning elections are a means towards implementation of policy. Defense of traditional marriage and protection of the rights of the unborn are both legitimate policy objectives. That's why I support retaining them as part of our political platform and as part of our goals as an organization.
The Republican Party is strongest when we adhere to all five aspects of conservatism (fiscal conservatism, immigration conservatism, social conservatism, national security conservatism, and optimism conservatism). Nevertheless, we should enthusiastically welcome all those who - despite differences - are willing to support the overall objectives of the Republican Party and to work for the election of Republican candidates.
Even if one is not a social conservative, and even if one does not agree with the pro-life position as expressed in the GOP platform, I urge the consideration of the other points where we do find ourselves in agreement (fiscal conservatism, immigration conservatism, and national security conservatism). The overall policies of conservatism are beneficial to our nation and far superior to the far left agenda of the Democratic Party. Let's work together where we agree, and in the meantime let's try to patiently discuss and persuade each other regarding those issues where we disagree.
We have many rights - natural rights which are derived from God. These God-given rights are codified in our constitution and must be protected by government. And it's no accident that, in enumerating some of these rights, the Declaration of Independence - our founding document - recognizes the "right to life" first of all. Without life, there is no liberty. Without liberty, there is no pursuit of happiness. I believe in the sanctity of all human life, and I'm committed to the protection of liberty for all human life - including innocent, unborn human life.
Posted by: Steve Beren on December 12, 2008 01:01 PMSteve is right that a case can be made that the social issues can increase our appeal to Democrats, independents and minority voters. While Dino didn't emphasize his pro-life position, there were many Democrats who supported him BECAUSE of it, not because he was fiscally conservative. Who knows what might have happened if he had emphasized it more.
But the King Co. Republican party too socially conservative? Really?
And Steve is also correct that winning elections is a means toward the implementation of policy. The question is, what policies do we want to implement? If our candidates don't support the policies our party says it is working toward, then what is the point in winning elections?
Posted by: Michelle on December 12, 2008 10:30 PMAnd wasn't that borne out in CA with Prop 8? It was passed overwhelmingly in a liberal area in a liberal year. Conservative ideals WIN.
Rather than tailer our message, our goals, to fit whatever candidates with an 'R' after their name happen by, we should be looking for candidates that fit our message.
If we can't stick to our principles, why bother? That applies in politics as much as it does in ordinary everyday life. Is it worth selling your soul (which is what denying your principles is) for politics?
And isn't THAT the best contrast with a liberal political machine that will says whatever is expedient at the moment to whomever they happen to be speaking?
No thanks.
You're absolutely right! If the same grassroots Republicans who have a good debate about platform, and then adopt a good conservative platform, also do the selecting of our candidates, we will have candidates we can enthusiastically get behind. In order for this to happen, we need to elect party leaders who believe in this kind of operation. Check out From the Roots Up: http;//wsrpreform.blogspot.com
Posted by: Michelle on December 17, 2008 10:03 AM