conservative principles

Defining Differences—

As we move forward in developing policy proposals to assist a Conservative/Republican revival, we need to be clear about the types of differences we have with the opposition.  It may seem a little abstract; but I believe a better understanding of these concepts will help us craft better policies and better messages.

 

1.      Differing parties generally share common goals for the nation and agree on general principles and policies to achieve those goals but each believes the other is incapable of implementing policies effectively (ie. The opposition is incompetent but not misguided or evil).

 

Right now, this is where we are the weakest.  We have some strong governors but Bush, Brownie, Delay, Foley, Hastert, and on and on and on …. have left even most Conservative Republicans wondering if our party is capable of simple competence.  I have lost count of the number of voters I spoke with in the Fall who agreed with us 100 percent on national goals, principles and policies but voted straight ticket Democrat because they just felt we couldn’t get the job done and they could.

 

2.      Differing parties share common goals for the nation but differ regarding what principles and policies are best suited to achieve those goals. (ie. The opposition is misguided but not evil and will accept our ideas once we show they will work.)

 

This was/is Obama’s core message – That almost all Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, red states and blue states have the same basic goals for the nation and that we will all unite once we realize his policies will deliver these goals.  We need to give this one some serious thought.  I believe he may be right about most people in our nation sharing common goals and wrong about the policies to achieve those goals.  The critical issue for us arises if his policies actually work.  I doubt the problem will arise. However, I want to see a strong prosperous nation with a government firmly committed to securing the fundamental rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence and am agnostic about the methods of achieving that goal.  But many in our movement seem to believe the methods are as sacrosanct as the rights.  So, if we wake up in two years in a strong prosperous nation with a government firmly committed to securing the fundamental rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence  do we continue to oppose the Democrats or shift our thinking to reflect a new reality? 

 

3.      Differing parties have divergent goals for the nation but respect the good intentions of the opposing party. (ie. The opposition is misguided and will probably never accept our ideas but not evil)

 

This is where we get respectful differences between Social Conservatives and Social Libertarians (Obama vs Rick Warren).  I believe the electorate will tolerate, even welcome, some level of debate over fundamental societal goals as long as all parties are willing to accept the verdict of the majority and either embrace the final public policy or at least tolerate it with a certain level of good grace.

 

4.      Differing parties have divergent goals for the nation and each believes the other is motivated by self interest rather than altruism. (ie. The opposition is evil)

 

The extremists on either end of the spectrum can push this message as hard as they want.  It will only drive voters to the other side.

 

Defining Differences—

As we move forward in developing policy proposals to assist a Conservative/Republican revival, we need to be clear about the types of differences we have with the opposition.  It may seem a little abstract; but I believe a better understanding of these concepts will help us craft better policies and better messages.

 

1.      Differing parties generally share common goals for the nation and agree on general principles and policies to achieve those goals but each believes the other is incapable of implementing policies effectively (ie. The opposition is incompetent but not misguided or evil).

 

Right now, this is where we are the weakest.  We have some strong governors but Bush, Brownie, Delay, Foley, Hastert, and on and on and on …. have left even most Conservative Republicans wondering if our party is capable of simple competence.  I have lost count of the number of voters I spoke with in the Fall who agreed with us 100 percent on national goals, principles and policies but voted straight ticket Democrat because they just felt we couldn’t get the job done and they could.

 

2.      Differing parties share common goals for the nation but differ regarding what principles and policies are best suited to achieve those goals. (ie. The opposition is misguided but not evil and will accept our ideas once we show they will work.)

 

This was/is Obama’s core message – That almost all Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, red states and blue states have the same basic goals for the nation and that we will all unite once we realize his policies will deliver these goals.  We need to give this one some serious thought.  I believe he may be right about most people in our nation sharing common goals and wrong about the policies to achieve those goals.  The critical issue for us arises if his policies actually work.  I doubt the problem will arise. However, I want to see a strong prosperous nation with a government firmly committed to securing the fundamental rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence and am agnostic about the methods of achieving that goal.  But many in our movement seem to believe the methods are as sacrosanct as the rights.  So, if we wake up in two years in a strong prosperous nation with a government firmly committed to securing the fundamental rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence  do we continue to oppose the Democrats or shift our thinking to reflect a new reality? 

 

3.      Differing parties have divergent goals for the nation but respect the good intentions of the opposing party. (ie. The opposition is misguided and will probably never accept our ideas but not evil)

 

This is where we get respectful differences between Social Conservatives and Social Libertarians (Obama vs Rick Warren).  I believe the electorate will tolerate, even welcome, some level of debate over fundamental societal goals as long as all parties are willing to accept the verdict of the majority and either embrace the final public policy or at least tolerate it with a certain level of good grace.

 

4.      Differing parties have divergent goals for the nation and each believes the other is motivated by self interest rather than altruism. (ie. The opposition is evil)

 

The extremists on either end of the spectrum can push this message as hard as they want.  It will only drive voters to the other side.

 

Open Hand vs Closed Hand

This post is intended to push forward on the countless "What Republicans should do" posts that are flying around. Whether you are conservative, moderate, Main Street, Libertarian, NeoCon, SoCon, or WhateverCon is irrelevant because we are all Republicans. Christine Todd Whitman and Robert Bostick <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/13/AR2008111303347_pf.html">argue</a> we need to divorce the religious right. Ignoring that it is the SoCon's that helped deliver most of our political wins in the last 20 years. The Nuge and countless others say we need to go <a href="http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29458">RINO hunting</a>. Ted my sentiments are with you but unfortunately we need the moderates for a winning coalition. So instead of blaming this wing or that wing of our Party for our recent losses we need to define what it means to be a Republican and leave the rest to the rubber chicken circuit. What am I talking about? Open Hand issues and Closed Hand issues.

This concept is not new but needs to be applied to the GOP. We need Closed Hand issues that we all agree on. Ones that define Republicans. That are bedrock, firm, and ones that we will "go to the mattresses" for. We have to unite and not compromise on the issues of fiscal conservatism, limited government, lower taxes, national defense, a constructivist judicial system, and individual freedom.

In the Open Hand we have the issues that we can debate amongst our selves but are secondary issues and should not divide us. In particular I warn against becoming a single-issue Republican. These issues include gun control, abortion, health care reform, family values, capital punishment etc. These are the issues that are too highly debated on a personal level. If the Republican party sticks to the Closed Hand issues the Open Hand issues will take care of themselves.

This is the only way we will become the Big Tent party we all talk about and it is the only way we get back in the majority.

Where do Republicans Go From Here? A Grassroots Perspective.

Former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey wrote in his book, Armey's Axioms, “When we act like them, we lose. When we act like us, we win.” Such words seem appropo after the 2008 general election. However, there is so much more to those words today than when they were written.

I cannot tell you how many times during the Bush Administration, political staffers at the state and federal level would seemingly say the same thing, 'I didn't sign up for this.' From the ill-executed war in Iraq to the prescription drug plan to the recent government bailout, many Republicans – both grassroots and professionals alike were caught off-guard by the brand of conservatism and, thus, the brand of Republicanism being executed at the highest levels of our government. And, worse yet, it was for the world to see. But, in his defense, President Bush didn't do it alone. He had a lot of help.

President Bush's proclamation of “compassionate conservatism” when he ran for office in 2000 was great rhetoric and a wonderful mission statement. However, Republicans failed to understand that it actually meant something. Compassionate conservatism meant spending – a lot of spending on government programs. It meant deficits and increased debt. It meant a foreign policy that focused on American exceptionalism and a Wilsonian offense spreading democracy around the world rather than a peace through strength national defense policy. In short, it was a brand of conservatism with which many Republicans were uncomfortable. It was not the brand of conservatism that built a center right America. However, he was “our guy” and they kept their lips sealed.

Now, in the wake of the recent elections, both grassroots and professional Republicans are asking, “where do we go from here?” Pundits have been busy today arguing whether Republicans and conservatives should revert back to their principles and become more partisan, thus, playing the role of loyal opposition? Or, should they acquiesce and work with the increased majorities of the House, Senate and new President-Elect Obama. Oddly, the answer can be and should be - both.

For years, conservatives have tried to indicate their political leanings by expressing themselves as Paleo-conservatives and Neo-conservatives. These designations spoke to the type of conservatism they believed in. As described by Wikipedia, Neo-Conservatives were/are, “a modern form of conservatism that supports a more assertive foreign policy, aimed at supporting American business interests abroad.” Paleo-Conservatives were/ are described as, “arising in the 1980s in reaction to neoconservatism, stresses tradition, especially Christian tradition and the importance to society of the traditional family.”

But, as President-elect Obama plainly put it, “Change has come to America.” This must be with the Republican Party and conservative movement, too. We can revert back to our most fundamental traditions, principles and philosophies; be a loyal opposition when warranted and work with the new majorities in the House and Senate at the same time. How? It won't be because of re-branding an image or reinventing the wheel. It will be by returning to our roots; a center right roots of thinkers and philosophers that ushered us into a time of peace and prosperity. We need to look to the past writings of Russell Kirk, Edmund Burke, Richard Weaver, Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises.

In these writings we will find a stark contrast with modern conservatism most recently on display. We will find a place in the very first chapter of Russell Kirk's book, The Politics of Prudence, a proclamation that conservatism is, in fact, the lack of ideology. It is not partisan but reasoned. It is not argumentative or “gotcha” but measured. It is a far cry from the conservatism contemporaries have come to know. Further, we will find a reason for a just and moral order in our society for the sake of shared interest and partnership toward a shared future – not to force dogmatic practices on an unwilling citizenry.

In other writings from Hayek and Mises we will find a proven direction to build prosperity without taking from the rich and giving to the poor. In Burke, we will find a role for regulation without over-regulating to the point where we choke a small business' or individual's opportunity to make a profit. In Weaver, we find that ideas have consequences. Every decision carries with it levels of impact. But, as Weaver notes, “All work is a bringing of the ideal from potentiality into actuality.” We work together.

As a collection, we find a place where minorities have a home through public policies that directly benefit them and a place where they are not only welcome but are relied upon. We find a proper role for government while not intruding into peoples' personal lives or asking them to give up their liberties in the name of national security. We find a place for achieving peace through strength without active nation building or misdirecting aggression; not confusing offense with defense . We find a place for a limited social safety net while still relying on the hard work and individual responsibility of every able citizen because the greater we limit the fall, conversely, the greater we must limit the success. And, we find a place where we are truly “our brother's keeper” but a keeper by choice – not by government force.

In this time, we can begin anew to read and understand and share what traditional conservatism is and what it was meant to be. We need our state and federal leaders to do the same and be able to practice and articulate it. In this, we will be able to work with a President Obama when he has it right and serve as a loyal opposition when he has it wrong. Rather than a partisan approach – we show what a reasoned, measured and prudent approach to public policy looks like. More importantly, we will show our citizens and the rest of the world what we were supposed to be; what our movement was built to be and what our Party quit trying to be. At the very least, we will most certainly find a brand of conservatism that most of America agrees with – they just haven't seen it in a quite a while.

Who Are You

Had dinner earier this week with some local Young Republican toughs and a member of the Virginia House of Delegates. Lots of topics were on the table, but the big one was what's eating the GOP?

The Delegate's answer was interesting: It's the case of a party that wants to be loved for something it isn't, and afraid of being loved for who they are.

Which brings the obvious question, posed so long ago by Pete Townshend:

Who Are You?

I really want to know.

Are Republicans the folks who believe in their creed -- the one they print on their membership cards --  or in the parentheses?

That the free enterprise system is the most productive supplier of human needs and economic justice (except when it comes to smart growth...we kinda like that)

That all individuals are entitled to equal rights, justice, and opportunities and should assume their responsibilities as citizens in a free society (but school choice still gives us the willies)

That fiscal responsibility and budgetary restraints must be exercised at all levels of government (except when there's a surplus, then it's Katie bar the door!)

That the Federal Government must preserve individual liberty by observing constitutional limitations (but REAL ID isn't all that bad, is it?)

That peace is best preserved through a strong national defense (and maybe a sales tax holiday, because without duct tape, the terrorists win!)

That faith in God, as recognized by our Founding Fathers, is essential to the moral fibre of the Nation (except for that hippie Jefferson with his Deism and science and weird ideas about freedom of conscience).

Which is it? I dunno...but they had better decide soon.

Syndicate content