It's the topic of conversation every where I go. What will Republicans stand for in the future, and how will they rebuild the Party?
Not an easy question, especially when many Republican office holders still don't quite seem to get it. Still opposing cutting government spending, even for hugely wasteful programs like healthcare and social welfare spending.
The NY Observer has written a story about the Manhattan Institute and the role it may play in helping republicans get their message together. With a laser-like focus on fiscal conservatism, they have helped republicans with their message before, helping launch Rudy Giuliani into the mayoralty of NYC with their focus on strong policing, education reform and welfare reform.
Arguably, two of those issues are no longer on the front burner of most voters minds, and in the socially moderate city of NY the issues of most concern to social conservatives just don't play. At all.
So, does MI have the answer to the mess republicans find themselves in? Is fiscal conservatism the answer to that which ails us? Can we build a strong and viable coalition around the fiscal reform, education reform, small business and job development, and the other pocketbook issues, or ar we distined to fail in socially moderate areas? Will the social conservatives get it and get on board with an agenda that does not include their issues (in areas where they tend to scare off more voters than they attract)?
I believe that is the only way we will have success in NYC and other urban areas around the country.
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Hits: 566
Trackback(0)
TrackBack URI for this entryComments (16)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Jay Golub , November 19, 2008
Now those are principles, Paladin. Although running on these issues, at times, seems to not work - especially during times of both extreme fiscal distress and extreme fiscal success, over the long term, most Americans believe and support fiscal conservatism.
I could only hope that the push of those of us who support the Anti-Federalist cause wins the day and the GOP takes that banner on proudly...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Luke Vander Linden , November 19, 2008
I've been getting the sense recently that the big battle for the soul of the Republican Party in the next coming years is not at all going to be smooth. Back in the Goldwater days, when both fiscal conservatives and social conservatives were a tiny minority, they made good partners because small government usually resulted positively for both our causes -- fiscal conservatives were taxed and interfered with less and social conservatives didn't have big liberal programs shoved down their throats.
Now that social conservatives have tasted power during Bush 43's admin, it's going to be hard to get the two camps back together again. Using big government programs to achieve socially conservative ends will be too sweet a dish to turn down. As a result, in-fighting will ensue and Obama will be an 8-year president.
This could result in a major realignment, but not the left of center one that most pundits are predicting. Could two parties result from the ashes of the 2008 GOP? Ron Paul's supporters were as enthusiastic if not as numerous as Obama's. Could they create a Libertarian-Republican Party of their own? Will conservatives still run the national GOP? More importantly, can either side peel off supporters of the uneasy Green/Labor/Neo-Socialist Democrat Party when each of those branches start their own in-fighting for primacy?
Our strong executive system of government makes having more than 2 parties impossible (in parliamentary systems, 3rd, 4th, even 20th parties can join coalitions to form governments making them important, instead of our winner-take-all system where 3rd party votes for president are wasted or are worse, spoilers). This will certainly make the GOP losers in the short term, but it will be very interesting to see how it all will play out long-term.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Jay Golub , November 19, 2008
Having just two major parties are not impossible at this point. And, whether we like it or not, two major parties is the only way our federal government will function. We do not have a parlimentary government with a Prime Minister as Britain does.
Yet I agree that the two party system seems muddled and confusing at this point.
I've written about this previously at length, but to summarize the sitution, one only needs to look back at the time of the Civil War and the creation of the Republican Party under Lincoln to see where we are.
Before the GOP started, the two main parties were the Whigs and the Democrats. The Democrats were mostly the party of the South and slavery, while the Whigs were the Northern mercantile, industrial expansion party. But this situation was not monolithic.
There were northern Democrats and Southern Whigs - remanants of party divisions-past.
Over the course of two decades, the parties realigned - Republicans in the North and Democrats in the South.
Oddly enough, the Democrats were the Anti-federalists and the Republicans were the Federalists in the late 19th Century. That alignment started to change during the progressive years and culminated in the early 60's - leaving the GOP as the anti-federalists and the Democrats, with the legacy of FDR, as the Federalists.
The two major parties ebb and flow from time to time in America - switching names or roles over the years. The GOP is starting a reformation which will clear up these items you bring up, Luke. And i think you are right, that the social and fiscal conservatives are headed to a sort-of split.
Yet, the Democrats can't really absorb the social conservatives and they will more than likely find a home - albeit maybe a trailer-home - in the GOP.
I've been looking forward to this moment for about a decade and regardless of what re-alignment occurs, it will be good for the fiscal conservative cause...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Chance Haywood , November 19, 2008
How is any voted wasted, assuming it gets counted, if you are voting your principals? Personally I couldn't bring myself to vote for McCain so I cast a protest vote of sorts. I wrote in Ron Paul's name. I supported Rep. Paul in the primaries. I felt he best represented by ideology. I think he best represents what a republican should be as a legislature. I'm not certain he would be the best executive but imagine how refreshing it would have been if one of the budgets we've bassed over the last few years was put before Ron Paul? Imagine if the PATRIOT Act had come across the desk of a President Ron Paul. I suspect a veto record would happen if he were president.
It will be very hard for me in the future to support canidates that are unwilling to protect liberty and freedom. I think as republicans we need to make that our focus more than trying to be fiscal or social conservatives.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Jay Golub , November 19, 2008
fiscal conservatism IS the best way to "protect liberty and freedom," CH. If the federal government's reach is reduced in both size and scope, the individual liberty we both cherish so much will be more attainable...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Paladin , November 19, 2008
The basis of fiscal conservatism IS the fight for freedom and liberty. Those are great goals to have, but as a message they are incomplete.
Voters will not understand a message that is based on liberty. Everyone defines these things differently. Voters want to know what you will do with the office you seek.
If the response is "I will fight for liberty" the next question will always be "So what does that mean?"
The answer to the second question will always be what defines a candidate or a party.
The risk is not being asked the second question and being dismissed as a pollyanna.
Look for your ideals in the messages we can develop that will actually mean something to people.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Chance Haywood , November 19, 2008
Oh really? So explain to me how something like the PATRIOT Act would fit into that. In theory it should have cost us nothing additional to enact or enforce. Yet there it is beign supported by republicans from both houses and the executive office.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Jay Golub , November 19, 2008
The Patriot Act, in my view, violates much of what our Constitution says regarding individual rights and liberty. Under certain circumstances, national security can trump individual liberty, but not as an ongoing measure. A temporary, emergency measure may be understandable both from a philosophical and functional point of view, but for invasive power by the Fed's, even if pitched as defending our own security, can't be acceptable.
And, Paladin, the answer to your second question is that the legislation of "liberty" are easily represented by the issues of lower taxes and choice in education, to name just two.
The problem isn't knowing what to say, but ACTUALLY SAYING IT.
Delay, Bush, Pataki, Bruno etc...have not done that in recent memory, making the concept of a party supporting "liberty" somewhat hard to fathom. But that is a reversible problem...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Paladin , November 19, 2008
Chance I don't get your point. Even though Jay tried to respond to it, I don't see the correlation. I mentioned nothing about the Patriot Act and was not trying to tie it into my argument or into what I think the party should stand for.
Certainly there are parts of the Act that make me very uncomfortable. I would like to see a roll back in the power of the fed gov't across the board.
That said, some parts of the Act were necessary and not a threat to liberty. I've read it and on paper it looks mostly pretty innocuous.
As with most things, it's what you do with the power that makes the difference. Not granting it in the first place is usually the wisest and safest course.
Jay, your response to my second question was exactly what i was saying. Talking about lower taxes and less regulation is a call for smaller gov't and more liberty.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Chance Haywood , November 19, 2008
My point is that a politician who runs as a fiscal and social conservative republican has little to no reason to object to this legislation. Was the direct reason for the increase of any departments or agencies budget? Not that I am aware of. What would be the moral object that most social conservatives base thier positions on? All of this might explain why so few republicans objected to legislation that altered close to fifty sub-sections of federal law.
I personally don't see any of these alterations as necessary. What I see is a several agendas pieced together in the name of "national security" that couldn't manage to be passed as stand alone legislation.
The fact that any republican voted for this legislation tells me how far from the path we have strayed.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Paladin , November 19, 2008
I am not disagreeing with you, I just don't really understand why this is relevant in a discussion about how we should recommit as a party to our principles of fiscal conservatism.
Yes, we have strayed far off the path, thanks to the leadership, or lack of, displayed by our elected officials. From DC to Albany we are inundated with major hypocrites and sell outs.
While the principle of liberty should be our guiding force, we need to stand for something more concrete. Just like with the Patriot Act, the devil is in the details. I know plenty of socialists that claim to stand for liberty and can make some good arguments to justify that claim.
If you try to make that argument a broad political one, you will lose. it is too esoteric. If we present an agenda of what we stand for, positions derived from our core philosophy, we can rally the people a build a movement that can lead for a very long time.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by greg vitarbo , November 19, 2008
I think that if you have nothing to hide the Patriot Act is not a threat to you - so shut up already about it. Only ideologues think the Patriot Act isn't necessary. Defending America is what defending liberty is all about.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Paladin , November 20, 2008
Do you really think the ends justify the means? Where do you draw the line on giving broad powers to the government? Doesn't it concern you that they always end up abusing those powers?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Chance Haywood , November 20, 2008
ROFL @ Spunky. Seriously you are so far removed from relality if you think this doesn't touch innocent people. I'm guessing you've never even heard of the Brandon Mayfield case so allow me to educate you how wrong you are about how it is a threat to you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Mayfield
I know. I know. Wikipedia isn't the best source but in this case I'm going to use it.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Chance Haywood , November 20, 2008
Paladin
My point is that some principles should take priority over others. In the instance of liberty and freedom I believe that protection of those should be put before every other postion we put forth in the platform. I know some will argue this is too broad but I disagree. There are countless acts that have been passed that infringe on liberty and freedom an inch at a time and we as a party have been all too willing to accept that is was only an inch when it never is.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Paladin , November 20, 2008
So if you make liberty and freedom your principles and don't have specifics, then who gets to do the translation? It's only a matter of time before people make the argument that the right to housing or healthcare is a matter of liberty.
I'm not sure you are getting my point. Political dialogues are generally very short and the opportunity to make ones point is brief. If you run around talking about liberty people will yawn.
Few people believe their liberty is at stake or will do research about Brandon Mayfield. You will be dismissed as a gadfly.
If you want to build a real movement, you have to do it around ideas that average people can relate to. That's not to say that the ideal of liberty should not be our guiding principle - it should be. But it should not be the focus of our retail efforts.
Are you understanding me yet? I am not dismissing your basic premise, as your comments would indicate. Rather, i am suggesting a more practical and effective approach to communicate those ideals in a more effective way.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
