Part II - Approaches To The New Administration

“If one morning I walked on top of the water across the Potomac River, the headline that afternoon would read "President Can't Swim”

-President Lyndon B. Johnson


This statement was directed at the press, but is also illustrates quite well the level of political discourse in this nation as it has existed for the past few decades. Since well before the election was held on November 4 there has been some consternation as to where the Republican Party is going, and what should it do to once again become relevant. That debate largely fueled the publication of this blog and will be a significant focus of our work.

Following the first two years of the President Clinton’s first term, conservatives were the dominant force in the Republican Party. Newt Gingrich of Georgia and Tom Delay of Texas crafted a masterful strategy that enabled republicans to control congress for the first time since the elections of 1952. Conservatism was strong and the voters wanted a substantive change in government. The new congress proposed the Contract with America (CWA)and there was new life and new winds in Washington.

There are a few other significant events that occurred during this election. Republicans overturned 20 state legislatures and 12 governor’s chairs. For the first time in 50 years the Republican Party controlled a majority of the states as well as the federal government.
It is imperative to understand why the conservative movement was abandoned in the intervening years, and why the election of 2008 was a foregone conclusion immediately after the Democrat Party’s convention. The expedition in Iraq that has become lengthy and tiresome, coupled with an economic meltdown during the course of the campaign contributed, but I posit that the GOP itself is the main culprit in its own downfall. In 1995 Republicans moved quickly on the provisions of the CWA with some success, but ultimately had to compromise with the Democrats due to the inability to gain consensus in the Congress regarding the specifics of the legislation.

In the time period since the CWA was introduced, Republicans have offered little in the way of distinction between the party and the Democrat Party. The Bush administration made no progress, and indeed exacerbated the problem of government spending, for example. There was no priority placed on reigning in the size and scope of the federal government. Without the drive to accomplish something the party was left dangling in the wind and directionless.

The party became exactly what it had fought against in 1994. In pork-barrel spending, the Republicans surpassed the levels of earmarks that the Democrats had passed in Congress. The party mitigated its stand on values and morals, allowing the issues of the to day fall by the wayside. As the adage says, “If you don’t stand for something, then you stand for nothing’” and that became the condition of the Republican Party. The Party establishment made selections for candidates who were not conservatives, and in fact have steadily “moderatized” the party candidates. Following Ronald Reagan’s second term, the candidates were George H.W. Bush, Senator Bob Dole, and Senator John McCain. All of these men are personally admirable and worthy of respect, but their politics was not conservative as desired by the American voter. In 1994 American voters told the nation that they wanted true conservative values and limited government, yet the party did not heed the call.

During this time frame, the relationship between the parties was little more than the trench warfare mentality of World War I. The War in Europe was fought between trench lines, with little effort to advance and capture territory. Instead, each side sat in their own bunkers and fired small arms and artillery into the other side’s trenches, taking and giving casualties yet the battle lines remained stagnant.

All is not lost. During the Obama administration conservatives have a prime opportunity to recreate the party into a conservative movement. Democrats control both the Congress and the White House, so the onus of decision making and responsibility for outcomes is on our opponents. Historically, the off year elections, such as the one that will take place in 2010 favor the minority party as the public juxtaposes the election day expectations with the reality if policy and legislation. Conservatives are in a position to reawaken the stagnant conservative voters who exist in massive numbers. It is the approach of the party that will determine success and failure.

A revolution of the kind exhibited in 1994 is what is needed not just to take political control in Washington and across the land, but necessary to revitalize conservatism among the minds and hearts of a nation.

Recommendations For Action

1) The GOP should find the common threads that can bind the various wings of the party and make those threads the tenets of the new conservative movement. Despite the diversity of the party and the presence of several factions, there are commonalities of beliefs that should be the strength of the party, and not let single issue politics divide a united front.

2) The GOP should engage the base. The establishment of the party has lost touch with the run of the mill conservative, the “Joe the Plumbers” of the nation. The party leadership should listen to talk radio, read blogs, and seek the counsel of those they are sworn to serve.

3) The GOP should reinstate statesmanship as opposed to continuing as politicians. George Washington did not want to be President of the new United States. He wanted nothing more than to retire to his plantation in Virginia, yet the nation called and he responded. We should seek leaders that approach leadership as an obligation, not a new suit that will be displayed to friends.

4) The GOP should educate the citizenry as we oppose policy and legislation. There should be no opposition based upon party affiliation, but opposition when it strikes at our conservative beliefs. Conservatives should learn from the Obama campaign by repackaging conservatism, such as abandoning the call for personal responsibility, and present the same concepts as “personal empowerment” and explain how the concept can benefit the individual as well as the nation.

5) The GOP must present a solid, consistent vision of America supported by specifics such as occurred with the CWA. We must communicate this vision in all corners of the land, and not concede territory such as California simply because it is historically liberal.

6) The GOP should make inroads into the traditional Democrat minority strongholds. After all, it was the Democrat Party in control during Jim Crowe. The Democrats allowed Plessy v. Ferguson (163 U.S. 537, 16 S. Ct. 1138; 41 L. Ed. 256; 1896 U.S. LEXIS 3390) to remain in place for 60 years. I am heartened to see that Michael Steele, the primary contender for head of the Republican National Committee, as having this approach.

As we oppose that which is not in the best interest of the nation, the party must construct arguments that are communicated across the land as positive disagreement, not partisan trench warfare.


FINAL THOUGHTS:

The comments posted on this topic by readers appear to agree that there must be significant change in the Republican Party and that conservatives are most appropriate to do so. Because Republicans have typically been successful when they do present a conservative approach, a return to those principles is what is desired.

There are areas where the party in general can improve and educate. The party should present a unified, mature front and educate the public on conservative principles and show Americans where they can personally benefit from conservative government. The term I used in the post was "personal empowerment" and not personal responsibility, but in many ways the outcome is the same with different packaging.

In presenting the case for conservative government, it was pointed out that the GOP has not taken advantage of alternative methods of communication as well as the Democrats. Blogs, podcasts, and other high tech alternative should be pursued in the effort to get out the conservative message.

Finally, the general theme of many comments was best summed up by TAO, who suggested that instead of concentrating on the individual candidate, the GOP would be better served by a focus on the merits of our own positions, not so much on the downfalls of our opponents. I think this is a distinctly excellent suggestion, as over time the GOP has been relatively indistinguishable from the Democrat Party.