Responding to a Big News Day on the GOP's Future

Bottom Line Up Front: The next leadership group of the GOP must rise above the different wings of the party. Political inclusiveness, public policy creativity, long term strategic thinking and risk-taking are the characteristics I'll be looking for in a chairman/minority leader.

I am now a proud coalition member of RebuildTheParty.com, and today's newspapers are highlighting stories and opinion pieces on the future of the GOP. Adam Nagourney of the New York Times writes an all-encompassing piece on the upcoming RGA meeting in Miami as well as leadership battles for the RNC chairmanship and Congressional minority leadership positions. Newt Gingrich points out that "the party would be wiser to offer a broad idea of what it stood for and how it would lead the country, and pick its battles carefully." Gingrich and former Maryland Lt. Governor and current GOPAC chairman are privately seeking the RNC chairmanship, according to Ralph Hallow of the Washington Times. One of the sticking points seems to focus on how to emulate Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy:

"Republicans, especially state party leaders, have become envious of the organization and money that Mr. Dean's operation deployed in two victorious election cycles in which Democrats regained and expanded control of Congress and captured the White House.

"Republicans agree that their national party is leaderless and in desperate need of someone who has the force of personality and history of accomplishments to command national attention to take on Mr. Obama. Someone is also needed to unite disparate factions that, even in the best of times, generate internal friction among themselves."

I've written before on the importance of building a GOP Farm Team, but a little disappointed with the few responses to questions I had for state party chairs. Patrick recently urged us to "expand the map" by coming up with a 435 District Strategy. There were 8 op-eds today on the future of the GOP, 6 of them in the Wall Street Journal, that deserve some thought and response.

1. David Brooks on Traditionalists vs. Reformers

Brooks identifies himself as a Reformer who "tend to believe that American voters will not support a party whose main idea is slashing government ... [and] tend to be intrigued by the way David Cameron has modernized the British Conservative Party." He argues that we "cannot continue to insult the sensibilities of the educated class and the entire East and West Coasts." I agree that we should become the party of big ideas and that we should appeal to a broader geography of Americans, but disagree that we can emulate another country's brand of conservatism. Assuming there is a battle between Traditionalists and Reformers, Brooks has already picked a winner in the short term:

The debate between the camps is heating up. Only one thing is for sure: In the near term, the Traditionalists are going to win the fight for supremacy in the GOP ... They are going to win, first, because Congressional Republicans are predominantly Traditionalists ... Second, Traditionalists have the institutions ... Finally, Traditionalists own the conservative mythology ... In short, the Republican Party will probably veer right in the years ahead, and suffer more defeats. Then, finally, some new Reformist donors and organizers will emerge. They will build new institutions, new structures and new ideas, and the cycle of conservative ascendance will begin again.

[Sidenote: It's funny that to think that the Traditionalists, as Brooks mentions, are in love with Sarah Palin, who was cast as a Reformer during the campaign.]

I'm not interested in the winners and losers of an internal battle. I'm interested in the existence of a battle itself. Why does this fight need to even happen? Can't we have a leader that can rise above and work with all wings of the party? Furthermore, why can't the Reformers work inside or with the current institutions to modernize the Republican Party? And why can't the Traditionalists be willing to tether their ideaological battles with more a creative "pro-family" agenda? (More to come on this in a future post.) The simple answer to these questions is just plain intellectual laziness, which takes me to my next point ...

2. Thomas Sowell on Intellectuals

Sowell argues that one of the "many wonders to be expected from an Obama administration, if Nicholas D. Kristof of the New York Times is to be believed, is ending 'the anti-intellectualism that has long been a strain in American life.'" But the fact is that if the Bush Administration and status quo Republicans represent the "anti-intellectual" extreme, the Obama administration might be on the "too intellectual" extreme, as I've commented on before. Sowell concludes with a well-known fact:

"History fully vindicates the late William F. Buckley's view that he would rather be ruled by people represented by the first 100 names in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard.

"How have intellectuals managed to be so wrong, so often? By thinking that because they are knowledgeable-- or even expert-- within some narrow band out of the vast spectrum of human concerns, that makes them wise guides to the masses and to the rulers of the nation.

"But the ignorance of Ph.D.s is still ignorance and high-IQ groupthink is still groupthink, which is the antithesis of real thinking."

It's interesting because while Buckley rightfully bashes the faculty at my alma mater, he was willing to battle liberals on the intellectual battleground. So what is "real thinking"? It's not a knack of coming up with the perfect all-encompassing optimistic/internationalist/utopian theory that explains everything in this world that should be the basis of any public policy. It's being creative with public policy in the dynamic world that exists today: pragmatism tethered to practicality, idealism without idealogues. It's about coming up with solutions that promote freedom and opportunity within what would seem to be Democratic issues (McCain health credit for health care, choice and accountability in education, etc.)

But let's not kid ourselves: being a public policy wonk and being an appealing leader at the same time is very difficult to do, but it's not impossible. This is why, as mentioned before, I'm impressed and drawn to folks like Newt Gingrich and Bobby Jindal: smart leaders who know how to connect with the average Joe. But we have to continue to reach out to other constituencies ...

3. Danny Vargas on Minority Outreach

"We Republicans are at our best when we speak to people's hopes and aspirations -- not their fears or anger. Americans used to see us as responsible stewards of our nation's security, economy and liberties -- the practical, principled grownups of American politics -- and Democrats were seen as the wide-eyed zealots. We need to recapture that time ...

"Unfortunately, John McCain, popular among Hispanics, was hurt by the tone of the immigration debate over the last three years, which caused many to mistakenly view the GOP as anti-Hispanic."

Agreed. The GOP needs to reach out to different segments of society without making mention of the "plights" of that segment. Identifying and targeting messages towards minority voters without pandering to the ethnic indentity of that voter is possible. As I have mentioned before when providing suggestions on how to court Asian-American voters, I'm ever more convinced that we need a more sophisticated "pro-family" agenda to attract and re-attract certain segments of the voting population. Speaking of a "pro-family" agenda ...

4. Richard Land on Social Conservatism

In addtion to speaking about the pro-life agenda, Land argues for the following:

"[One] core value must be a pro-family agenda. This agenda must include tax policies that revalue child-rearing (doubling the dependent child deduction, for example) and eliminating the marriage tax penalty. It should also promote parental school choice -- empowering all parents to make the choices concerning their children's education that currently only affluent parents are empowered to make.

"[Another] core value must be an economic agenda that demonstrates as much concern for Main Street and the average family's budget as it does for Wall Street and multinational conglomerates."

While I like the direction that Land is taking, I still think it's too simplistic to have a "pro-family" agenda around the same old ideas. Any "pro-family" agenda of the future has to focus around the messaging of "expanding opportunity." While this does include "empowering parents" with school choice, it also means passage of McCain's health credit that gives more uninsured familes the ability to purchase health insurance; it means having a tax code that encourages investment instead of picking winners and losers.; it means reforming an education system to encourage parent involvement. And I don't think it's good enough for "pro-life" to just mean "anti-abortion." It should also mean encouraging adoptions in a Roe v. Wade world.

Coming up with solutions to complicated problems means thinking big. Thinking about big ideas means taking risks ...

5. Congressman Paul Ryan on Government Spending

... and Paul Ryan urges his colleagues to come up with "bold alternatives" as a loyal opposition to the Obama administration and the Democratic Congressional majority.

"We cannot simply put up roadblocks to the emboldened Democratic majority. We need to offer an alternative future. Absent reform, our federal government will double in size within a generation. We must change course from this path of stagnation, and we must have leaders willing to provide a path that keeps alive the American ideal and keeps our government limited.

"Our party has become too fearful of our own ideas. Since 1997, congressional Republicans began a steady retreat from principled leadership to political expediency. A party built on spending discipline and government reform succumbed to the siren songs of government expansion and earmarked giveaways. Republicans squandered the opportunity to limit and reshape the relationship between the federal government and the individual."

Both Ryan and Congressman Eric Cantor have taken the lead in offering bold initiatives. Ryan has come up with a "Roadmap for America's Future" that offers bold ideas on entitlement spending, the national debt, and our economic competitiveness. Cantor offers something similar with his "Middle Class Bill of Rights."

6. Peter Robinson on Expanding the Map

Robinson wants to put California into play:

"How? By appealing to the Golden State's fastest-growing demographic group, Hispanics. Yes, I know. In recent elections roughly two-thirds of the Hispanics who voted in California went for Democrats ...

"Which brings me to the current Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger. It wouldn't hurt if this very week he told his appointments secretary to schedule one visit to a Hispanic business, school or church every week for the rest of his two years in office."

I agree with Patrick that we have to put up Republicans in every race possible. Robinson's methodology seems to be a little simplistic, but I see this as a broad new voter outreach effort. The next chairman of the Republican Party should put resources into a large scale canvassing and voter identification project, even going into very blue districts. Voter identification, voter persuasion and get-out-the-vote projects have all been separate entities that need to now be integrated. Canvassing and identification needs to be an odd- and even-year continuous project. And with the increased use of absentee/early/convenience voting, a 72-Hour GOTV operation needs to be turned into a 72-Day GOTV project.

7. Henry Olsen on "What Would Reagan Do?"

"This vision of conservatism would succeed by pointing out how liberal values diverged from the American consensus, and by attracting to conservatism average Americans -- the Reagan Democrats. It is only a short distance from Reagan's words, penned in abject defeat in 1964, to the triumphs of 1984, 1994 and 2004."

Right, but looking back to what Reagan would do in these times on different issues? No! (Read previous post on this subject.) "Attracting conservatism to average Americans" cannot be a litany of what we're against. Again: big ideas, fighting on the intellectual battleground, an agenda of expanding opportunities, etc.

8. Michael Steele on Our Message 

"We must articulate a positive vision for America's future that speaks to Americans' hopes, concerns and needs. It's time to stop defining ourselves by what we are not, and tell voters what we believe, how we'll lead, and where we'll go; how we Republicans will make America better; how we'll make their families more prosperous, their children better educated, their parents more secure, and all of us healthier, safer and stronger.

"Our challenge lies not in beating Democrats, but in uniting around a message that solidifies our ranks and attracts new people to our cause. We have to listen to what Americans are telling us about their hopes, desires and needs, and then translate that message into proposals for meaningful action squarely grounded on the values we Republicans have always stood for."

I love Michael Steele, but this is easier said than done.

I encourage everybody to get in touch with the candidates for the chairmanship of the RNC and ask them the following questions:

• How will your leadership of the RNC be inclusive of all wings of the party and unite activists of many different issues? How will you lead a new Republican coalition-building movement?
• How will you develop a GOP "minor leagues" in state and local races? What will your recruitment strategy be?
• What new ideas can you bring to the table to build the party and the party's message?

Happy Veterans Day!