prop 8

The idea of happily ever after with white wedding gown and black tuxedo was first impressed upon me with Cinderella I think. At 21, when I was planning my own wedding, all the brides magazines were of beautiful women and handsome men - all romantic and perfect. So, that's mostly the image of a wedding and marriage most people I know have. Not the day to day reality, but the image of it.

Now...

When I see two really ugly people walk down the isle, I think "dang, their kids will be crazazy but you gotta 'love the love' baby."

When I see an octogenarian marry a bimbo, I think "she's marrying for money, he's marrying for - what - sex? seriously? at his age? but you gotta love the thought!"

When I see two very young kids take the plunge, I think "they are too young, it'll never last, but gosh I hope it does."

So when I see two same sex people pledge their love in front of their friends, I think "I hope they legalized a trust because they have no automatic legal rights like I do."

On my soapbox, marital status in general doesn't affect me personally. Whether someone chooses to tie the knot or not doesn't change my taxes, my income, my ability to work, vote, shop, drink or dance. I couldn't give a care if you love your sweetheart and date for the rest of your lives, live together, or marry. If you have a child and decide to raise it as a single person or not, doesn't impact me or pose a negative threat in my community.

So, I think the fuss is silly. But the arguments for prop 8 are not. They are horrific. They remind me of book burning and scream intolerance. That without changing the Constitution, we would then be forced to teach our kids that same sex marriage is okay. Perhaps these same pundits believe that their kids are not already aware that there are in fact gay people in the world who are currently not allowed to commit to each other in a legal way that means the same thing as marriage. And that these kids don't already disagree.

I urge all who are as appalled as I am to please lend your voice before its too late. March 5 is coming sooner than we think.

I watch a local newscast covering the protests taking place over the passage of Proposition 8 in California.  In a supposed effort to be evenhanded the station posted on their websites both the companies who provided support to Prop 8 and the companies that provided money to oppose Prop 8. 

This is obviously a joke as there are no organized (or even disorganized as far as I know) protests against companies that gave money to oppose Prop 8 so listing those companies is worthless.

One other point that springs to mind is that in every instance I have heard of where someone connected to a company gave money to support the passage of Prop 8 it was done by the individual rather than the company itself, whereas I know of several companies that gave money directly from their company coffers to oppose the passage of Prop 8.

And I am guessing that all the gays who disparaged the Baptist attempt to boycott Disney because of their support of gays will refuse to admit to any simularities to their boycotts of companies that supported the traditional definition of marriage.

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.