conservative

We simply cannot afford to lose a generation of young voters to the Democrats. As a follow-up to my first post from a few days back, I’d like to propose some specific changes that would better serve the Republican Party in recapturing the youth vote.

Establish a Young Voter Outreach arm of the Republican National Committee

We need to fight tooth and nail to bring young voters back to the Republican Party. Yes, the Young Republican National Federation and College Republican National Committee exist. The problem is that neither of these organizations actively serve to “sell” the Republican Party to young voters – rather, their purpose is to engage young voters who are already affiliated with the GOP. Thus, the Young Voter Outreach arm would serve to accomplish this, demonstrating to young voters that the Republican Party actually cares about winning their vote and is not just the party of older generations.

This arm of the RNC must be overseen by – surprise – a Republican under the age of 30. It would be responsible for working with the RNC’s eCampaign folks to launch new, state-of-the-art websites, blogs, and other online projects that are designed specifically to appeal to young voters who are not necessarily Republicans. One of the goals of these projects should be to serve to answer crucial questions like, “Why is the Republican Party’s platform the right one for me as a young voter?” or “Why should I, as a young voter, be alarmed about the Democrats’ plan to [insert bad policy here – redistribute the wealth, raise taxes, etc.]?”

But there’s more. As a Party, we need to begin building and then maintaining a strong base of young, up-and-coming Republicans, who in the near future can begin running for the U.S. House and Senate. These young candidates will help allow us to pursue a 435 district strategy while bringing new, fresh faces to the table. Therefore, the Young Voter Outreach arm would be responsible for identifying and recruiting these folks, but more importantly, it would encourage them to begin running for local offices and provide training sessions to show them how to run for an office and win.

Differentiate from Democrats Through Ideals of Limited Government

Over the next two years, the Democrats will look to expand government in many ways. As I noted in my first column, many young voters are decidedly libertarian, and thus they’ll frown on these changes – a circumstance that Republicans, as the party of free-markets and personal liberty, can capitalize upon.

Despite this, young voters are going to find it difficult to support the Republican Party if it remains the party that condones government intervention in such issues as gay marriage or the behavior of two consenting adults in their own bedroom. These socially conservative issues may be important to voters in the other generations, but in the eyes of many of my peers, government has no place in getting involved in these matters. Indeed, the Republican Party’s continued support of government involvement in these issues continues to reinforce the notion to many young voters that the GOP is the party of the older generations.

Clearly, some sort of common ground needs to be reached if the Republican Party wishes to appeal to the young voting bloc while not losing social conservatives. In terms of policy, what could this balance look like? On issues such as gay marriage, Republicans could advocate the voters in each state making their own statewide decision. Specifically, California’s Proposition 8 is a phenomenal example of how the voters – rather than the government – can determine their state’s position on this sort of issue. Abortion, however, is a slightly different animal. If you believe (as I do) that life begins at conception, then abortion is, quite simply, the infringement of another human being’s right to life. Since the federal government is charged with protecting people’s “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” Republicans can fairly argue that it is the federal government’s responsibility to fight to limit abortion.

Taking this all into account, a forward-looking, pro-young voter platform statement for the Republican Party of the future should look something like this:

The Republican Party is the party of individual freedom, limited government, and personal choice. At the federal level, we will fight to reduce the size of government and make it more accountable to the people who fund it. We will fight to protect every human being’s God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And at the statewide level, we will work with the citizens to protect and preserve the traditional values upon which this great nation was built.

Rethink Our Branding and Organizational Identity

This one’s so simple, yet we cannot underestimate its importance: the fact is that a huge part of what drew young voters to Barack Obama was his hip, corporate-like branding and identity. Some might argue that this is shallow, but I strongly disagree. Instead, this is the reality of effective marketing. Indeed, it is the same reason that some brands flourish and while others fail miserably. Marketing is one of the most critical topics in the business world, and Barack Obama has taught us that it can be equally as significant in politics.

Just look at a side-by-side of the two candidate’s logos. Obama’s “O” logo probably has near 100% brand recognition – you don’t need the “Obama ‘08″ below it to know what it represents. On the other hand, if you took away McCain-Palin and left only the star at the top with the two lines extending out from it, would anyone have a clue what it represents? Nope.

Further, Obama’s simplistic yet impeccably memorable slogan of “hope” and “change” were consistent and didn’t change in the slightest since he entered the race. McCain didn’t maintain such a consistent message, and unfortunately, his “Country First” slogan that was implemented near the end of the race does not have the appeal of “hope” and “change.”

Fortunately, the Democratic Party itself does not have a branding or identity advantage over the Republican Party. This creates a unique opening for the GOP to take the initiative. Redesign the RNC’s logo and GOP.com to reflect the trends of Web 2.0. Find a unifying, clear-cut message for the party that carries wide-spread appeal. And most importantly, offer resources so that our candidates as well as our state and local parties can do the same.

Conclusion

The changes that I’ve identified in this post are necessary for the Republican Party to transform itself as the party of the future. A huge component that will be necessary to accomplishing this is the GOP’s ability to attract younger, fresh faces – the people who are this country’s future. Ultimately, the changes I propose all add up to one overreaching goal: to transform the Republican Party into one that represents all generations and embodies the core principles that make this nation so great.

This entry is cross-posted at NextGenGOP.

A new report from Rasmussen states that "Two days after Barack Obama became the first African-American to be voted into the White House, the percentage of black voters who view American society as fair and decent jumped 18 points to 42%".  As there are approximately 28 million African-Americans, that 18 percent translates to about 5 million people. This change will be--by far--the most important positive aspect for conservatism to come out of this election,  Certainly the numbers may not be stable.   Certainly a yes/no question hides as much as it reveals.  But look at the potential implications:

The belief that America is unfair motivates much of the liberal agenda including an activist court system, affirmative action, unions,  large government handouts, and taxes on the rich.  Conservatives value fairness, but also heavily value other concerns such as tradition, liberty, and stability.  It is easier to balance fairness with other concerns if you believe that your country is fair than if you believe your country is unfair.

Today, five million African-Americans are far more open to conservative thinking than they were just two weeks ago.  We should welcome our new allies and work hard to make them a permanent part of our movement.

When Republicans look for a big tent, “all are welcome here” mindset... we lose.  A party has to stand for something.  The challenge is then to not browbeat or scare others into submission, but rather engage them and persuade them that our way is better.  Diluted principles lead to a weak party with no clear vision to offer.  It isn't about the party, it's about the ideals and principles.  Ronald Reagan was successful not only because of his considerable communicative skills, but more so because he believed, right down to his socks, everything he said.  His conviction and faith were unshakable.  Conveying that depth of belief in a core set of values is what makes people want to join you.

So... why did Republicans lose this year?  Whether you agree with him or not (I suspect "not"), Barack Obama painted a vivid picture of what his campaign meant and where he wanted it to go.  Ronald Reagan did this for Conservatives.  He not only articulated the message, he painted the vision.  People could see what "Morning in America" looked like, and they wanted to be in that picture.  They wanted to live in the "shining city on a hill".  We may be the opposition party now, but we will never be successful running against something.  We have to give people a bright, vibrant picture of what they are voting for when they vote Republican.  It really is about hope and dreams.  We have to get back to a basic message, solid principles, and a clear vision.  Then, we find a way to make people see it and feel it.

Republicans support my America.  In my America, people can fail.  In my America, we help them learn from those mistakes, pick themselves up, and encourage them to try again.  In my America, success doesn't always come easy.  That makes it all the sweeter when you finally attain it.  Barack Obama and the Democratic Party would have people believe that "yes we can" is only possible with the help of the government.  We don't say "yes we can" a lot in my America.  Instead, brave, hard working individuals stand up and say "yes I can".  In my America, the government protects my Constitutional rights and clears away barriers to my success.  They do not cheapen my achievements by creating artificial success.  They don't discourage me by telling me that I can't succeed without their help.  In my America, my accomplishments may be small, but they are mine and I can take pride them.  That's why I am a Republican.

We need people who can hear the Democratic message, smile and say "there you go again".  The critical follow-up is the ability to paint an alternate picture of America that makes people smile, and proud to wave the flag.  If we do, we will win.  Backtracking and compromising our message will add to the air of defeat around the GOP, and no one wants to join the losers.  Our message did not fail.  We never effectively communicated our message.

I am a motivated volunteer who has worked hard since May of 2007 for candidates who inspired me.   We should always expect, and demand that our leaders inspire us.  A consensus candidate may get my vote, but they won't get my help.  I suspect that I'm very representative of the needed activists out there.  I would urge you all to not find "consensus” candidates next time.  Instead, find brave champions and true-believers who can convince those that disagree with us, that we just may have something here.  Find candidates who can make people believe, right down to their socks, that “yes I can”.

Steve Smith

 Going forward, I think that conservatives (and the GOP, assuming it remains the home of conservatives) should stress a message straight out of Douthat & Salam's Grand New Party, but I think the overarching theme should be as follows:

1. Efficient, Effective, and Ethical Government

Unfortunately for many libertarian-conservatives, the “government is the problem” message does not sell right now to many working class Americans, who have become the bedrock of our party.  Because of the economic morass (yes, I know the CRA and the Fed are mostly to blame, but that's not the impression the man on the street has), these voters seek stability and security. Instead, conservatives should focus on grooming candidates and assisting incumbents in crafting a message of efficient, effective government, much like Gov. Mitch Daniels has done here in Indiana. Privatization of certain aspects (the Indiana Toll Road is now run under contract by a private firm) is fine, but there are certain things (e.g. disaster recovery) that voters expect government to do well.

The bedrock voters of our coalition will also expect elected officials to be thrifty (we were not when in charge of Congress and the White House) and honest (Abramoff?), just as they are with their own finances.  Without a doubt, politics is never an unmessy game, but we have to stress to our incumbents and candidates that a lack of ethics will cost them at the ballot box.  If they lack a moral compass, then at least self-interest should do the trick.

While defense hawks will hate to hear this, I also would advocate a move away from a Wilsonian-Roosveltian-Trumanesque-Bushesque foreign policy to one more in line with the thinking of the late Sen. Robert Taft from Ohio and Pres. John Quincy Adams: America “goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.”  Dovetailing with an earlier point on thrift, wars are also expensive, and – as the Iraq War has shows – are usually way more expensive than the government believes they will be.  Moreover, while our core voters are immensely patriotic, the voters on the fringe of our voting coalition (which we need to win elections) simply do not have the stomach for combat that drags on more than one election cycle.  Finally, there is no question that the Iraq war energized our ideological opponents.  

2. Strong Families

Again, our core constituency values children and domestic life; they are the counterpoise to the bohemian-loving persons depicted in the musical Rent, the television show Friends, and the residents of urbane America.  It is indeed telling the San Francisco has more pets than it does children.  We must ensure that our candidates and incumbents stress their support for family life.

On social issues, our incumbents must support the right to life and greater strictures on abortion; our strongest footsoldiers (myself included) will “check out” if conservatives do not fight for the unborn.  The partial-birth abortion ban model is a perfect model: go after procedures that even many moderates will agree with.  A key example is a requirement that a woman be given an ultrasound before agreeing to an abortion; this issue can be couched in terms of “providing women with all requisite information” before she makes a decision.  In reality, it also increases the costs of abortion providers as well.

I certainly also think that a wage subsidy for intact families – as advocated by Douthat – is a good idea.  Pres. Reagan’s Earned Income Tax Credit – for the first time since LBJ’s programs – actually rewarded work.  A wage subsidy for working class families that rewards a husband and wife’s faithfulness will certainly be welcome by our core constituency.  Indeed, such was the goal of the maternalists during FDR’s New Deal: to strengthen family life.

3.  Job Creation

Finally, our candidates and incumbents must be focused on job creation.  Our core constituency is not indolent; it wants to work.  Our candidates should be attempting to make arrangements such as job-sharing and telecommuting easier.  Moreover, they should be focusing on infrastructure: do we need things like an inter-urban railway to obtain access to good jobs for our working class families?  The goal is not so much to make government the driving engine of job creation but instead an agent to smooth the pathway that our core constituency needs to access good jobs. 

Education reform is essential to prepare our kids for the future.  While vouchers are an excellent idea, our core constituency seems concerned that they will de-fund the good public schools in their communities.  Instead, why not encourage the formation of charter schools in every school district?  The charters simply don’t have the red tape that the standard school has to deal with; this allows for more innovation.

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention energy independence: E85, geothermal, solar, and nuclear power can wean us off foreign petroleum, which will allow us to disentangle ourselves from the Middle East.  The industries will also employ many of our core voters.  Moreover, the energy industry can provide a potent environment retort to the environmentalist Left; while the liberals talk about global warming and legislating, our candidates and incumbents can be seen as actually doing something for the environment and the country.

Many libertarian conservatives will object to some of these ideas and argue that they are merely distillations of Huckabee-style Christian democracy.  I welcome their criticism and hope to apply it usefully.  Others will argue that in advocating such government intervention, the very idea of conservatism is debased.  When I use the term “conservative,” however, I am not using it in an economic way per se.  By “conservative” I mean that I wish to conserve the important values of our core voters, that being the enjoyment of domestic life and a great work ethic.  I care very little about the values and enjoyment of the neo-bohemians in New York, LA, Chicago, or Miami.  I care a lot about the values and joy experienced by the voters of Bargersville (Indiana), Delta Township (Michigan), and Greenville (SC).

I'm native Northern Californian - East Bay native in fact. This is not so common around here and  I'm proud of it. What I'm not so proud about is that I've always felt I was in the proverbial political closet living here.

As a child, I couldn't give a care about what was going on out 'there'. For me, it was all about hopscotch and sleep overs. It all changed as I became a teenager and started to really have my own opinions. My earliest recollection of not fitting in was New Year's Eve 1979. My best friends wanted to listen to Deep Purple and all I wanted to hear was disco - but I bit my tongue and said nothing. It wasn't cool to like disco anymore. Here in the Bay Area, you had to like heavy metal.

This went all all throughout my high school and college days. Friends would want to people watch at the airport and I wanted to grab and bite and watch a movie. The analogies could go on and on. But I was smart enough to know that in my circles, I was the minority and unless I wanted to stick out like a sore thumb, I should just shut up and go with the flow. So I did. Little follower I was.

Until one day, I realized that my parents, who never foisted upon me their political belief system, were kinda smart people. My dad grew up dirt poor in Pennsylvania (my Mom's side of the family is where I get my deep bay area roots). He joined the Navy, landed in SF at some point, met and married my Mom and immediately started a family. Dad became a salesman for blind and handicapped products door to door. Then got a more stable job as a meat cutter at Safeway. Worked his butt off to get a 2-year degree so he could join the Fire Dept. Which he did. And he also started a side business doing small landscape projects. So between the fire dept, the meat cutting job and his own small landscape business, he was able to provide a pretty decent middle class home for his wife and 3 kids. God bless him and his desire to be the best he could be - no excuses and no handouts.

So one day I wake up and realize he's been the inspiration behind my hard work ethic. I thank him and we dialog as adults. It helped me to realize that all along, I knew the path I would always take and always wanted to take was perhaps the less popular. See, here in the East Bay of SF, it's very popular to be liberal. And if you're not, you better not say a word. In fact, you better just shup up and go with the flow. But I won't. And I haven't.

This election year, I did something I am still nervous about. I've been sporting a McCain-Palin bumper sticker. I keep waiting to get into a verbal altercation or see my car keyed. So far so good, but I do back my car into stalls to be safe.

So folks, I know I'm not alone - and I know it seems so much more popular to be liberal, and that I cannot recall a time in my hometown where being conservative was the cool thing, but when exactly did it become a requirement by so many to conform to the homogenous ways of your local society?

I write this article neither as a Liberal nor as a Conservative. I write this article as an American. I write this as a Caucasian American who holds to a set of Moderate to Right-Libertarian political views.   I write this as someone who is quote worried about the direction our Nation is taking. I write this as someone who is heartsick over the deep divisions in the world of politics.

 For the first time, since I have been Blogging, I feel the need to speak out against those who hold similar political views as mine. I am referring to the comments that were made by Rep. Michelle Bachmann. Rep. Michelle Bachmann on an appearance on MSNBC’s Hardball said that there were persons in the United States Congress, who held to Anti-American views.  She also said that these people should be investigated.

Before I get into why I disapprove of this, let me make some things clear. Contrary to popular belief, my Politics is not as far right as some. In fact, I tend to lean towards the center on some issues. I am a moderate on many issues. Although, when it comes to our Military, My disdain of the Islam Religion, Our Nations Constitution, and a few other things, I am much to the right of some. However, on other issues, I tend to be more of a Libertarian. For example, I do not believe that it is the Governments right to tell a woman what to do with her body. 

Now personally on a personal level, I object to Abortion on grounds that it is murder, this is because I am a Christian and I believe that life begins at conception. Nevertheless, on a Political Level, I believe that the United States Government does not have the right to dictate to woman what she can and cannot do with her body. Furthermore, I do not believe that the State Government should dictate to a woman what she can and cannot do to her own body.  

This is because I believe in personal freedom. I also reject the Conservative Christian idea of turning America into a Theocracy.  I also believe in a full wall of separation of Church and State.  However, just as well, I believe the woman should be given all the alternatives to terminating a pregnancy, however, if she decides to do so, that is between her and God. Let God be the judge of that woman. I reject the browbeating that the far right gives to those who decide to perform such an action. That sort of abject nonsense goes against the very core freedoms in our Constitution.  Those that cannot separate between the political and spiritual realms should not involve themselves in politics at all.  

Now do my personal political views of mine make me Anti-American? I think the sane and logical answer to that would be no. Now in the interest of full disclosure, I have little or no use for the far left. I will spare you the reasons for that. I will simply say that I did not leave the Democrat Party, it left me, long ago, especially during this election cycle. However, for me to sit here and write that Democrats were Anti-Americans would be a lesson in abject foolishness.  Frankly, Rep. Michelle Bachmann’s comments yesterday did nothing to raise the level of political discourse in this country whatsoever.  Rep. Michelle Bachmann was essentially doing a poor imitation of Ann Coulter or at worst channeling Joseph McCarthy. I am fully aware that it was written recently that Joseph McCarthy was correct on some matters; it, in fact, was the destructive behavior of Senator McCarthy that ruined his career.    

It is this writer’s opinion that channeling Senator Joseph McCarthy in this desperate hour would be a total and unequivocal disaster to the Republican Party’s cause.  It is not lost upon me that the political landscape of the Democratic Party has changed a great deal in the last eight years, Mrs. Katrina Vanden Heuvel ‘s response to the remarks being a perfect example of this. However, the channeling of McCarthyism will do nothing to further the Conservative cause. In fact, it will alienate more than it will help.

“Splitbrain” Conservatives are people who are aware that research with split-brain patients has yielded discoveries that thoroughly validate the Conservative view of Mankind and thoroughly repudiate the Liberal view.

The emerging reality is that we are programmed to be tribal territorial animals ... to compulsively form tribes and to war with one another for dominance. This has always been an observable (but emphatically denied) reality, but split-brain research has uncovered and documented the existence of a brain function that enables us to be instinct-driven tribal territorial animals yet totally unaware of the instincts influencing our behavior.

It has been demonstrated, repeatedly and convincingly, that the left-brain's “Interpreter” function automatically generates conscious (and implicitly believed) explanations for any actions we perform or feelings we experience that are not consciously motivated. Thus whenever we lash out at opponents in response to our tribal programming, we implicitly believe that we did so, not instinctively, but for consciously decided upon reasons.

The plaintive question, “Why can't we all just live in peace,” and the bewilderment that throughout our history we have always warred rather than living in peace, is now answerable: “We war because we are programmed to form tribes and contend with one another, and remembering our history will not prevent it unless and until we understand the underlying tribal species programming driving it.”

Until then, the only “Peace” possible is a Pax Romana or a Pax Americana, where one tribe is dominant enough to quell all others, and we can only pray that the dominant tribe remains an America rather than a Russia, China, or Iran.

I encourage all Conservatives to become aware of the incredible significance of what is being learned about how our brain unconsciously influences our behavior, and shamelessly recommend my book, Man by Nature: The Hidden Programming Controlling Human Behavior, as a starting point.