It’s never safe to focus so much on the present that we lose sight of the future. This seems to be what is happening with the push by some to codify a purity test within the GOP. If you have not heard about this I would sum it up like so – there is a resolution before the Republican National Committee which would prevent them from giving financial backing to a candidate that did not support at least 7 of the following ten principles:
(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;
(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care;
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.
I am amazed that the people backing this proposal do not see how short-sighted this effort is. I believe that their efforts are sincere, but sorely misguided, as they seek to define the GOP in a way that is more concrete than “not the democrats.”
Without going into specifics I am basically in favor of principles such as those outlined above, and the fact that the resolution only requires 70% support for those principles to receive party support is proof that they are not trying to weed all but the staunchest conservatives from the party (especially since they do not specify any subset of the principles which demands 100% conformity).
The shortsightedness is evident in the specific references such as “Obama’s ‘stimulus’ bill,”, “Obama-style government run health care, ” and “victory in Iraq and Afghanistan” (or maybe they are just admitting that this is a perpetual project).
I believe that there is value in talking about what defined ideological purity within the party – we certainly need to have some idea about who we are in order to be able to identify what the party has to offer voters but this particular proposal is significantly too blunt an instrument to benefit the party. Without any extended study of exactly the best way forward for the party I have a few suggestions, based on the existing proposal, for an approach that would be more likely to make things better rather than worse.
First I would reword the existing principles to look like this:
(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower annual deficits and lower taxes;
(2) We support market-based health care reform where states and industries are free to innovate and find working solutions to our significant health care problems;
(3) We support market-based energy reforms and believe in the power of human ingenuity to address our long term energy and environmental needs;
(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society and believe that we must have and enforce reasonable immigration laws;
(6) We support our military men and women and believe that they deserve the moral and material support to accomplish those missions which further the lasting interests of the nation;
(7) We support effective action to eliminate the threat nuclear weapons proliferation;
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and government funding of abortion; and
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.
Next I would alter the standard of purity required to give material support to a candidate. Rather than requiring conformity on seven principles I would take a more nuanced approach. The party should require that a candidate support at least four of the ten principles and that the party could not support any candidate from the party who was running against another candidate from the party who also supported at least four of the principles unless the candidate they were supporting was demonstrably supportive of at least three more of the principles than the candidate they were running against. I might even go so far as to say that the national party could not give material support to a GOP candidate in a general election if there was another candidate in the race from any other party who supported at least two more of the ten principles than the GOP candidate was supporting.
If the idea is to get candidate who believe in limited government and conservative ideals then they should be happy to have a Doug Hoffman who supports 6 principles and would caucus with the Republicans rather than a Dede Scozzafava who supports only 4 principles (if she even supports that many) and who will caucus with the Republicans but vote against them.
Good points. But I think it is natural that a party in the wilderness should struggle to define itself. It’s healthy. But what do you think the biggest issue is going to be in the mid-term elections? My guess is that it will be incumbent dissatisfaction. Having control of both houses of Congress and the presidency is dangerous. The Democrats have to take full responsibility for what’s happened during two years without being able to blame Republicans. That’s why they included “Obama’s ‘stimulus’ bill” in the ten principles.
What do you think the biggest issue will be in 2010?
I think you are right that the biggest force will be incumbent dissatisfaction. I think the biggest will be the economy that will have been dragging along for the first two years of Obama’s presidency. I think that many people will still be feeling the effects of recession by then.
It certainly is natural that a party in the political wilderness will be struggling to define itself. Like I said, those pushing this have sincere intentions, I just think that they can do better with a stronger and more flexible test of purity.
I saw the GOP list earlier today and it struck me as wrong-headed because:
1) It’s long on tactics and short on principles.
2) It defines the GOP as nothing more than an opposition (ostensibly permanent minority) party. The first five items all contain a form of the word “oppose.” So do the last two items.
3) The items listed aren’t even necessarily the most important long-term issues. I don’t necessarily agree with all of them.
4) The issues listed do a lousy job of defining what it means to be a Republican.
For some of us that are disenchanted with the Republican Party, this list is exactly the wrong message to send.
Joshua is right. The GOP really doesn’t have to do anything to pick up seats in the 2010 elections. Given their lower numbers, they can’t help but benefit from the anti-incumbent sentiment. But that is not a positive stance. The only reason people will have to vote for a Republican is that he/she is not a Democrat.
I like your proposed list much better than the one put together by the paid staff at the RNC. It states a positive vision. I’m still looking for something a bit more principle oriented. That could probably be boiled down to three to five items. But maybe it would then be so general that almost anyone could say that they support it.
This list would exclude Ronald Reagan from RNC campaign funds. Is Ronald Reagan not conservative enough now? What is the national Republican party thinking?
1. Reagan vastly increased the national debt.
5. Reagan supported immigrant amnesty
6. Reagan ignored his generals on several occasions.
10. Reagan supported the Brady Bill(gun control bill)
Reach,
If I were making my list from scratch I can guarantee that it would be different – what I presented is how I would alter the list they proposed. Mine might well be shorter since I could easily combine some of the ones on this list, but your note of its tactics over principles approach is a prime example of the short-sightedness I was trying to highlight.
Ron,
Running back to Reagan is an example of what is wrong with the GOP today – no positive identity, just a reflection of their opponents or their glorified figures of the past. Any ways that Reagan is right for today are about his principles, and not his person – we should be focused on the principles and articulate why they are important.
Republicans need to support sound fiscal policy, no more tax cuts without spending cuts unless their is a surplus, generally maintain a level of taxation high enough to fund current spending without a deficit, Absolutely never ever pass spending without either having the funds or passing addition taxation to pay for it, And finely they absolutely must maintain all obligations of the government.
Republicans can’t accuse the Democrats of being “tax and spend” happy if the Democrats are passing tax’s to pay for Republican spending. Can I call them the “debt and spend Republicans” yet?
Until Republican politicians can propose actually paying for their spending through taxation with getting slaughtered in the primary’s, And I don’t mean making some nonsense lofty BS about just not spending in the first place I need a guarantee that if they have to pass spending for any reason be it war, domestic, natural disaster, whatever that they will pay for it. Until Republicans can do this they need to be stuck out in the woods to re figure them selves out or whatever it is that tea party’ers do when their not party’en like its 1773.
I think it’s perfectly fair to call the Republican party “debt and spend Republicans” – they’ve certainly done that for years. I once called them a party of spend and don’t tax, but you version rolls off the tongue easier.
If history is any guide it seems to take a Democrat in the White House to get a Republican Congress to stop running deficits – Perhaps it’s time for a Republican Congress now that they don’t hold the Oval Office.
Because of the slighted shape of the senate its much harder for Democrats to push their agenda then for Republicans, their are currently over 100 bills waiting in the queue from the house of reps. The simple demographics of this country are moving more and more urban every year and the base of the republican party is about to start entering retirement. The average age of the registered republican is getting older every year, it’s the biggest reason that the republicans all of a sudden like medicare. Republicans have a huge problem with young and minority voters and this gap is getting wider by the day.
Simple demographics are against the Republicans getting to many more chances to control both houses of congress again, and the whole purge the party mantra is going to make this worse. Republicans will likely get the senate every now and again but the best they can do here is shutdown government, sooner or later the Democrats are going to be forced to eliminate the filibuster do to this.
Now I predict in 2010 the Republicans will gain several senate seats, The seats are currently held by blue dogs, And I think Majority leader Reid is going to loose his seat. The Senate Democrats are going to vear to the left due to the loss of the moderates and their going to view that as a message from the voters about centrism. The new Democrat senate leader is much more likely to be more progressive. I will also predict that sometime in before 2012 that the Nuclear Option gets used to end the filibuster out of simple necessity, otherwise the senate might as well go home for the year only returning at the end of the year to pass the budget.