vision

There have been a lot of great posts on this site about the future of the Republican Party and the Freedom Movement. I want to add mine to the pile, but do so in a way that offers a clear framework and three-step process going forward: 1. Reboot, 2. Rebuild, 3. Rebrand. 

1. Reboot – Coalesce around a Vision

Like many large, powerful organizations, the Republican Party began to suffer from inefficiency, mission creep and stagnation. Why does this happen? These organizations become victims of their own success. They lose their way because they lose site of the Vision. Losing site of the vision means paths diverge, the organization splinters—all of which can lead to dissolution. But isn’t it possible for an organization to get its footing back? Remember when Steve Jobs returned to Apple? He brought the Vision back. Now we have iPhones. Luckily, we already have what Jon Henke calls an “organizing principle” around which to coalesce. It’s called liberty. Or, if you like, the Vision of the Founders. Rebooting requires getting the vision back in the manner of a Thomas Jefferson circa 1774, or a Ronald Reagan circa 1979. In case anyone here needs a refresher, here are the Top 5 ingredients of that successful Vision, already given to us by the Founders:

• Freedom is good for its own sake. (We don’t like tyrants or nannies.)
• Freedom gives rise to prosperity. (It helps us to be prosperous.)
• Freedom can only be guaranteed through limiting government. That may mean “going local” (federalism), checks and balances (constitutional reform), or financial constraints (tax & spending reform). As Madison warned: There are no angels in Washington.
• Freedom must never be auctioned off. (That means must never be sold to special interests, politicians, corporations—even for short term political gain).
• Freedom’s protection and preservation is the sole purpose of government. (Freedom sacrificed to equality (or “crisis management” or “pragmatism” or X) gives us neither.)

Once everyone has bought back into that Vision, things get a lot clearer. People remember why they were doing any of this in the first place. They have a both a beacon in the darkness and a reason to fight. Right now, we’re still in reboot phase. But with a President-elect and Congress that is both Keynesian and Machiavellian, we have a perfect opportunity to re-embrace the principles of the Founding and define ourselves by way of contrast. (They, after all, are but sloganeers, demagogues and opportunists.)

I see an American electorate split into three groups. We are the first. We are called conservatives, right wingers, the right, sometimes libertarians.

Secondly, the left. Called socialists, lefties, libtards, moonbats, etc.

These two groups share one feature, Vision. They don't share a vision, they both have a vision. Thomas Sowell elucidates in Conflict of Visions.

The left has an unconstrained vision, the right a constrained vision. That is, the left sees human nature as malleable and perfectable and we can perfect human nature and society if only we have the right program or institution. The right sees human nature as fallen or flawed and unchanging but if we set up simple constraints, people can thrive. This is why we have a balance of powers in our constitution, and this is why the left has always been uncomfortable with the constraints of power designed into our constitution. (Libertarians can fall for this vision and can say that mankind can be perfected if we only get rid of government.)

In the middle we have a group without vision. Not comfortable with the socialists and misunderstanding the constraints that lead to our liberty and prosperity they can swing from side to side as one group errs or successfully hides its agenda.

We need more conservatives. In order to obtain more, we need to communicate our vision to people without a vision and to people whose vision is in conflict with our own. In order to communicate our vision we must understand our own vision.

This is our fundamental problem. We take positions which seem heartless and stupid to our opponents because they don't share our vision. But when we debate on the matter we can't communicate our vision because we don't understand our vision. WIthout communicating the vision which leads to our conclusion there is no way we can convince our opponents or the middle because we never get to the heart of the issue.

I would suggest starting with Thomas Sowell's book Conflict of Visions and learning our own core principles over again. Then we can communicate our vision without getting mired in hopeless debates over policy points. We can have the advantage in this battle, because our opponent doesn't understand their vision either. But make no mistake it will be a battle.

As a movement, we need to better understand our vision, better communicate our vision, and then select leaders and candidates who best expresses our vision in order to have lasting impact and restore our nation to the principles which made us great.