It’s a busy holiday time so I’ll spend more time quoting and less time expounding. Back in May, Jim DeMint expressed the very opinion I still hold about How Republicans Can Build a Big-Tent Party by holding to one key principle:
There is a question Republicans do need to ask: What is it that binds our party together?
. . . Moderate Republicans are right to remind conservatives that they cannot build a center-right coalition without the center part. And conservatives are right to remind moderates that Republicans only succeed when we rally around clear principles.
The real mistake is that Republicans became more concerned with staying in D.C. than reforming it.
Despite notable successes at both ends of Pennsylvania Ave., it seems to me that Republicans in Congress and in the Bush administration forgot a simple truth. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, if you aim for principled reform, you win elections in the bargain; if you just aim for elections, you get neither.
No Child Left Behind didn’t win us “soccer moms,” but it did cost us our credibility on locally controlled education. Medicare prescription drugs didn’t win us a “permanent majority,” but it cost us our credibility on entitlement reform. Every year, another Republican quality was tainted: managerial competence, fiscal discipline and personal ethics.
To win back the trust of the American people, we must be a “big tent” party. But big tents need strong poles, and the strongest pole of our party — the organizing principle and the crucial alternative to the Democrats — must be freedom.
(emphasis mine)
We’ve been discussing the ideas of purity, conservatism, inclusiveness, and intra-party division a lot in the last few months. I believe, along with many of you, that holding to principle and being inclusive are not mutually exclusive goals. There must be strong poles to hold the tent up, or to put it another way, there must be something in the tent that makes people want to enter. I agree with Senator DeMint that freedom would be a very enticing offering – but we have to find a way to articulate the vision of freedom and not allow the message to by framed in negative terms by those who disagree with our vision.
