Apologies to Ms. Austen aside, I’d like to use my first post to answer Aaron’s original question: how can the Republican Party get back on track?
The first step is to figure out why we derailed. I know better and brighter minds have done this throughout the blogosphere, but I like to identify problems before I solve them. That’s one of the reasons I’ll never work in government. So stick with me through a broad overview.
- We did not have any coherent message. Obama ran as a candidate who would cut taxes; end inefficient government programs; and give Americans more “choice” with their health care. McCain ran as the guy who wasn’t Obama. Obama was a centrist; McCain was, uh, a maverick. Candidates down the ticket clung to Obama’s hope, change, and more things for more people. The Republicans just sort of squirmed and then, at least in North Carolina, accused opponents of being atheists (see: Dole, Elizabeth).
- We did not have a solid resume. Most assume Republicans have somehow been in charge of the past eight years. (It’s scary: most don’t realize it’s been a Democratic Congress since 2006.) So, in that time, Republicans have increased the size of federal government; ballooned the size of the federal deficit; curtailed civil liberties (Patriot Act and FISA) and checks on the executive branch; presided over a terrorist attack, two unpopular wars, and a financial meltdown. At every gut check (cough, financial bailout), Republicans ran left. So it was a rocky two terms in which Republicans deserted the principles on which they tried to campaign.
- As a result, we did not have any excitement. I put this last because I think it’s the least important, but it did have an effect. It’s human nature: we do things with more zeal, effort, and care when we are genuinely excited. Just think of how much time you spent figuring out your fantasy football team.
I think the way forward for the GOP is simple: cents and sensibility. And this might be the idealism and naivety of youth, but I think if we enact good policy in honest ways then electoral victory will follow.
- Articulate our principles. Stick to them. The best advice I’ve received was to create a political matrix. Determine my ultimate goal–the “why I get up in the morning” vision–and then base every political decision on whether my action will achieve it. So Republicans should be the party of limited government and, as a natural result, of free markets and free people (to borrow from the Wall Street Journal). If a bill advances freedom, champion it. If it doesn’t, squash it. Simple.
- Be honest. Whether you manipulate the truth 1 percent or 100 percent of the time, people will believe you 0 percent of the time–as well they should. The Republican “image problem” is that the party is out of touch at best, corrupt at worst. Before Americans trust us with oh, say, national security, they need to trust us to keep our own house in order. That’s why everyone from the national chairman on down to the local dogcatcher should run a seven-count felon like Ted Stevens out of the party.
- Be generous. Stop the uselessly inflammatory personal attacks. I’m sick of hearing about elitism, intellectualism, and other-bad-isms. The right and the left very broadly want the same things (e.g. better schools, safer streets, and affordable health care), we just disagree on how to reach them. Let’s keep the debate to policy. Let’s work with those on the other side of the aisle when we have common ground. But let’s stop descending into pointless partisan bickering–for my sanity if nothing else.
But how do these ideals translate into action? I’d like to offer three admittedly broad initiatives that have not been mentioned on this blog yet. (Which means I’m either a creative thinker. Or a moron. Or both.)
- Find connections in local and state policy. Some of the most grievous assaults on personal freedom and private property rights take place in your city hall. Support for centralized planning and government control begins in your local planning department (thanks to smart growth). Fight these problems where they start and, as a plus, get people plugged in to where they will feel the full strength of their political muscle (and feel encouraged and take more action and so on). It only takes one citizen sniffing around to end an ill-conceived attempt to increase local government control. If only that were so in DC.
- Connect online and on-the-ground activists. Generations of older GOP leaders–primarily at the local and state level–aren’t connected online. As a result, a generation of new GOP activists can’t tap into their wisdom and figure out the best way to communicate it with modern media. If you’re a web guru, seek out a “traditional” activist, and vice versa. My 78-year-old grandmother is my model for Republican activism and, more importantly, conservative intellectualism. She’s spent years teaching me and now, just last night, she asked me for information to help get one of her Republican committees online.
- Encourage government accountability and transparency. Public oversight of government keeps it honest and, in many cases, limited. But more importantly, acting as a watchdog of the government helps reaffirm to people that the government works for them–and uses up their resources. It is not a giant slot machine to keep playing until it spits out some money for you; it’s all too often a money pit into which you deposit a nice chunk of your paycheck.
The overarching path to a GOP “resurgence” or “victory” or simply “not-losing-so-much-in-the-polls” should be simple. Return to our roots, stay true to our principles, and offer the American people what they always like: cents and sensibility.
Last 5 posts by Abby Alger
- Helping the Right Online, One PDF at a Time - March 29th, 2009
- Kids These Days - March 17th, 2009
- In which I browse HR 1105, so you don't have to. - February 24th, 2009
- Re: Attacking Obama - February 5th, 2009
- What does youth voter outreach look like? - January 11th, 2009
I can take you step by step down a list of things that derailed Republicanism, starting with the notion that Republicanism turned into the new democratic party with this idea that government is good. Once Republicans remove this notion from their mindset you’ll see things move in the right direction. As Grover Norquist routinely advocates, we are the leave-us-alone coalition. We don’t necessarily agree on every single policy or topic of the day, but the overwhelming common denominator that unites us is freedom. If any Republican politician can successfully articulate this idea to the public then things will turn around, but it just seems like not enough politicians care about liberty, except for maybe Ron Paul. Which is rather interesting considering during the Republican primary his campaign had the largest youth vote out of all the republican candidates, the largest military vote, and the largest minority vote. Kinda sounds like the votes we are trying to acquire, huh?
I agree with Grover’s assessment of what unites the right. I think we need to return to that basic message; I think most people believe it.
I also agree with you on the importance of Ron Paul’s movement. I think the love/hate relationship the right, broadly speaking, has with it is interesting. There seem to be three camps–and you can pick up on which people belong to immediately. The first refers to Ron Paul as “Dr. Paul”; they’re the actual supporters. The second, in which I suppose I’d place myself, simply calls him Ron Paul. The last group trademarked the term “Paultard.” That should be sufficient indication of their feelings.
I’m not sure why there’s such animosity coming from the Paultard camp, though it does include groups like the Weekly Standard. I think Paul loses a majority voting bloc on foreign policy (we haven’t been that isolationist since Washington’s Farewell Address); monetary policy (I don’t necessarily disagree, I just think most people don’t care); and drug policy (I would love to watch y’all pitch that to social conservatives). But I do think the success he has found is incredibly instructive for any candidate and, if I may be so self-absorbed as to return to what I said in the post above, Paul demonstrates:
coherent message + solid resume –> excitement of supporters (–> action, like your post here)
clear principles + honesty + policy-focused debate –> political success (Paul was in primary debates, $4M money-bomb, etc.)
I don’t agree with Ron Paul on every issue, but I do like the perspective he brings to the conservative movement, broadly speaking.
And, as a personal note, I volunteered for B.J. Lawson’s campaign (http://lawsonforcongress.com) this fall. B.J. was running for the House seat in NC-4, and he had–from my observation at least–a good deal of help from Ron Paul supporters nationally. So if you’re interested in the movement, keep an eye on him. He’s not in Congress this time around, but 2010 will come up quickly…
I read a few Ron Paul websites every day and Dr. Lawson was widely advocated by the Ron Paul supporters. I was sad to hear he lost to the incumbent democrat. I’m sure his day will come when he’s able to represent his district.
I agree with your assessment of the three groups opinion of Ron Paul. Although I find it rather strange because he was by far the most conservative of the Republican presidential candidates. He’s Barry Goldwater’s, aka Mr. Conservative’s, twin.
The isolationist foreign policy label is a misnomer. He advocates non-intervention, that is not the same as isolationism. And non-intervention happens to be the most consistent with conservatism, although you’d never guess it in today’s political climate. Interventionist foreign policy does many things that are directly antithetical to conservatism: 1) Increases the scope and size of government through the increased power of the executive(throughout history government has always exponentially increased in size during a time of war), 2) Greatly increases financial burden upon the citizenry, 3) From a traditionalist viewpoint interventionism is in direct opposition with strong family values as the deaths of our young courageous soldiers on the battlefield potentially tear families apart, and the time soldiers spend away from their loved ones while on the battlefield generally causes great unwarranted stress on the family, 4) Christianity is in direct opposition with what would be considered an interventionist foreign policy.
My mother is a strict social conservative and both my parents are hardlined Republicans, and both would be very happy to see decriminalization of marijana. I don’t think it would be hard to pitch at all. From a economic perspective, 1/4 of the entire World’s prison population is solely attributable to our Nation’s prison population. That is right, we house 1/4 of World’s deemed criminals. Its more of an economic burden to detain these petty non-violent drug users than the social burden they might impose on society, especially since they do not pettle the drugs.
The drug issue is one of the least important topics in my opinion. Although his opinions on monetary policy and entitlements I think are extremely important topics of discussion as they directly effect EVERY single person’s wealth in this country. I am effectively poorer due to social security, medicaid/medicare, and to our extremely loose monetary policy. The Fed’s monetary policy is what creates inflationary bubbles, and recessionary corrections. The worst tax on the individual is not our current progressive income taxation system, it is the eroding of the value of the dollar in your pocket through inflationary measures taken by the Fed. Imagine if the value of the dollar in your pocket doubled over night. ALL commodity based products, food, gas, heating oil, building supplies, etc. would drastically fall in price. It would be much cheaper to live in this country. You and I will be much wealthier with Ron Paul’s monetary and entitlement reform policies put in place than the hyperinflationary road we are currently set on.