There’s been a lot of conversation in the media, the blogosphere, around dinner tables, and water coolers for the past few weeks about the future of the Republican Party. The tone of these discussions runs the gamut from sincere to snarky, from condescending and nasty to thoughtful and hopeful. The result of these conversations is a long way off, but the discussions themselves are vitally important for the future of the party and the country.
I’ve been around for a pretty long time (Please tell me that 60 is the new 30!), and I’ve seen periods when the Republicans were in the majority and times when the Democrats were. The pendulum swings. Actually, that’s a good thing in my opinion: No one party has a monopoly on all the right answers. As they say, an eagle needs two wings to fly.
But the purpose of this post is to have a conversation about how we can make the Republican Party stronger.
We talk about our principles, but sometimes the principles and policies get so intertwined we can’t tell one from the other. It seems to me that we need to define those driving principles that we can all agree on and that will then provide the foundation for a stronger and more explainable Republican message. Well, duh. Yet what seems to have happened is that we have stumbled into defining beliefs in terms of litmus tests. And then demand that our fellow Republicans must unquestioningly adhere to those beliefs or risk being ostracized from the group.
I would submit the following two quotes as an illustration of why the prospects for party unification may be about as likely as peace in the Middle East.
First, from the Hoover Institute, a conservative think tank: “The decline of Republican strength occurs when strong Republicans become weak Republicans, weak Republicans become independents, and independents lean more Democratic or [are] even becoming Democrats. . . . The problem for Republicans is that their base is slowly shrinking, and they cannot win without the support of moderates”.
And then from a recent blog comment, “What they don’t understand about Ron Paul supporters is that we don’t want to be a part of the GOP – we want to BE the GOP! We want the GOP to represent exactly what we believe.”
How can we possibly reconcile those two disparate views? Let alone the other millions of diverse opinions of those Americans who consider themselves Republicans or conservatives.
I have always considered myself a moderate Republican, and while I respect John McCain for his service to this country and admire his attempts to reach across the political aisle, I firmly oppose most of his bipartisan legislation – McCain/Feingold for example. The compromise proposal for immigration reform is anathema to me, and I am dismayed by the fiscal mismanagement of all levels of government. So perhaps I must find a new way to define myself in terms of my political persuasion. If I am not a “moderate”, and I certainly have never subscribed to the uber-conservative mandates of the Constitutionalist/Ron Paul/Pat Buchannan republicans who are now committed to “taking our party back”, where do I fit?
Philosophically speaking, I believe that the best government is small and local, but due to an appalling lack of interest and involvement by the citizenry in local government, our schools, cities, and counties are woefully inadequate, inept, or corrupt; there is a vital role for federal government, but it is not always, or even usually, the best, right, or only answer to most of society’s ills. The federal government is responsible for our national security, interstate commerce and for those things that cannot be more efficiently and effectively done by the states, local governments, the private sector, or the people themselves – education, healthcare, and welfare (small “w”). Bailing out people and companies who have made stupid financial decisions just doesn’t seem to be an appropriate role for an unwieldy bureaucracy. I believe in the sanctity of life, but I recognize that abortions are a fact of life – always have been, and always will be – but I cannot justify the expenditure of tax dollars to pay for them. I believe that marriage is a sacrament, instituted by God (can you see the nun standing over my shoulder?) and is, therefore, the province of religious institutions, and the government should have no role in defining who can or can’t, should or shouldn’t, get married. I believe in equality for all, regardless of race, creed, color, or religion, and that government should insure a level playing field; yet we all have an equal right to fail as well as succeed. I believe in the Rule of Law, of equal justice, and the freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
So what kind of Republican am I? Moderate? No, that’s already been established here. Conservative? That contingent doesn’t like me much either. Pragmatic? Possibly. Realistic? Probably. After a lifetime of being politically active, and after having lived in Oregon where my conservative bent left me feeling like a “right-wing-nut”, and Idaho where my political philosophy was suddenly almost “whacko-liberal”, I am back in Montana where my ideology seems pretty much middle-of-the-road.
I call it “Mainstreet” Republicanism. And I think that’s where the party has to be to regain the majority we once had.
What say you?
[Note: While I believe in freedom of expression, I also believe in CIVIL discourse. I will delete any comments that are rude, vulgar, or otherwise inappropriate. It’s good to be Queen.]
I like the slogan/motto of the Republican Liberty Caucus.
“Fiscally conservative, socially tolerant and for a strong defense”.
http://www.RLC.org
They endorsed quite a few Montana Republicans that actually got elected.
I think the Religious Right alienates a lot of people because they are not socially tolerant.
I agree these bailouts are not in our best interests. When you remove the risk of failure you invite the kind of bad decisions we have seen.
And to answer your question about what kind of Republican you are, it sounds like you might have a slight Libertarian leaning 🙂
I can’t say I have had a lifetime of being politically active, in fact, my family usually avoids talk of religion and politics…it makes for fewer interruptions of family dinners. This election cycle changed my mindset. I am an educator married to a farmer. I grew up in Western Montana (deeply Democratic), and now live in North Central Montana (equally deep Republican)…I’m not much good at fitting labels, especially after this year.
Now, I own my vote. It will not be given because of party nor because of promises. I want a voting record I can analyze. What I want, is not what we received…now how do we make the best of this mess?
BTW…I love your disclaimer!
RP ~ Actually I was asking what kind of Republican do you consider yourself to be – and why? I’m really trying to get a sense of how we label ourselves and how those labels can be used – or possibly discarded! – to help define our common principles in ways that unite us as a stronger, more appealing party, rather than provide factions within the party with clubs with which to bludgeon each other.
MTdob ~ Sounds like you are finding yourself with an identity crisis too. Given that we met on HillBuzz, I’m going to assume that you used to consider yourself a Democrat, but perhaps are not comfortable as a “liberal” or “progressive” Democrat. So, leaving labels aside – what is your political philosophy? What issues and positions define your world view? Please share!
“Good to be the Queen”? I happen to think that’s hysterical, given, well, me. Because it is good to be the Queen. Always.
To answer your post, tho, I think I’m stuck wondering what label fits best: liberal? No. Conservative? Hardly. Gucci? Maybe. Depends on the cut.
I don’t consider Pat Buchannan or Ron Paul to be conservatives anymore than I consider the KKK to be Catholics. They are the fringe of the Republican party.
Unfortunately I believe that a large portion of the Republican party in order to appease the media has drifted so far to the left that they are indistinguishable from Democrats, i.e., John McCain. And why have Democrat-lite when you can have a full fledged Democrat.
The Republican leadership believes that the only way to get moderate votes is to move to the left. That is why the support for larger government and more socialist programs. This also allows for vote buying by giving the public what it whines for instead of what it needs.
They need to convince the public that conservativism makes for a strong government and a free people while liberalism makes for a bloated government and an opressed people.
Unfortunately I think we will have to invent a new media to get the word out. Maybe something where we can communicate directly with the people and bypass the old biased media. Something like,…. well the internet, something the liberals are doing and leaving us in their wake as they pull away.
I understand the feelings for wanting everybody to get along, but to surrender the founding principals just to get along, is defeatism of the worst kind.
I do not believe in abortion, I will opose paying for it at every level.
I do not support amnesty for illegal aliens, I don’t care who proposes it.
I do not support weakening our military, I don’t care how much money it saves.
I do not support gun control in any of it’s myriad forms.
I do not support the federal government exceeding its constitutional limits. (show me where welfare or socialized medicine are allowed).
I do support capital punishment and swift justice for anyone convicted of henious crimes like serial murder, child kidnapping, torture and murder.
The Republican party has moved left to chase a few votes, and sacrificed the base to try and appease the left.
The parties such as the Libertarians or Constitutionalists have sprung up to fill the vacum left by the migrating Republican Hirarchy.
To be fair, the democrat party has been chasing the far left fringe and moved so far left they left the vacume the Republicans have been moving to fill.
Problem is, those of us who are strong conservatives with strongly held beliefs were abandoned by the now liberal Republican party.
If they would return to the basic core values of Regan, they would once again be strong, but they make pretty poor democrats.
Well here’s my .25 cents worth. The Montana GOP is the party of Denny Rehberg…..period! It’s all about Denny, at all times. This last election cycle is a perfect example. What did the Congressman do to help anybody else but himself to get elected? There aren’t enough Ron Pauler’s in the state to take over the Montana Republican Party but there are enough of them to make trouble and that is exactly what they plan on doing. Fact of the matter is, if they did take it over they wouldn’t know what to do with the organization after they got it, so Rehberg sits backs, blows smoke at them and makes them think he wants to play ball with them and in the end, he maintains control with his ‘people’ in key places. I have no problem with Denny Rehberg from the standpoint that his voting record is very good, but his ego has taken over his good judgement when it comes to the Montana GOP and he’s running the show. This is going to ruin our party eventually if it hasn’t already happened. The Montana GOP must not be run by one elected individual. We are to be the party of the people, not one special interest group (the Ron Paul folk) or one candidate (Denny Rehberg). They are both welcome to have a seat at the table but they are NOT the only game in town. So, some of us will take to the sidelines for a time and watch this situation unfold and when Rehberg, the Ron Paulers and any other ‘special interest’ who think they own the party emplode, the main stream Montana Republicans can come back and begin to rebuild the party, in the mean time I’m taking my checkbook and my time which I volunteer to the GOP and will sit on the sidelines and watch them devour each other. The democrats are loving every minute of the childs play watching us self destruct while they win nearly every elected office in the state. When Rehberg and the far right wingers decide they want to grow up and be a bit more inclusive maybe things will change, until then we’re in for more of the same that we just got dished up in this last election. A seat on the back of the bus!
Well, I for one think that the Republicans received a huge black eye from GW. Now, we all have our faults and it’s easy to see that republicans are running around like chickens with their heads cut off. You have to stick to your beliefs. Ultra-conservatism is the way of the old. As a thrity-something living in Montana, and many of my friends are also considered republicans, don’t you think the R-party could have done a bit better in nominating someone else besides McCain? And what the hell kind of pick was Palin? I have no clue what McCain and his cronies were thinking, but when you have vote and re’elect GW to run our countyr amock (again) for another 4 years, it seems as though we as republicans, and those who had the power to nominate someone to run against BO were simply stupid. The younger generation is more middle of the road, and are not looking for 4 more years of the same crap that happened in the last 8 years, that is why many R’s didn’t vote for McCain and Palin…..just my 2 cents worth, and I am sure I will here about this…..
I too find myself caught in the battle for defining the Republican Party. As a business owner and long time Republican I do not appreciate the tone or definitions set forth by the uber-conservative. Some of my favorite quotes that reflect my thinking are:
“I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.” —Thomas Jefferson
“I’m too fiscally conservative for the Democrats and too socially liberal for the Republicans, like 75% of the American people.”
—Governor Angus King
“To be locked into partisan politics doesn’t permit you to think clearly.”
—Mayor Rudy Giuliani
“Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell on the right.”
—Senator John McCain
There seems to be no pragmatism on either extreme and there is certainly little respect for those that do not agree in its entirety. This state election we had ultra-right groups targeting those less extreme, using deceitful advertising and misleading campaigning. We had whole groups of Republicans labeled as socialists and attacked.
It is time for the “Mainstreet†Republicans to step up and become part of the defining process of the Republican Party or soon we can Caucus in a phone booth. The extremes only understand strength. To remain disorganized is to empower the Democratic party and to accept the intolerant views of the extremists.