differences

As we move forward in developing policy proposals to assist a Conservative/Republican revival, we need to be clear about the types of differences we have with the opposition.  It may seem a little abstract; but I believe a better understanding of these concepts will help us craft better policies and better messages.

1.      Differing parties generally share common goals for the nation and agree on general principles and policies to achieve those goals but each believes the other is incapable of implementing policies effectively (ie. The opposition is incompetent but not misguided or evil).

Right now, this is where we are the weakest.  We have some strong governors but Bush, Brownie, Delay, Foley, Hastert, and on and on and on …. have left even most Conservative Republicans wondering if our party is capable of simple competence.  I have lost count of the number of voters I spoke with in the Fall who agreed with us 100 percent on national goals, principles and policies but voted straight ticket Democrat because they just felt we couldn’t get the job done and they could.

2.      Differing parties share common goals for the nation but differ regarding what principles and policies are best suited to achieve those goals. (ie. The opposition is misguided but not evil and will accept our ideas once we show they will work.)

This was/is Obama’s core message – That almost all Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, red states and blue states have the same basic goals for the nation and that we will all unite once we realize his policies will deliver these goals.  We need to give this one some serious thought.  I believe he may be right about most people in our nation sharing common goals and wrong about the policies to achieve those goals.  The critical issue for us arises if his policies actually work.  I doubt the problem will arise. However, I want to see a strong prosperous nation with a government firmly committed to securing the fundamental rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence and am agnostic about the methods of achieving that goal.  But many in our movement seem to believe the methods are as sacrosanct as the rights.  So, if we wake up in two years in a strong prosperous nation with a government firmly committed to securing the fundamental rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence  do we continue to oppose the Democrats or shift our thinking to reflect a new reality? 

3.      Differing parties have divergent goals for the nation but respect the good intentions of the opposing party. (ie. The opposition is misguided and will probably never accept our ideas but not evil)

This is where we get respectful differences between Social Conservatives and Social Libertarians (Obama vs Rick Warren).  I believe the electorate will tolerate, even welcome, some level of debate over fundamental societal goals as long as all parties are willing to accept the verdict of the majority and either embrace the final public policy or at least tolerate it with a certain level of good grace.

4.      Differing parties have divergent goals for the nation and each believes the other is motivated by self interest rather than altruism. (ie. The opposition is evil)

The extremists on either end of the spectrum can push this message as hard as they want.  It will only drive voters to the other side.

As we move forward in developing policy proposals to assist a Conservative/Republican revival, we need to be clear about the types of differences we have with the opposition.  It may seem a little abstract; but I believe a better understanding of these concepts will help us craft better policies and better messages.

1.      Differing parties generally share common goals for the nation and agree on general principles and policies to achieve those goals but each believes the other is incapable of implementing policies effectively (ie. The opposition is incompetent but not misguided or evil).

Right now, this is where we are the weakest.  We have some strong governors but Bush, Brownie, Delay, Foley, Hastert, and on and on and on …. have left even most Conservative Republicans wondering if our party is capable of simple competence.  I have lost count of the number of voters I spoke with in the Fall who agreed with us 100 percent on national goals, principles and policies but voted straight ticket Democrat because they just felt we couldn’t get the job done and they could.

2.      Differing parties share common goals for the nation but differ regarding what principles and policies are best suited to achieve those goals. (ie. The opposition is misguided but not evil and will accept our ideas once we show they will work.)

This was/is Obama’s core message – That almost all Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, red states and blue states have the same basic goals for the nation and that we will all unite once we realize his policies will deliver these goals.  We need to give this one some serious thought.  I believe he may be right about most people in our nation sharing common goals and wrong about the policies to achieve those goals.  The critical issue for us arises if his policies actually work.  I doubt the problem will arise. However, I want to see a strong prosperous nation with a government firmly committed to securing the fundamental rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence and am agnostic about the methods of achieving that goal.  But many in our movement seem to believe the methods are as sacrosanct as the rights.  So, if we wake up in two years in a strong prosperous nation with a government firmly committed to securing the fundamental rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence  do we continue to oppose the Democrats or shift our thinking to reflect a new reality? 

3.      Differing parties have divergent goals for the nation but respect the good intentions of the opposing party. (ie. The opposition is misguided and will probably never accept our ideas but not evil)

This is where we get respectful differences between Social Conservatives and Social Libertarians (Obama vs Rick Warren).  I believe the electorate will tolerate, even welcome, some level of debate over fundamental societal goals as long as all parties are willing to accept the verdict of the majority and either embrace the final public policy or at least tolerate it with a certain level of good grace.

4.      Differing parties have divergent goals for the nation and each believes the other is motivated by self interest rather than altruism. (ie. The opposition is evil)

The extremists on either end of the spectrum can push this message as hard as they want.  It will only drive voters to the other side.