conservative messaging

After running across this piece in the Economist today, I was reminded of that timeless adage "You'll attract more flies with honey than with vinegar." That's a woefully good reminder for the Right as Election Day draws nearer.

Plenty of noise has been made in the past few weeks about the abrupt resignation/firing of Dave Weigel from the Washington Post blog "Right Now." I have been a defender of Weigel's, in large part because I think people's expectations of Weigel were too high - and that's not to disparage Weigel at all, whose work I have followed for a couple of years. The problem was, in my view, that lots of activists expected him to counter Ezra Klein's "Wonk Book" with an editorial style, using his platform at the Post to propel the Tea Party to the revery where so many believed it belonged. Another part of the problem is that, as Dan Gainor at the Media Research Center notes, the Post was never clear about why it had hired Weigel in the first place. Reporting? Check. Opinion? Maybe? I still think Weigel does a good job of reporting, and if he's guilty of anything, it's a preoccupation with man-bites-dog narratives. Aside from all that, I don't have much to add to the gallons of punditry sloshing around the Internet about Weigel-gate.

The reason I bring Weigel's short-lived stint at the Post back up for discussion is that the reaction from the activist community to Weigel's resignation - particularly on Twitter - was pretty vicious, with lots of "Good riddance" and "we told you so." Then came the announcement that Weigel would be a paid MSNBC contributor on Countdown with Keith Olbermann - and activists were once again a-Twitter with disgust. Thankfully there was an equivalent outpouring of support for Weigel. I disagree with Keith Olbermann frequently, particularly when it comes to his sneering punditry and progressive worldview. I appreciate that he was the first (and for a long time only) mainstream media personality to cover the devastating flooding in my hometown of Nashville earlier this year, and he and I share in New York Yankees fan-dom. But why the Weigel witch-hunt on the Right?

And then it hit me: the Right and center-right are still obsessed with (plagued by?) litmus tests that, unchecked, can be impossible to pass. And not normal litmus tests either - sure, nobody wants to see another John McCain presidential campaign - I mean the conservative base is so energized right now that it has become bloodthirsty, and it's beginning to feed on itself. Long-time allies to conservatives - the libertarians - have begun to take notice.

I urge everyone to check out this written exchange between Cato Institute's Brink Lindsey, AEI/National Review Online's Jonah Goldberg, and FreedomWorks' Matt Kibbe, a debate on where libertarians belong on the 21st century ideological spectrum, and how they can, should, and might play in the activist/political component of the Tea Party movement. Romantic libertarians like yours truly hope wistfully one day to inform a more rigorous social policy agenda - one that actually gets government out of people's lives, including their marriages and sex lives - to complement existing tenets of economic freedom upon which, for the most part, everyone right-of-center seems to reaching consensus. But because of these purity tests, many libertarians worry that the emergence of centrist rhetoric at Tea Party rallies is nothing more than a ruse to grab handfuls of votes on Election Day 2010 and 2012, and then Big Government conservatism does us all in - again.

I am sympathetic to Brink Lindsey's point in this respect. Libertarians - who often sacrifice opportunities to "get involved" in lieu of safeguarding transcendent philosophical values for the sake of practical virtue - should not compromise their core beliefs just because Sarah Palin said we need less government and more personal responsibility. But I also think Matt Kibbe makes great points - the Tea Party movement is as fascinating a paradigm shift in American politics as I will likely ever see in my lifetime. It has unbundled the Left almost completely, who has tried to use every tool at its disposal - from race-baiting in formal media outlets to unscientific opinion polling - to couch the Tea Party movement as garden-variety Republican, and quintessentially racist, xenophobic, and homophobic. Kibbe insists that many Tea Partiers don't know where to place themselves on an ideological scale, and notes that many have never been involved in political discourse before now. This groundswell provides libertarians with that romantic opportunity to inform the policy debate - especially issues like gay marriage, which Tea Party groups support, and like Kibbe, I think it's hasty to accept Lindsey's premise with open arms. So Lindsey's libertarian protectionism can be just as dangerous and self-defeating as the Gainor conservative witch-hunts.

The Tea Party movement is still today very fragile, despite the noise the movement has made and the support it has drummed up. If libertarians and conservatives can agree about anything, it's opposition to power-drunk Democrats; it's probably best that everyone focus on that for now, instead of running reckless with purity tests, and when Republicans win, it will be up to them to follow through on promises they're making to people getting involved for the first time. Those people don't know where they lie on the ideological spectrum, but they know that the government is screwing them.

On November 10th, the Rainy Day Patriots (the group organized in conjunction with Birmingham Tea Parties) and Campaign for Liberty hosted a gubernatorial debate in Springville, Alabama. All of the announced candidates were invited, four committed to the event, and three actually showed. The debate was moderated by local talk show host Matt Murphy and a representative from each of the sponsoring organizations.

During the debate, Robert Bentley, Tim James and Bill Johnson all presented themselves as fiscal conservatives. However, one of these candidates decisively won the straw poll following the debate. Here is how the votes broke down:

• Johnson 6%
• Byrne     4%
• Bentley 12%
• James  72%

While the cast of players has significantly changed, I still stand by my earlier statement that Tim James is the guy to watch because he IS a fiscal conservative and not just another Republican trying to sound like one in order to pick up votes from Tea Party folks, libertarians, fiscally conservative independents, Reagan Democrats and Ron Paul supporters.

In my opinion, the key reason James dominated the straw poll results is because he mentioned the Federal Reserve and Keynesian economics in his opening statement, which I clipped for your viewing pleasure. The entire debate is available on video here.

Despite the protestations of folks like Mike Huckabee, Republicans need to get back to basic message of small-government conservativism if they choose to win elections once again.  I've said this time and time and time and time and time again. Folks much brighter that me (i.e. Richard Viguerie, Ryan Sager, John Dean, Peggy Noonan, Ron Paul, Michael Tanner, Bob Barr) have been presenting the same message since before the 2006 elections.

One of the people I continue to cite as an example of good conservative messaging is SC Governor Mark Sanford.  Here's Frank Luntz analyzing the Republican and Democrat response to a recent Sanford ad:

"Governor Sanford is the most articulate Republican out there right now and the other Republicans ought to pay attention," said Luntz a couple of days ago on Fox. "Or if they don't, their numbers will continue to languish."

Here's one very recent example (other funny examples here) from Alabama of how Republican politicians alienate most normal Americans and why they are despised by so many people.

In Alabama, there has been a well-organized movement to pass legislation which will allow the beer aficionados of the state to drink some of the better-rated gourmet beers of the world. Because beers containing over six percent alcohol are outlawed, Free the Hops is pushing legislation which will permit Alabamians to drink more than just one or two of the world's 100 top-rated beers.

Republican State Senator Hank Erwin has been an outspoken opponent of this bill.  Instead of letting it go to a vote, he places his moral code above the legislative process. Erwin has been filibustering the bill and plans to continue until this legislative season ends.

Erwin's strange views on morality have already placed him in the national spotlight.

"New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast have always been known for gambling, sin and wickedness," wrote Erwin about why Hurricane Katrina hit. "It is the kind of behavior that ultimately brings the judgment of God."

According to stories I'm hearing today, Senator Morality doesn't mind breaking his word when it gives him political leverage.  Two reliable sources close to the Free the Hops effort have relayed pretty much the same story to me.  According to them, a Free the Hops lobbyist approached Erwin about not filibustering the bill.  Erwin had a gun rights bill he was pushing and a deal was cut: Erwin wouldn't filibuster the gourmet beer bill if the lobbyist would support the gun bill. 

As I hear it, the lobbyist did push hard for the gun bill, but it failed anyway.  Now Erwin isn't holding up to his end of the bargain.

Senator Erwin isn't just some isolated state rep from some backwards district.  He's a seasoned Senator with high name recognition who just threw his hat into the ring for the 2010 Lt. Governor's race.  Most Republicans I know will vote for any Democrat before they'll vote for Erwin for this statewide office -- but there are still plenty of folks who will vote for him.

So long as Republicans continue to support politicians like this, I'll predict that the GOP will continue to slide deeper into the electoral abyss.

As there has been a lot of conversation about the framing of conservative messaging and how to deal with with race issues on this site, I thought I'd bring up two articles I wrote for another website today.

The first article deals directly with the first issue I'd like to raise.  A host of elected Republican officials are rightfully calling for Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to submit her letter of resignation.  While I'm sure someone has, I've yet to see someone provide a politically viable suggestion to replace the DHS Secretary.

It's one thing to take political swipes at the opposition.  It takes leadership to find a solution which might be acceptable to the Obama administration, Republicans and a general public that is generally more concerned with good government than with the latest political barbs.

My solution to this situation may not be the best one, but at least I've offered a host of reasons as to why Judge Andrew Napolitano could be a very suitable replacement for Janet Napolitano.  The American public has been crying for solutions, not partisan bickering.  The GOP could have easily stepped up to the plate on this one, but didn't.

The other issue I'd like to cover is race. On rare occasions, there is an element of truth to cries from the left about racism on the right.  Most of the time these allegations couldn't be farther from the truth.

However, assuaging one's conscience by casting a vote for Michael Steele and then disregarding the black community for the next several years will not win Republicans votes from the African-American community.  Like any other votes, these have to be earned.

In Alabama, two Republicans are making a difference in the African-American community on a solidly conservative issue: property rights.   If you aren't aware, in the land of Rosa Parks, black people are frequently taken advantage of when it comes to eminent domain abuse.  A few years back, nationally syndicated talk show host Neal Boortz heavily publicized one such case in nearby Alabaster, Alabama.

I'd like to quickly highlight these two Republicans who aren't afraid to step out of their own comfortable communities to help those with fewer political or financial resources.  The first is Alabama State Senator Scott Beason, who will sit on a panel next week at an Alabama Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights panel entitled “Civil Rights Implications of Eminent Domain Policies and Practices in Alabama.” Senator Beason is highly respected throughout the state, and it's easy to see why.

A key driving force behind this panel is Shana Kluck.  Shana is not only a member of the Alabama Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, but she also serves on her state GOP executive committee, is president of the Alabama Republican Assemby and serves as secretary of the Alabama Republican Liberty Caucus.  When she's not busy homeshcooling her four children, consulting on Web 2.0 projects, engaged in Eagle Forum activities, attending various political meetings around the state and working behind the scenes on a variety of conservative and libertarian causes, she is busy helping me on campaigns.

Considering Shana's schedule, very few of us have grounds to offer the excuse that we are too busy to become more involved in the African-American community.

Instead of sitting around complaining about how black people voted in previous election cycles, Senator Beason and Ms. Kluck are taking leadership roles in providing justice for members of the African-American community.

If I may be so bold as to provide two solutions for the conservative movement, they are:

• Instead of merely attacking the opposition with nuisance fire (appropriately called sniping) to exploit a weak spot in their battle line, maximize your attack by actually providing a viable politcal solution.
• If you aren't active in your local African-American community, you've no right to complain if you receive very few of their votes on Election Day.

Personal responsibility is a key component of conservativism and just stewardship should be a part of conservative leadership.  Hopefully, Republican Party leaders will take these sorts of messages to heart.  Otherwise, one can expect the GOP to walk through the wilderness for another 38 years.

Republicans, even those opposed to Obama's stimulus deficit spending plan, have seemed to have problems using conservative rhetoric to combat a bill which is such an obvious antithesis to conservative principles.

A recent example comes from the Weekly Standard (emphasis added):

Republicans also have to overcome some of their aversion to government spending. The flaw in the House stimulus bill is not that it spends money. It's that it spends money too slowly, and what money the bill does spend hardly goes to durable public goods. Thus the GOP's job: Shift the direct spending from useless liberal appropriations to constructive and long-lasting conservative projects.

Here's a much better way for conservatives to challenge what SC Governor Mark Sanford calls  a "savior-based economy:"

“A problem that was created by building up of too much debt will not be solved with yet more debt,” Gov. Mark Sanford said Sunday, making a reference to the federal deficit spending that will likely finance the federal stimulus package. [snip]

 “That is quite different than a market-based economy where some rise and some fall but there’s a consequence to making a stupid decision,” Sanford said after pointing to the powers granted to the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve to help deal with the current economic crisis.

“A lot of people who’ve made some very stupid decisions are being bailed out by the population at large,” he added.

Instead of bailing out failing companies, Sanford told CNN’s John King that the government should let the economy work through the current challenges without intervention.

With a Senate vote on a bloated Democratic spending bill expected this evening, it's not too late to send your last protest message to DC right now.

UPDATE: My good friend Shana helps make my case:

As one of the newest members of the Alabama Republican State Executive Committee, I had the opportunity to attend a party dinner in Montgomery and the privilege to meet the key-note speaker, Governor Sanford. 

There have been assertions from Democrats and Republicans alike that Rush Limbaugh is the current voice of the GOP, but I expressed to Governor Sanford that I disagree.  It is my hope that true, small-government fiscal conservatives such as Mark Sanford will be the prevailing voice now and in the years to come.

UPDATE II: Robert Higgs provides some excellent speaking points at the Christian Science Monitor.  Here's his conclusion:

The US government has shown repeatedly that as an economic manager it is not to be trusted. What we need most are authorities wise enough to follow the dictum, "First, do no harm." The stimulus package will do enormous harm. The huge debt burden it entails, by itself, ought to condemn the measure. America is already drowning in debt. But the measure will also wreak harm in countless other directions by effectively reallocating resources on a grand scale according to political priorities, rather than according to individual preferences and economic rationality. As our history shows, the economy can recover strongly on its own, if only the politicians will stay out of the way.