Kristen Soltis's blog

Most folks on this site today, tomorrow, and the rest of this week will come here to slice and dice the election results in NY-23, NJ, and VA.  As Patrick's earlier column noted, the NY-23 situation (paired with the endorsement of Crist by the NRSC, etc.) has rankled many conservatives and has broken faith between the conservative faithful and the national party organizations.

There's no doubt that national party organizations have a great amount of resources and knowhow that can be of great use to a local campaign that is just getting its bearings.  Whether or not you agree with their recent play-calling, simply the financial resources and infrastructure alone do give national parties value in elections.  Yet a lot of what we've seen as big campaign successes these last few cycles haven't been born here in DC but rather came out of clever ideas and innovations by campaigns outside the Beltway. (On the other side of the aisle, look at the early Obama campaign as a great example.)

Which begs the question - how can the resources of the national parties be brought to bear in elections without eclipsing or smothering local efforts?  

Another hot topic here at The Next Right is on the topic of innovating in campaigns, at coming up with the Next Big Thing to help usher our candidates to victory.  What if the national party (RNC or either of the campaign committees) set aside some funds specifically to invest in innovations being tested at the local or state level?  Think of it like a national party version of venture capital funding - looking for potential Next Big Ideas or candidates with real promise who are underfunded and under the radar, giving them the seed money, and letting them implement fresh campaign thinking?  

This will probably get blowback from entrenched consultant types who make a killing each year running "tried-and-true" (and tired) campaign tactics.  I imagine that makes this idea even more appealing to many up-and-comers.  If, say, the NRCC were to offer to max out contributions to 15 candidates whose campaigns submit a proposal for something truly unique they want to do with their campaign, I can't help but wonder how much brainstorming that might inspire.  This wouldn't have to be terribly expensive in the end, and out of 15 ideas, maybe only one or two really uncover a great new method of voter contact or targeting.  But that's one or two ideas we didn't have before.

Right now, the national parties in many ways are like private equity firms, sweeping in to races that need "national help", investing money, hoping for a return on that investment.  That can work too and in some cases, when a local campaign is falling apart at the seams, there needs to be a national organization to pick up the slack.  But I think if our national parties started acting a bit more like venture capital firms - investing in good ideas, letting them flourish or fail, reaping huge payoffs when one succeeds - we might have a shot at spurring some innovation as well as finding a role for national parties that respects local control.

This is just a passing thought, and idea I haven't firmed up quite enough, but I wanted to throw it out there to The Next Right commenting corps to see if the idea resonates at all.

Down in my hometown, Orlando, voters in November 2008 ousted Republican Ric Keller from Congress and replaced him with the newly-famous ("die quickly", "holocaust", "etc.) Alan Grayson.   To say that Grayson is not in the same place ideologically as his district is an understatement - Central Florida had been a Republican-leaning area and remains about as much of a swing district as you can fathom.  

But Grayson isn't the only example of a too-far-left Democrat that got swept to Congress with the Obama tidal wave in 2008.  The Cook Political Report currently lists 28 Democratic members as "toss-up" or "lean" seats, compared to only 13 Republican seats.  2010 ought to be ripe for the picking.  Between the forces of history (opposition party picking up seats in first midterm under a new administration), the forces of the economy (unemployment expected to peak out in June at 10.5% says one economist), and polling numbers that are looking awfully grim for Democrats, there's reason to believe that this is the year for Republican challengers to have a real shot at winning with unconventional, ideas-based, truly modern campaigns.  

Yet today's piece by Gov. Bobby Jindal in the Washington Post included a line that may be the single most important lesson that Republicans should take away this year:

Republicans must shift gears.  Conservatives should seize the mantle of reform and lead. Conservatives either genuinely believe that conservative principles will work to solve real-world problems such as health care or they don't. I believe they will.

The temptation will powerful to make these races a referendum on the Democratic incumbent, to demonstrate that they're a part of a Democratic Party that is the prime purveyor of bad ideas. Don't be fooled - voters may be souring on the Democrats, but they aren't exactly enthusiastic about Republicans yet, either.   

Given the present environment, if I were planning on taking on a Democratic incumbent, here's how I'd go about it.  Potential challengers and those mulling a bid for any office that involves the national political environment - this one's for you.

1) Fill the ideas vacuum.  

This needs to be the first thing you figure out - how you will contribute to the policy direction of the GOP.  The Republican Party has, technically, had alternative policies on the stimulus, energy, etc.  But if a tree falls in a forest and doesn't make a sound...you get the picture.  There are folks on the outside, from Newt Gingrich to Ross Douthat & Reihan Salam (authors of Grand New Party) who have done a lot of thought about how to solve problems.  Its time for us to have candidates across the country who care about solutions as well.  If I could sum up the sentiment of a good number of American voters in one sentence, it would be this: "Someone please fix this economy and fix it now."  "Someone" can be anyone.  It's not "Democrats, fix this economy" or "Republicans, take back power and fix this economy", it is literally anyone who presents an intelligent plan for how to begin creating jobs again.  America is far less ideologically polarized than pundits give it credit for.  (See the excellent analysis in "Culture War?: The Myth of a Polarized America" by Morris Fiorina.  I always cite it here, and for good reason.)

Right now, a candidate for Congress with an R attached to their name on the ballot has an incredibly unique opportunity.  Running as a Democrat means running, fairly or unfairly, on the record of the Pelosi Congress.  Running as a Republican?  You have a clean slate to define "Republican ideas" as you see them - not as party leadership sees them, not as Rush Limbaugh or David Brooks or Peggy Noonan sees them (to offer an unusual mix), but rather as you wish the Republican Party would see them.  It's a choose-your-own-adventure out there now.  Do Republicans need a unifying national message?  Yes.  (Jobs, jobs, jobs will do.) But the ability of a candidate to put forth ideas and really make a splash with workable solutions is at a high this cycle.  

2) Build a coalition - "the base" is not enough.

One of the major reasons Republicans did so poorly in '06 and '08 was a massive collapse in support from independent voters.  Since I began working in polling in '05, independent voters looked an awful lot like Democratic voters on a number of key questions.  Only very recently has this phenomenon flipped, with independent voters looking a lot more like Republicans. This is an opportunity to be savored, not squandered - and trust me, if Republicans learn the wrong lesson from the 2008 election and decide we didn't focus on "the base" enough, we will waste this chance to bring conservative and moderate independents into the fold.  

Right now, there is a lot of energy even among bright, young consultant types, focused on winning voters through outreach to the Tea Party movement, going online and activating conservative bloggers, turning out previously alienated conservatives.    The draw of this strategy is particularly strong in an "off-year" election, when the thought is that only the hardcore voters turn out.  Wrong.  With the economy in bad shape, people will turn out - people who don't yet know who they're voting for in 13 months.  Win these people.

How to do it?  If you're a candidate, schedule wisely.  For every Tea Party gathering or event that involves "preaching to the choir", fit in two that get you new voters.  Think outside the box and don't pander.  If you genuinely care about issues that have particular impact on the Hispanic community in your district, show it.  Participate in service events with local Hispanic organizations and really listen to what you can do in Congress that would make things better.   If you care about winning young voters, don't just do a tailgate party with rich donors at a local university football game - hold an open house on campus where you invite all students, not just the College Republicans, to attend and ask questions.   It sounds simple but is so rarely done.

We talk about "outreach" and "coalition building" and think it counts for our candidate to take a quick meeting with the leader of a local group we want to court.  Nope.  Make real, meaningful time investments in figuring out what voters want...and not just voters that are already going to vote for you.

3) Generate earned media like crazy.

Media buys are expensive.  If you want to be serious you will probably need ads on TV and radio.  You will probably need a few road signs.  (Though, I think any Virginia resident can tell you how well these things worked out for Terry McAuliffe.) But many campaigns invest their efforts in an off-balanced way and become TV-and-Road-Sign efforts without substance.  If you are a very traditional candidate running with very few unique ideas with a not-very-compelling message, well, yes, you will have a greater need for purchased media.  Journalists and bloggers tend not to get terribly excited about the usual, so really focus - what makes this candidate unusually good for voters?

A good message will create good earned media.  Say something interesting and people will be interested.  

There's a risk in including this point, in that it is not intended to support the "be outrageous and bloggers will love you!" strategy that is being employed right now by, for example, Alan Grayson's awful comments.  He may have made $150,000 in contributions following his outbursts, but the damage he has done to his standing with independent voters in Orlando can't be erased with a big campaign war chest.   This is not an endorsement of the Paris Hilton School of Politics: be outrageous and court attention at all costs.

But if the Republican presidential primary didn't wake everyone up to the idea that money and media buys don't win elections anymore (how many delegates did Giuliani win?), nor did the Democratic primary for Governor in Virginia, I bet we see quite a few House races this year make that point clear.  Write a lot of op-eds talking about your ideas (and not just why your opponent is no good).   Always be available to speak with local reporters.  Get over this idea that the press is the enemy.   Do things worth talking about.   

It is easy to armchair quarterback a campaign, to blog about it here with a view from the cheap seats.  But for those of you out there who have a chance to really make important strategic decisions on a 2010 race, remember - this year all bets are off.  We are running in an environment that is both favorable in general and is particularly favorable to fresh, exciting faces and people with real, workable ideas.  Because if there's any year to defy the conventional wisdom and run "the campaign of the future", its this year.  

Picture the scene: a fairly popular President, having amassed a significant amount of political capital, decides its time to cash in and spend some on a tough reform effort for a failing, inadequate system. Many Americans agree that the status quo isn't acceptable long-term but hesitate to sign on to changes that they deem too risky. Members of Congress go out to their districts and are confronted at town hall meetings with frustrated, vocal constituents worried about the risks of the plan. The President's popularity outpaces his policies and in particular, this major reform package. Even with control of both houses of Congress, the package can't survive. The reform fails.

If you feel like you've seen this story before, you're not wrong. The trajectory of the 2009 health care debate seems eerily similar to that of the 2005 battle for Social Security reform. Taking a look at the polling from then and comparing it to the data of today shows the parallels in the situation and shows why the health care debate feels all too familiar.

Similarity #1: Presidential Popularity

First, take a look at a bit of a throwback post from 2006 at MysteryPollster.com where Bush's job approval from January 2005 forward is tracked. Bush began 2005 with job approval over 50% - slightly below where Obama started at the beginning of July (Gallup's 7/05-07/2009 poll had Obama at 56%). The trends are not dissimilar: Charles Franklin's plot of Bush job numbers from January 05 forward shows a similar shrinking of support that looks an awful lot like the Obama job approval chart on the front page. This isn't a particularly surprising finding, but provides context to the other more striking comparisons.

Similarity #2: The Agreement that the Status Quo is Unacceptable

In both the Social Security debate and the health care debate, Americans agree: the system needs major overhaul. While so many other issues fail to get Americans to agree with the crucial "we need to do something" sentiment, both Social Security and health care had that extra boost from a public that agreed: maintaining the current system is not workable long term. In February 2005, Gallup found 73% of Americans said Social Security was "in crisis" or "has major problems". (18% said Social Security was "in crisis").

Compare that to the health care debate of today. Gallup has found that 20% of Americans believe health care is "in crisis" and at least a majority believe it has major problems (unfortunately, Gallup doesn't tell us how large a majority). To flesh that out a bit, Gallup asked the question in November 2008 and found 73% of respondents said that health care was either "in crisis" or had "major problems". Does that number sound familiar?

Similarity #3: Issue Handling

By March 2005, Bush's numbers on issue handling of Social Security were brutal, with an ABC/WaPo poll showing only 35% approving and 56% disapproving. CNN/Gallup had even worse news with only 1 out of 3 approving. Compared to 49% approval shortly after Bush took office, once the issue became a hot topic, Bush's number tanked.

Similarly, Obama's numbers have plummeted on health care since before the debate. In April, during Obama's honeymoon, Pew showed Obama with a 51-26 advantage on health care job approval. By August, he had a 42-43 disadvantage - quite the fall from the earlier numbers. The idea that "the president is more popular than his policies" held true then as it does now. (Just take a look at Mara Liasson's February 2005 NPR story, titled: "Bush More Popular that His Social Security Plan").

In both cases, the President began his administration with the trust and support of the people to fix their given "crisis". In both cases, once the debate flared, their numbers dropped significantly. But it is worthwhile to point out that the comparison is not perfect - the Obama honeymoon numbers were immediately followed by the debate, while Bush had a full four years before tackling Social Security.

At any rate, this is just the basic side-by-side look at the reasons why this health care debate may seem like a bit of a "glitch in the Matrix", giving those who watch politics a sense of deja vu.

Because sometimes the more things change, the more they stay the same. (This item has been cross posted at Pollster.com)

Yesterday's departure of Sen. Arlen Specter from the Republican Party re-opened the debate over the ideological direction of the Republican Party. Did the GOP move away from Specter, or was it Specter that left the GOP? Where do the American people fall?

My focus on this site over the last few weeks has been on young voters. And most of the news I have had for the Republican Party has been bad news, presenting a picture of a young cohort less convinced of the virtues of limited government, more supportive of gay marriage, and more inclusive of minority groups less prone to voting Republican.

In all of this, the overall ideological makeup of young voters has not yet been examined. Are young voters more liberal than older voters? Are they more likely to identify as Democrats? Recently on The View, Meghan McCain declared that 81% of young voters identified as Democrats. Though I appreciate Ms. McCain's efforts to draw attention to the GOP's troubles with young voters, the number is greatly exaggerated (and I would argue that exaggerating the problem does the cause no favors).

But the actual numbers are not much more pleasant for the GOP. According to the EMR exit polls at the presidential level, in 2008, 45% of voters 18-29 identified as Democrats while only 27% identified as Republicans. The gap between Democratic and Republican identification has not been so wide since 1976 when only 19% of voters 18-29 identified as Republican. Yet in 1976, young voters did not flee the GOP for the Democratic party. The above figure shows that voters left the Republican Party and became independents that year; Democrats actually saw a 7 point dip among 18-29 year olds in 1976 as well.

Tomorrow morning, the U.S. Supreme Court will be hearing oral arugments in Ricci v. DeStefano, an affirmative action case involving firefighters in New Haven. Beyond the policy arguments, Kristen gives us some more numbers and insight on race, a topic that is near and dear to my heart. -Matt Moon

Last week, I took a look at two issues where young voters tend to diverge with older voters. Traditional Republican messaging about the gay marriage and the perils of big government is quite different from the ways young voters tend to look at the issues and if the Republican Party wants to prevent a generation of voters from becoming solidly Democratic, they should assess both the policies and messages that are used to reach out to younger voters.

But beyond these two topics, the Republican Party is facing changing demographic forces that present a challenge to its long term growth. This is not a new notion, and I am obliged to give credit where due: Ruy Teixeira and John Judis' 2002 book The Emerging Democratic Majority looked at political and population trends and predicted that in 2008 these trends would come together produce a Democratic majority.

While I haven't looked extensively at whether or not Teixeira and Judis' predictions have come to pass (2008 Democratic victory aside), I can certainly agree that the racial makeup of young voters supports their conclusion. In short, young voters are less likely to be white than voters overall and are becoming increasingly more diverse. While 77% of voters overall in 2004 were white, only 68% of voters under age 30 were white. By 2008, that number was only 62%. Both African-Americans and Hispanics were found in higher proportions among young voters. In 2004, African-Americans made up 15% of young voters while making up 11% of voters overall; 13% of voters 18-29 were Hispanic compared to 8% of voters overall. By 2008 those numbers had increased, with African-Americans comprising 18% of voters 18-29 and with Hispanics comprising 14%.

So what does this mean for a Republican Party that has been branded (fairly or unfairly) as a party of "old white guys"? Put simply, the party cannot survive with this label attached. The recent demographic changes in the United States have been extraordinary; between the 1990 and 2000 Censuses, the number of Hispanics in the United States increased from 22.4 million to 35.3 million, and increase of over 58%. In 1980, 80% of the population identified as white (non-Hispanic); by 2000, that number had fallen to 69% of the population. These changes have expressed themselves in the demographic makeup of the younger voting cohort. With future generations of voters less and less likely to be made up of overwhelming proportions white non-Hispanics, the issue of expanding the Republican Party's appeal to younger voters is inextricably linked with the issue of expanding the party's appeal to minority communities.

In addition to the makeup of the voters themselves, today's young voters have grown up in a society that handles race in a dramatically different way than previous generations. Take for instance college campuses across the United States. In October 1985, there were some 10,846,000 Americans enrolled in college, 9,323,000 of which were white and just over 1,000,000 were African-American. Hispanics made up 579,000 of those enrolled in college as well. By the 2000 Census, those numbers had exploded; just over 17.4 million Americans were enrolled in college and of those, about 11.6 million were white non-Hispanic, while another 1.9 million were Hispanic and 2.2 million were African American. While college enrollment overall was up by 62% in 2000 over 1985, enrollment among Hispanics had more than tripled and more than doubled for African-Americans.

More numbers and great analysis from Kristen. As I've noted before, the message should focus on how government can facilitate economic growth through promoting freedom and equal opportunity, instead of relying on the simplistic "limited government" message by itself. -Matt Moon

Across the country today, conservatives, libertarians, Republicans and those concerned about taxes will gather for "tea parties" in protest over increased government spending and over taxes. After all, today is April 15th, tax day, and the tax issue proved successful for the Republicans in the 1990s; under a new Democratic administration, Conservatives are hoping that the tax issue can again be a winner.

Many in the GOP that I've spoken with are quite confident that, despite differences between the party and young voters on some social issues, young voters are far more libertarian on fiscal issues. The idea that young Americans are largely "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" is one that many Republicans hold on to as a hope that the these voters will reject big government spending, high taxes, "wealth redistribution" and expanded government programs and regulation.

On Monday, I posted about the divergence in attitudes toward homosexuality between younger voters and older voters. Indeed, the beliefs held by young voters on gay marriage and homosexuality also differ greatly from the position of the Republican Party, presenting a challenge to the party's ability to grow long-term. However, this was tempered with the reminder that issue salience is key; just because a group of voters disagrees with the GOP on an issue does not preclude those voters from voting Republican or becomingRepublican if the issue is not a high priority. While gay marriage may be important to many voters, one issue alone is unlikely to make or break a voter's decision to affiliate with a party unless that issue is clearly dominant in the issue mix.

So what issues are dominant in today's issue mix? The economy. Poll after poll has shown that Americans care about the economy as a top priority and the same is true of young votes. The Harvard Institute of Politics in April 2008 found that the economy was far and away the top issue to 18-24 year olds; 41% of respondents named it as one of the top two national issues that concerned them. And in today's public discourse, the economy has become inextricably linked to taxes and spending. Between TARP, the stimulus package and now the budget, national coverage of government efforts to repair the economy come down to issues of taxing and spending.

In today's Daily Beast the daughter of Sen. John McCain, Meghan McCain, wrote about the need for "a gayer GOP" in order to expand the Republican Party's hopes of winning back a majority coalition and in particular in order to appeal to young voters.

I recently completed research on the topic of young voters and the GOP: where the Republican Party is losing young voters, how serious the threat is to the party, and how the Republican Party should respond. And on this point, Ms. McCain has it right - the issue of gay marriage is one on which young voters and the Republican Party diverge significantly.

Yet this is not to say that a Republican Party that embraces socially conservative policy stances is unsustainable; indeed, on some issues, such as abortion, young voters have beliefs similar to those of voters overall. When pressed in the 2008 General Social Survey with the question "Please tell me whether or not you think it should be possible for a pregnant woman to obtain a legal abortion if the woman wants it for any reason", 41.6% of those 18-34 said "yes" as did 41.2% of respondents overall - hardly a distinction. The GSS also asks about six particular instances in which a woman may seek an abortion; on all six instances, roughly equivalent numbers of those 18-34 supported a woman's right to obtain an abortion in each instance as did respondents overall.

Yet issues relating to homosexuality find vast differences between the young and older voters. In terms of the issue of whether or not homosexual sex is wrong, 44.3% of respondents to the General Social Survey 18-34 believe it is "never wrong" compared to 33.5% of respondents overall. Furthermore, 47.3% of respondents 18-34 said homosexual sex was "always wrong" compared to 55.6% of respondents overall. A Harvard Institute of Politics study in Spring of 2008 of 18-24 year olds also corroborated the findings that young voters are more tolerant concerning homosexuality; when asked if they agreed or disagreed with the statement "homosexual relationships between consenting adults are morally wrong", 50% disagreed while 30% agreed and 20% neither agreed nor disagreed.

On the issue of homosexual marriage the distinction is even greater. Some 39.3% of respondents in the 2008 GSS said that they "agreed" or "strongly agreed" that homosexuals should have the right to marry. That number soared to 53.4% among those 18-34, with one out of four in that age group strongly agreeing. As one looks at each age group, as age increases so too does opposition to marriage for homosexuals.

To be sure, not all Democrats are supportive of gay marriage or homosexuality. Some 48% of those who identified as "strong Democrats" said that homosexual sex was "always wrong" as did 50.7% of Democrats overall. Furthermore, while support for gay marriage is more common among Democrats, 38.1% of Democrats do not believe that homosexuals should have the right to get married.

Yet regardless of how narrow or wide the chasm is between the two parties is on the issue, the differences between the beliefs of young voters and the beliefs of the older segments of the electorate - particularly the modern day Republican electorate - are significant. While these numbers don't necessarily shed light on why it is specifically that younger Americans are more accepting of homosexuality or why they are less opposed to gay marriage, one can think of a number of reasons why this may be the case. When looking at a generation that has grown up with Ellen DeGeneres and "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" as normal fixtures on the television set, it isn't hard to imagine why younger voters are more accepting of homosexual behavior.

This is not to further imply that a change in position on gay marriage would mean droves of young voters signing up for the GOP. A number of other factors have to come into play, not the least of which is how important gay marriage is relative to other important political issues in the minds of these voters. As I'll discuss in future columns, the Republican Party may have much bigger problems on its hands than the perception that it is out of touch with young voters on the issue of gay marriage.

Yet whether the Republican Party amends its actual policy stance on gay marriage or whether it simply makes efforts be more tolerant and inclusive of homosexuals generally, the Republican Party cannot ignore the vast differences in public opinion between young and old voters on the issue. This difference certainly presents a serious challenge to the party's long-term ability to swell its ranks among young voters. In the words of Dr. Morris Fiorina and his co-authors in Culture War?: The Myth of a Polarized America (p. 124),

"If the commandants on the 'orthodox' side hope to win a culture war over homosexuality, they had better do it soon - their potential ranks are being thinned by mortality."

(This item has been cross-posted at Pollster.com)

It's nearly impossible to talk about the future of the GOP without hearing an opinion, one way or another, about the future role of "the Religious Right" in the party.  Some would argue it's time for the GOP to drop talk of God, that religion has poisoned the party and has turned away Independents and moderates; others say maintaining a focus on Christian values is essential to the survival of the Right.

But in Barack Obama's 2004 address at the Democratic Convention, he remarked "We worship an awesome God in the blue states...", and he's right - it's not just in the "red states" that folks are pouring into churches tonight to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ.

So since we're in a spiritual time of the year, what better a time to do some serious reflection on the role that Christianity should play in the Republican Party? For the GOP to position itself as an exclusive club for the devoutly evangelical is to forfeit elections for years to come.  But is there a place for God in the Republican Party?

Yes.  Absolutely. 

But when we think of Christianity in our politics, what do we immediately think of?  We think of angry protests over Proposition 8 in California.  We think of the left angrily denouncing Rick Warren's selection to offer a prayer at Obama's inauguration.  We think of angry clashes over abortion.   We think of angry parents having angry battles over the teaching of evolution in school.  We think of putting up the Ten Commandments in courthouses and lawsuits over nativity scenes. Both sides are guilty of stirring up anger in the name of moral values.

But if those debates are how the Republican Party has supposedly "cornered the market" on Christianity, we sure haven't been dealing with the kind of Christianity that I saw tonight at church, that millions of Americans deal with as a powerful force for good in their everyday lives. 

For all of the emphasis on winning over Christian voters by appealing to a narrow set of "Christian values"- defending marriage, protecting the unborn, teaching Intelligent Design in schools [see comments for edit] - I'd much rather see Republican (or, in fact, all) politicians speaking about the "Christian value" that I think matters just as much if not more to the vast majority of Christian Americans - love thy neighbor.

The idea of "love thy neighbor" isn't an exclusively Christian belief.  And we shouldn't be an exclusively Christian party.

Yet we as a party have painted ourselves into a corner.  Part of driving a "base strategy" means too often we've turned religion into a divider instead of a uniter.  We've focused on the aspects of Christianity that fracture while all but ignoring what Republican policies can do to make sure Americans can afford to buy a Christmas tree, to have a roof over their head and a healthy family to celebrate with. 

And I'll tell you what - the tree and the roof and the healthy family matter more to most Americans than the divisive issues we've primarily used to bring Christianity into our political discourse. 

Moreover, can we claim to be a party that represents Christian values when we run campaign ads that are willfully malicious, disingenuous, or misleading?  When we are focused on tearing down our opponent without discussing how our own personal values shape the sorts of policies we'd like to pursue?  From a political perspective, our brand as the party that isn't afraid to sling mud and go to nasty extremes to win elections (without discussing solutions) has been built up and continues to eat away at the American people's trust in us.  ("Compassionate conservatism" didn't pan out so well.)

And setting politics aside, I'd like to think we can do better.

(On a related note, stop what you're doing right now and go run to Amazon.com and buy yourself a copy of Morris Fiorina's Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America.)

The notion that every human life is sacred is an important one, and not one that should be cast out of the party, I'll readily agree.  But the dignity of human life is important for the unborn as well as those born and living among us as our neighbors - the alone, the sick, the needy.   We need advocates for the unborn in our party, but so too do we need an agenda that focuses on the dignity of human life and mutual respect in our inner cities, in the third world, in our schools.  We can't focus on one and ignore the other without essentially cherry picking when we decide we care about human life.

Is it easier to appear "compassionate" when you can simply say that the government should provide everything to everyone?  Sure.  The Left has an easier tale to tell in many regards.  The idea of an activist government lends itself to painting a pretty picture of a world where every child gets educated by a great teacher in a class of 12 students, where every American can go to the doctor whenever they need to and receive top-quality health care regardless of their ability to pay, where the poor are given a home and a job.

Wouldn't that be great?  And there, you have an outcome that the other side has articulated.  And it's a pretty good one.  It's one where there's a lot of "loving thy neighbor" going on, even if the love is government mandated.

We on the Right know that the policies the Left will push to achieve these outcomes only lead to dependency and dead-ends, a stagnant economy and a stagnant nation.  We know that Americans are at their best when they are doing good in their communities, and that private citizens and organizations have a powerful ability to make change in the lives of those in need.  But it can be tough to reconcile believing that everyone should be treated with respect and compassion, that everyone has a right to a happy, healthy life...while also saying it's not the government's job to give it to everyone or to construct a perfect (and "perfectly" managed) society. OK then, if not the government's job, whose job is it? 

I think this is where Matt Moon's earlier posts about the "opportunity society" come in - we on the Right don't think government is the be-all end-all answer to all the ills of society, but we can give everyone a chance.  And we as a party need to talk about these issues instead of running in fear and ceding the ground to the Left because we don't know how to have a conversation about what we believe about poverty, about health care, about education.  If we want to connect to Americans and their values, we can't pretend these issues don't matter or that we can just talk about tax credits and try to change the subject.  

Do our candidates and leaders need to wear their religion on their sleeve? No.  Religion itself is a very personal matter to many Americans, and the blend of religion and politics that is intended to demagogue and divide will hopefully find its way out the door.  A focus on religion as a litmus test for our leaders, as an exclusionary aspect of partisanship, is doomed to failure.  

But many Americans have a place for spirituality in their lives, whatever shape or form that comes in, and there is something important driving millions of Americans to go to church tonight.  God matters to America, and matters in politics - just maybe not in the way we've been lead to believe. The season of hope, happiness and love isn't just a Christian phenomenon; it's something everyone can take part in, and it's a spirit I hope won't be forgotten as soon as the presents are all opened.

This debate will go on and on and on in the coming weeks as we prepare to select our RNC chair and to set our party on a course to bounce back in 2010.   The role that religion, and in particular Christianity, will play in the party will hopefully receive a healthy amount of attention and discussion. 

And in the spirit of the holidays, I'd encourage Republicans to remember that there's a lot more to the Christian faith than the hot-button issues that we're told drive religious voters.  

Tonight in church, I heard a lot about hope, about happiness, about giving and love for one another.  If we want to move forward as a party that takes sound values to heart, I'd suggest these values as the best place to start.

"I saw this Barack Obama guy on Oprah today.  He was very impressive."

This, from my Republican mother, so very very many months ago.  The narrative from there to here...well...you know the rest.

What was at play in this election was in many ways larger than any ad buys or gripes about robocalls.  This was bigger than debates, bigger than an infomercial.  This was even bigger than a bailout or new registration.

Americans like being a part of something bigger than themselves.  In 2008, this was Barack Obama.

So what now?  As a Republican, how do we look at the day after, when the Obama victory is declared a "victory for America" by so many? When Congress has even larger margins for the Democrats?  [When Al Franken is a US Senator?] What kind of lemonade can we make out of these lemons (if we choose to)? (more after the jump)