In recent days, the Republican Party's eulogy has been re-written more times than Barack Obama's position on
Iran. Unsurprisingly, some emboldened liberals have now found the chutzpah to advocate everything from
universal health care to
normalized relations with Cuba. Positions that were once anathema in American politics have now been recast as rational alternatives to the policies of the Bush Administration.
What gives?
While it is important to consider the source, clues to the answers are found in a recent essay in the New Yorker by George Packer. One of Packer's central arguments is that Republican stalwarts are at loggerheads over the party's wayward bearings. Packer describes two approaches being crafted to right the Party's floundering ship of political fortune:
Among true believers, there are two explanations of why this happened and what it portends. One is the purist version: Bush expanded the size of government and created huge deficits; allowed Republicans in Congress to fatten lobbyists and stuff budgets full of earmarks; tried to foist democracy on a Muslim country; failed to secure the border; and thus won the justified wrath of the American people. This account—shared by Pat Buchanan, the columnist George F. Will, and many Republicans in Congress—has the appeal of asking relatively little of conservatives. They need only to repent of their sins, rid themselves of the neoconservatives who had agitated for the Iraq invasion, and return to first principles
....
The second version—call it reformist—is more painful, because it’s based on the recognition that, though Bush’s fatal incompetence and Rove’s shortsighted tactics hastened the conservative movement’s demise, they didn’t cause it. In this view, conservatism has a more serious problem than self-betrayal: a doctrinaire failure to adapt to new circumstances, new problems.
[Link]
Typical of Packer's "true believers" are Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn, and Fox News personality Sean Hannity. In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, Sen. Coburn argued:
Unfortunately, too many in our party are not yet ready to return to the path of limited government...voters are tired of buying a GOP package and finding a big-government liberal agenda inside. What we need is not new advertising, but truth in advertising.
[Link]
For Sen. Coburn, the problem with the GOP is not a dearth of ideas but a mis-allocation of priority. Republicans simply need to reclaim the high-road of limited government and fiscal discipline, then all will be well.
Sean Hannity's top ten list of issues echoes a similar refrain. Hannity advocates a mix of foreign policy objectives (including victory in Iraq and securing the border with Mexico), renewed support for tax cuts, and fiscal responsibility. He suggests paying for new tax breaks by eliminating earmarks, though he does not explain how this would help ballooning deficits brought on by entitlement programs. He offers the specter of energy independence as an interesting digression from a traditional mix of conservative policy aims.
[
Link]
In contrast to Sen. Coburn and Mr. Hannity, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich reasonably typifies the "reformist" view in Packer's essay. His prescription for the GOP assumes that Republicans have fundamentally lost touch with American voters. His solution is for House Republicans to enact an immediate change agenda of their own that speaks to voter angst. The Speaker's solutions focus on a combination of energy initiatives, budge cuts, and wedge issues (English as the official language and judicial appointments) in order to remind voters where true liberals stand with respect to Constitutional interpretation and National pride.
[
Link]
As always, the best solutions probably fall somewhere between the two extremes.
While Packer's piece is interesting for its interviews with David Brooks, George Will and the like, my critique is that it does a poor job of corralling the thoughts of current Republican policy makers on the state of the Republican Party. Any changes in the Party platform will ultimately turn upon the ability of these key figures to recognize a major political obstacle and react accordingly. It is suspect, at least, that Mr. Packer did not solicit the views of people with any meaningful authority for his piece. Given this, I am not convinced that the rift between traditionalist Republicans and reformist Republicans is as pronounced as it may appear.
Even if the divisions do exist, the objectives of both camps are not mutually exclusive. In many ways, one view informs the other. It will be difficult for Republican reformists to chart a new course by utterly abandoning the traditional conservative principles of strong national security, fiscal disciple and traditional values that have been mainstays of the Party agenda.
Similarly, it will be very difficult for Republican traditionalists to enact a winning agenda that fails to take into account Americans' hunger for change. Put differently, Americans have different expectations now of their government. If the Republican desire to limit government is taken seriously, then the Party's future will be in part about re-defining what it is that Americans should expect from their government, and why they should have such expectations.
What is clear is that the tired politics of conservative movements past will not usher in a new era of visionary, conservative leadership. This is not a slam against Presidents Reagan or Bush. It is simply a recognition that bold vision rallies individuals. Republicans should neither be myopically shackled to the successes of the Reagan era, nor forever bound to the early tactical errors of the Iraq war. Each conservative bulwark has had its function in its appropriate context. President Reagan famously helped to end the cold war and bring down communism. President Bush's policy choices have kept America safe in the wake of 9/11, and are helping to liberate the Iraqi people from civil and religious tyrants. Perhaps more famously, Americans have witnessed the apotheosis of George Washington; yet, today, no one seriously advocates implementing his policies. Times change. New challenges demand new solutions.
My sense is that Republicans have run afoul of the electorate, not for having fundamentally disagreeable ideas. I believe that the hallmarks of a conservative agenda still resonate with a majority of Americans. Rather, I believe that Republicans have run afoul of the electorate because we have not offered timely ideas in response to some of our Nation's most pressing issues.
Unlike the Packer article suggests, I see no reason why it follows that Republicans are doomed to the political wilderness until we 'find our way.' The GOP won and lost a Congressional majority in two years. The political winds shift. What happened even two months ago now a veritable, political ice age. The problem, in my view, is rather correctable. Republican leaders simply need to create a comprehensive vision for the country that speaks to today's issues. Americans hunger for new ideas, and fresh perspectives on issues that affect them most.
So, what are the issues?
While I will refrain from following Speaker Gingrich and Sean Hannity's top ten lists, I do see five general areas in which the GOP can offering compelling, conservative contrasts with Democrats. I will dub this,
Fodder's Fix for the GOP. These suggestions appear below.
Fodder's Fix for the GOP
Energy independence.
My family can be fairly included among those families dubbed
Sam's Club Republicans by Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam of the Atlantic. While they are not working class, they are certainly not among the lower upper class, or even the upper middle class. But they are typical of swing voters who are social conservatives through and through, yet harbor some populist sentiment. In my view, they make up the new backbone of the GOP. In nearly every conversation with the home folks, I hear complaints about rising gas and food prices. This underscores the need for energy independence. Although such a plan might risk upsetting some Republican interests, party leaders must demonstrate real empathy for working Americans by passing a comprehensive energy plan.
This plan should focus on investment in new, greener fuel sources. Tremendous progress, already, has been made in the development of hybrid vehicles here in the United States. But large nations such as Brazil have been
experimenting with biofuels as a sustainable energy source for their vehicle fleet for over thirty years. American industry has the technical capability of producing more fuel efficient vehicles. We also have the ability to develop cleaner burning fuels. With prices rising, a nascent market now exists for both. Republican leaders should seize the opportunity to be firm advocates on behalf of the working class in creating investment opportunities and tax incentives for new, greener energy markets.
Realizing that such a strategy is long-term solution (though not so long as one might think), it would behoove Republicans to excoriate Democrats, immediately, for refusing to work in a bipartisan effort to revamp environmental restrictions that inhibit new oil refineries from being built. One of the major problems in the oil market falls on the supply side. Surprisingly, it is not the relative lack of available crude supplies that helps to drive prices higher, but the limited ability of oil companies to refine oil into gasoline for vehicles. To date, Democrats would rather protect the pink salmon than the American consumer feeling the pinch at the pump. Such an argument cuts against liberal, command-control regulation efforts and undermines the Democrats case to America's working class. Were the effort to roll-back restrictions successful and new refineries built, the impact on fuel prices would not be immediate, but it would make a much more powerful contribution to the net decrease in price than would merely rolling back the Federal Gas Tax for the summer.
Pro-Life.
Arguments are often made that American is becoming more socially liberal. Yet recent elections have shown that when conservatives stand firm for traditional values, the majority of Americans agree and are on board. But gay marriage and abortion only speak to one aspect of what it means to be pro-life.
Republicans must come to grasp that being pro-life also means ensuring that American citizens are well-educated and equipped to compete for advanced, technical jobs in the new century. This includes, as Sean Hannity has suggested, championing the fight for school choice in education and promoting vouchers in areas where they can be successful. While solutions like these might mean the reallocation of funding, it does not mean that we should abandon public education. In the vast majority of the country, such a solution would be untenable anyway. For these areas, promoting increased teacher pay, strengthening community college and vo-tech programs, and creating incentives for bright, young Americans to serve their communities through teaching are all steps in the right direction. Education is an investment worth making, and Republicans have ceded the education debate to Democrats for far too long. Conservative leaders must understand the costs of such political disarmament.
Being pro-life also means engaging Democrats, point for point, in the debate on healthcare. America's private healthcare system is the envy of the world precisely because doctors and hospitals have the freedom (and capital) to innovate and experiment with new techniques and procedures that are conducted out of market-based incentives (viz., money). There is nothing wrong with medical innovation for profit. Republicans must combat the notion that nationalized healthcare is better simply because it is a reduced pecuniary alternative to the current system. Quite the contrary, there is nary a success story in the world where large nations have nationalized their healthcare systems. From bloated wait-lists, to shoddy medical service, there are manifold reasons to be concerned with liberal policy solutions for healthcare. In response, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has done some impressive work in finding market-based solutions to the prohibitive costs of healthcare. Some of his ideas can be found
here. Suffice it to say, this debate is winnable because government solutions of this magnitude invariably make matters worse, and because market-based solutions empower individuals, not government.
Diversity.
My reference to Gov. Jindal was a fortuitous transition to my next major policy fix. Republicans have to re-build the Republican coalition. The common perception of the GOP is that it is the party of white, Christians. There is, of course, nothing wrong at all with being a party has significant numbers of both whites and Christians, but it is unfortunate for Republicans to utterly give up on the minority vote. One way to add significant numbers of new party members is through out-reach to minorities across the board. Majority political coalitions are built around being welcoming to large constituencies of voters. Given the popular perception of a white GOP, the addition of any meaningful number of minority voters to the Republican fold will be a marked improvement.
Former RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman's outreach to hispanics was an admirable
peradventure. The effort seems to have faded in the wake of last years immigation hullabaloo, and a new RNC leadership team, but hispanics do tend to be conservative. The demographic of conservative minorities, however, is not limited to hispanics. A bevy of minority groups here in the United States are excited to live and contribute to the American workforce and economy. Free-market solutions to policies make the GOP a natural home for many a minority interest. This point seems lost on the current gaggle of Republican leaders. While it is true that Republicans have a strong party base now, the shifting demographics of the country demand that we broaden our appeal. I would submit that Native American interests might also one day find a home in the GOP. Recent efforts by House Democrats to
roll back tribal sovereignty have not sat well with tribes across the country. Yet, no obvious effort has been made by Republicans to court tribes and their newly minted lobbying prowess fueled by tribal enterprises and casino dollars.
Arguably, minorities have gradually assumed more meaningful positions of leadership in the Republican Party than among our friends across the aisle. Recently, Republicans have appointed the first black Secretary of State, the first hispanic Attorney General, and elected the first Indian American Governor in U.S. history. Yet, we routinely brush our record of diversity under the rug, and assume minorities simply will not vote Republican. This assumption is unfortunate. If our governing majority is to regain power and permanence, Republicans must look for ways to expand the base of the party. We must actively recruit minority candidates to compete in minority-majority districts. We must convene minority leaders within the Republican Party to discuss meaningful ways to reach-out to minority communities.
In sum, Republicans have to embrace the fact that diversity is not a dirty word. While it is a word that has been hijacked by the far-left, if we are able to move beyond the stereo-type, then it will make our party all the stronger. Part of this will require faith in our ideas. The Republican pillars of free-markets, family values, and strong national security are bulwarks of the party because they transcend economic background and race. Our ideas can be compelling to communities that have not traditionally supported us, if we will only take the time to make our case to them- just as we make our case to a variety of interests during each and every election cycle.
National Security.
While Americans have grown war-weary, the recent success of the surge has seen the issue slip from the headlines. Some commentators now
suggest that the war in Iraq will not be a major campaign issue this fall. With Sen. Obama's appeasement gaffes mounting on Iran, Republicans should force the issue of readiness to govern and champion security policies that have kept America safe. In turn, we should highlight the success of the Iraq surge strategy (one long declared dead by the likes of Democrat leaders). This will underscore Republican readiness to govern as compared with Sen. Obama's profound inexperience. Americans want to win the war in Iraq, but they want to know that the war is winnable and that there is a clear resolution to the prolonged conflict. Weak communication of this point has sorely hurt the GOP. Republicans need to articulate a clear policy that provides a solution-oriented view of the problem to the American people.
A second aspect of National Security means securing our southern border. Most Americans agree that it is important to first secure the border before discussions of comprehensive immigration reform can occur. I am not sure that these need to happen in isolation- though some of my Republican friends clearly think otherwise. My sense of the matter is that both can occur but that our priority should be to secure the border before we broach more controversial topics. To accomplish this goal, both sides must be willing to cede some ground. Securing the border may require the political agreement to pass a path to citizenship for those immigrants who are already here. On the other hand, a path to citizenship should not be entertained without a firm commitment to secure the border. This may seem to be a tautology but it accurately reflects the political state of things. Americans should also be very realistic about the costs. I would submit that having a secure border is worth the investment. There is, perhaps, room for disagreement on this point. But voters will appreciate an honest assessment rather than double-talk and buck passing.
Fiscal Responsibility.
Given the discussion of costs, fiscal responsibility is the final policy area in which I foresee the GOP making significant headway en route to a new Party agenda. The traditionalist view would rather focus exclusively on this area while ignoring the other four. I believe this is a mistake. One of the obligations of governance is a willingness to handle errant problems as they become issues. Ignoring these other areas is a major concession to Democrats.
But focusing on policy solutions is not tantamount to a blank check for additional government spending. Some Republican constituencies are the biggest benefactors of Congressional earmarks. Mr. Gingrich has suggested that Republicans address the issue by challenging Democrats to a year-long moratorium on earmarks. This is not a bad idea for House Republicans to consider. It allows them to offer a mea culpa for their porky sins and enables them to challenge Democrats to a game they can't win.
Sen. Coburn has suggested that there is some $300 Billion in wasteful government spending that can be cut from the federal budget each year. He also suggests Congress commit itself to producing a balanced budget. Both of these ideas have merit and are worth considering.
Ultimately, solutions for America's voracious government spending lie with the will of America's leaders to tighten the belt and set meaningful spending targets. This requires a willingness to prioritize and upset some constituencies. My suggestions reflect what I think are the Nation's most pressing priorities. If Republicans are serious about fiscal discipline, they will have to conduct a similar cost analysis going forward. New disciplines invariably come with a little pain and by the sweat of the brow. But America's fiscal preeminence requires such a new commitment from government to its people.
One critique I anticipate as a result of
Fodder's Fix for the GOP is that it deploys a bit of Monday morning quarterbacking. Granted, some of the suggestions I put forward are reasonable with the benefit of hindsight. My response is that this is true of all vision setting. We simply make the best choices we can with the information available and hope for an efficacious outcome. The current policy quandary in which the GOP finds itself did not happen rapidly but gradually. It will take a similar gradual focus to implement the suggestions I have outlined above. Even so, I believe that these are the pillars for a winning platform provided Republicans are willing to commit to charting a new course.
I also recognize that the solutions I suggest will require a tremendous amount of human capital and some degree of political risk. Some of the suggestions have never been championed by Republicans at all. This tension is to be expected. Big ideas are controversial. But Republicans must avoid solutions that are mired in the past and not forward looking. Ours should be the most positive and most optimistic agenda in American politics because our solutions aim to empower individuals, not government.
In sum, conservatism, though much maligned, is far from dead. Its future depends on the degree to which we accept the present gauntlet. Though the challenge for new vision is far from simple, it is one the Republican Party should no longer deny. As the Proverbs note, where there is no vision the people perish.
The Conservative Blog Network
