"The GOP must return to efficient government, to appropriate spending priorities that are not out of line, that don't create deficits, that speak to a strong national defense without failing to understand the need for diplomacy, and the things that will keep this country strong."
-Michael Steele, Lt. Governor of Maryland
I couldn't believe it when I read it, a Republican who actually gets it. Not just that, but a Republican who gets it who has the chance of becoming the next leader of the Republican National Committee. Lt. Governor Steele may have lost his race for the United States Senate, but it was not because of his lack of political acumen. After all, he was the first Republican Lt. Governor of Maryland for the first time in 36 years, and he narrowly lost his bid to become the Senate's first black Republican from a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans 2-1, and in a political climate where the Republicans nationally were decimated by a wave of strong sentiment against the War in Iraq, the disastrous spending policies of the Republican Congress and President Bush, and overall dissatisfaction with the direction of the country. Whether these problems were real or perceived, the reality is that the Steele should have lost his race 60-40 like Rick Santorum lost his, but instead, he only barely lost. Under any other circumstances, and in virtually any other state, Mr. Steele would have won his race rather easily.
Ken Mehlman revolutionized the way the Republican Party operated; Mr. Steele stands ready to revolutionize the way the Republican Party thinks. There will be two camps conducting post mortems of the 2006 elections within the GOP, those who believe the Republican Party failed because it didn't do enough, and those who believe the Republican Party failed because it did too much. Mr. Steele is in the latter camp. James Dobson is in the former. Which side wins this debate will determine the success of the Republican Party for the next decade. There are three questions the GOP must ask itself in the coming months as White House hopefuls begin to start their exploratory committees.
1. Is the GOP going to be a party that can appeal to independents and moderates or is it going to continue to rely on the massive turnout of its "base" while continuing to alienate supporters of the party in the moderate-wing?
2. Is the GOP going to lay out a platform in line with the one that won it control of Congress in 1994 or is it going to continue down the path of the Bush ideology?
3. Is the GOP going to try to exploit certain radical segments within the Conservative Movement to capitalize on issues of the day, or is it going to be a party with a long-term vision for the country that consistently pursues that vision?
Let's be quite clear, there are powerful forces within the Republican Party who want to answer those questions incorrectly, those in the Religious Right who believe the focus of policymaking should be on abortion, gay marriage, and immigration. They have charismatic leaders with massive followings: James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Tom Tancredo, Jerry Falwell, Howard Phillips, Richard Viguerie, and the leaders of countless fundamentalist churches and church associations across the country. In 2006, Evangelicals comprise 22% of all Americans, and 51% of them identify themselves as Republicans. There will be those who will argue that the Republicans cannot afford to drop 11% of the country who are a solid base of support. "Don't alienate your base," goes the mantra. This is clearly a ridiculous proposition predicated on the assumption that a party cannot shift its base.
If the elections of 2000, 2002, and 2004 are any lesson for the nation, it is that the country's independents and moderates wholesalely reject the radical socialism that now pervades the Howard Dean Democratic Party. If the 2006 elections are any lesson for the nation, it is that the country's independents and moderates wholesalely reject the religious extremism and arrogant foreign policy of the George W. Bush Republican Party. Both parties should be focused on pursuing sustained, long-term, governing majorities both nationally and in each of the 50 states. The key to doing this is to have a minimalistic agenda that focuses on economic growth, balanced budgets, low taxes, lower government spending, better education, a clean environment, a strong military but with an equally strong diplomacy, and a belief that social issues have their place of discussion in the home and in the church but not in the halls of Congress.
I'm placing my bets, and my hopes, on a forward-thinking, sensible Republican named Michael Steele.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I am a newcomer to your blog I know Andy Elwood a little and got here by his blog...I can't believe I just used the word Blog twice in one sentence(three times now)! Anyway, if you are actually saying "change the message and attract more participants" I couldn't disagree with you more! The Republican Party platform is what the party should be standing for because it is what the Republicans wrote out that they do indeed stand for...so standing for these issues is an integrity issue. We said we would so now we're gonna. You don't adjust the message mid stride you stick to it, because you said you would. I thought you Texans knew that a man's word ought to be worth something. WHat you want to do is change the R's to be something they aren't. I suggest as you want anyway to start your own party, but don't castrate the R's of the social issues so that it suites your Personal Legend a little bit better! That is my first point, if you disagree with basic tenants of R thinking then leave the party and start your own(it would probably be good for the country anyway to have a successful third party and you seem to be a pretty clear thinker so get it done man). We aren't going to adjust the message just to win elections that is the gospel of Pragmatism which is just gross! Second point: Pro-life, strong national defense (including border security) and traditional marriage are foundational social issues that huge numbers of Americans support. These are not polarizing issues, they are winning issues! More than 56% of Americans are self described as pro-life and wanting to overturn Roe v Wade which would create an era where we can finally exercise state's rights and vote on the issue. SOme states would, other states wouldn't either way Republicans win with a pro-life message. Homosexual marriage is not the future of the US, more than 20 states have amended their constitutions to say it isn't the future and some 57% (in the latest poll) say they will not support any move toward same sex unions! Again standing for traditional marriage is an issue that unites the country and will win elections for Republicans. Finally immigration which you wrongly characterized as a Religious Right issue, this too is a winning issue for Republicans if they would just build a stupid fence, stand behind our border patrol agents, and actually enforce the mirad laws we have on the issue already. The rasmussen poll said some 84% of Americans want what I just laid out! Which is why you can't possible peg this as a Religious right issue.
To sum up: you don't change the message to attract more people so you can be in power that is manipulative, pragmatic, and basically a lie! Second point is you don't have to, because the social issues you hate so much are actually winning issues. I suggest you figure out why you oppose pro-life, marriage as biblically defined as the union of one man and one woman, and securing our country from terrorist threats on our border, north south and all points in between?
Post a Comment