core principles

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.

We complain about the superficial, biased coverage of the MSM. We are justified in doing so. Thus, we must not succumb to the same trite discussion of why McCain is losing and where the GOP went wrong.

The answer, my friends, is not found in one person, wing of the Party, policy approach or tactic.  The reasons the "circular firing squad" now points to – inconsistent message, poor fundraising, inferior integration of new technology, even the President's low approval rating -- are symptoms of the disease, not the cause of it. 

The disease is complacency with the status quo and arrogance.  The same disease that caused Republicans to lose the majority in both houses in 2006.   Americans demand change. Duh.   

David Frum summarizes this well in The Week as reported by Politico:

In The Week, former Bush speechwriter David Frum wrote of McCain's travails in a way that seemed to take defeat for granted and warned the GOP faces a long road back. "That's not a failure of campaign tactics. It's not even a failure of strategy. It's a failure of the Republican Party and conservative movement to adapt to the times."

The Republican Party must heed this quote in the coming months: If you don't change, you won't change.  

If the Republican Party doesn't re-establish a core set of principles that address the issues the majority of Americans care about, we will continue to lose support.  If we don't understand that raising money is not the most important function of a campaign or political organization, we will continue to raise less than our leftist counterparts.  If we don't stop holding ourselves hostage to an entrenched consultant class, we only have ourselves to blame.  If we don't set specific goals and make investments in new media and political technology training, we will continue to cede grassroots dominance to our political opponents.  And if we don't start listening to the American people, and addressing their concerns, rather than pursuing our own agenda, we will continue to be unpopular.

Election Day is one week away.  No matter the specific Republican vote count for President or seat count in the House and Senate, it will be time to finally admit that the status quo is not working; it will be time to democratize the Republican Party, to rewrite the playbook; it will be time rebuild.

It will be time to stop throwing blame around, and for every Republican official, candidate, staffer and consultant to open their eyes and ears to a new approach.

As someone who has advocated a new approach to the Republican Party for the last four years, I look forward to a more open, inclusive discussion about the way forward.  Meanwhile, I look forward to your input here.