The Republican primaries are getting ugly. Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have been attacking each other with venom in their quest to secure the GOP's nomination. And while last night's debate in Florida had quite a few moments of real issue-based discussion—NBC's moderator, Brian Williams, should be commended for running a respectable and informative debate—a large portion of the debate descended into ad hominem attacks between the two front runners.
The termination of all personal attacks in election campaigns would be a noble and significant goal, however, it is probably unrealistic. The electorate too often jumps on juicy and vitriolic stories and character assassinations, even if voters simultaneously claim to abhor such behavior. The truth is that such tactics unfortunately work and candidates know this.
However, if running only issue-based campaigns is too lofty of a goal in general election campaigns, it is indubitably wise to terminate these tactics in party primaries. While primary candidates are rivals they are also allies in a broader conflict. By relying on tactics that may further their immediate goal, they often simultaneously undermine the longer-term goal. In the interest of winning the metaphorical war, not just the battle, Republican presidential candidates would be sagacious to change their tactics quickly.
By attacking each other in such personal ways, whether drawing out Herman Cain's infidelity, portraying Mitt Romney as a rich, out-of-touch, low-tax-paying elite, or labeling Newt Gingrich an "influence peddler," Republican candidates are only doing the Democrats' dirty-work. The GOP campaigns are unearthing truths and partial-truths that the Obama campaign may never have seized upon and will certainly use in the general election. This has gone a long way towards facilitating the reelection of Obama, particularly as the primaries head towards the spring.
Even more damning is the fact that the Republican candidates are systematically tearing each other down. These candidates seem to be forgetting that while they are currently competing for the votes of Republican primary voters, they are also being watched by the independent and liberal voters that they need to sway the general election towards the right. The things they say now will stick; if, for instance, Romney is successfully portrayed as an elitist, it will be hard for him to shake that image over the summer and fall.
Whether Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich ultimately wins, the loser will inevitably endorse the nominee. Neither prefers Obama over his Republican rival. Yet after such a brutal campaign it is hard to see either able to successfully stump for the other, particularly when there are hours of footage personally castigating the former rival. Instead, the ultimate winner runs the risk of Pyrrhic victory, defeating his Republican rival only to face Obama in a beauty contest with two black eyes and a chipped front tooth.
The primary campaign should be a time of sincere and honest discussion over issues. Candidates should attempt to distinguish themselves on the subtleties of their positions and the nuances of their beliefs. It is okay, even necessary, to indicate how one candidate differs from his opponents. Republican voters should know which type of conservative candidate they are selecting. Ron Paul's interactions with the other candidates are usually exemplary in this regard. Paul, for example, outlines significant differences in his foreign policy beliefs. He will criticize the mainstream Republican foreign policy, but rarely descends into personal attacks. This behavior is generally reciprocated by Romney and Gingrich, who may call Paul's foreign policy dangerous [it is] but do not attack the congressman personally. As a result, Republican and non-primary voters are informed and learn a bit more about their prospective presidents.
This is how a primary campaign should be run. It should be about the issues, not about deconstructing an opponent's character or personal life. Lively disagreement and debate is a must, but ultimately the GOP is a team. The candidates should compete vigorously, but not in a way that undermines the ultimate goal. They should fight on the issues not on the alleged personal failures of their Republican rivals.
Showing posts with label GOP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GOP. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Chris Christie: In It, To Win It?
The New York Post reports that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has stepped back from his adamant refusal to run for president and may be jumping into the race. According to the report, Christie will provide an answer this week "after getting lobbied hard from some of the GOP’s top leaders and money men."The Post states that Christie has offered criticism of the current batch of GOP candidates, arguing they are not providing voters with the answers they are looking for. Christie stated:
I think what the country is thirsting for, more than anything else right now, is someone of stature and credibility to tell them that and say, ‘Here’s where I want us to go to deal with this crisis.’... The fact that nobody yet who’s running for president, in my view, has done that effectively is why you continue to hear people ask [Indiana Gov. Mitch] Daniels if he’ll reconsider and ask me if I’ll reconsider.Christie's entry would certainly unsettle what has become essentially a two-candidate race. Current front-runners Mitt Romney and Rick Perry have seemingly taken the lead not because of any intrinsic qualities but because they are merely better than the rest of the pool. Romney would certainly do a commendable job as president but is rather bland and not overly appealing to the Tea Party-base. This has allowed Perry to steal part of the spotlight. However, some of his positions and unfortunate gaffes have put the essential independent voter ill-at-ease with his candidacy.
Christie would undoubtedly break the mold. As the pugnacious Republican governor of the very Democratic New Jersey, he has been able to appeal to independents and some Democrats. His no-BS style is precisely what the electorate wants in Washington. In many ways Christie is the opposite of Obama—he is a leader that eschews the pettiness of politicking and pushes through needed and helpful legislation. His early battle with the teachers unions demonstrate his ability to stand behind necessary legislation despite misleading rhetoric from opposition special interests.
Christie is precisely what the Republican Party needs—a candidate that can fire up the base, appeal across aisle, and honestly and forcefully communicate a better way forward. While Obama's odds of reelection are slipping of their own accord, Christie would offer the best chance of a desperately needed change in the White House.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Huntsman Has Some Potential
Former Utah governor and ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman has formally announced his candidacy for president. He joins a thick field in the GOP primaries, most directly competing with Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty for the moderate and establishment wing of the party.
However, Politico seems to think there is little room for Huntsman in the mix, although conceding that
Nevertheless, some on the right have already ripped into Huntsman for his role as Obama's ambassador to China, claiming that by working with the president he has become tarnished goods. Rush Limbaugh cries that "I also know that Reagan never served in Jimmy Carter's regime or administration. Jon Huntsman did serve in Obama's; he was ambassador to the ChiComs."
Fortunately this argument is completely backwards. What better ammunition against the current administration than someone who served in it and left. Not only does Huntsman have more (and highly relevant) foreign policy experience than Obama did when elected, but he has the endorsement of his (potential) opponent. Obama would be ill-at-ease to criticize the foreign policy of a man he appointed to lead the relationship with one of the world's most important nations. Just imagine Huntsman's potential response to Obama's foreign policy criticisms during the first presidential debate!
"Yes, Mr. President, I believe it was you that expressed confidence in my ability to manage foreign affairs when you chose me as ambassador to China!"
However, Politico seems to think there is little room for Huntsman in the mix, although conceding that
The former governor’s aim is to appeal to independents and moderate Republican voters that the rest of the field has so far largely ignored. While Huntsman’s opening video calls him the “ultimate conservative,” he has taken moderate positions on the environment, immigration and supports same sex civil unions....Depending on how Huntsman's campaign shakes out, these moderate positions may very well be the ticket the GOP needs to successfully court independent voters and give Obama a much needed one-way ticket back to Chicago.
Nevertheless, some on the right have already ripped into Huntsman for his role as Obama's ambassador to China, claiming that by working with the president he has become tarnished goods. Rush Limbaugh cries that "I also know that Reagan never served in Jimmy Carter's regime or administration. Jon Huntsman did serve in Obama's; he was ambassador to the ChiComs."
Fortunately this argument is completely backwards. What better ammunition against the current administration than someone who served in it and left. Not only does Huntsman have more (and highly relevant) foreign policy experience than Obama did when elected, but he has the endorsement of his (potential) opponent. Obama would be ill-at-ease to criticize the foreign policy of a man he appointed to lead the relationship with one of the world's most important nations. Just imagine Huntsman's potential response to Obama's foreign policy criticisms during the first presidential debate!
"Yes, Mr. President, I believe it was you that expressed confidence in my ability to manage foreign affairs when you chose me as ambassador to China!"
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Time to Support Obama
As the far-left has assumed its normal, although currently somewhat subdued, opposition to war, many Republicans have begun to position themselves against the administration’s actions in Libya. Seemingly, much of this opposition on the right comes from politically- not ideologically-motivated origins. While budgetary concerns are certainly high in the minds of many Tea Party-infused congressmen, the GOP should be careful to avoid opposing a policy just because Obama initiated it.
A number of Republicans have begun speaking out against the mission. Some of this questioning is certainly appropriate. For instance, Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) was correct to press Obama on the objectives of the mission in a recent letter sent to the president. However, like many Republicans, Boehner walks a fine line between assisting the war-wary president to define the United States’ goals and commitments and, on the other hand, fomenting an unwise charge against the intervention in Libya.
As outlined in the letter, there are a number of tactical considerations that must be publically clarified. Presumably some of Obama’s hesitation is due to the image of the anti-war president that he assiduously crafted as a candidate. But while questioning these tactical and even broader strategic concerns is valid, the underlying need and motivation for intervention should be off the table.
Not only would such partisan attacks smack of raw politics but they would establish a huge contradiction within Republican ideology. Republicans have spent over a decade defending the need to promote democracy across the globe. While there have arguably been missteps in the implementation of this mission, the underlying goal is sound. For a few partisan points in their political battle with Obama, it would be foolish to throw all of this away.
Instead, Republicans should jump on board with the no-fly zone, throwing their support behind the president and showing America that when the Democrats choose to do the right thing, bipartisanship can prevail. Not every policy initiated by the current administration need be opposed; fighting across the aisle is only warranted when the other side is grossly out of line, for instance as the Democrats were on Obamacare. Americans want to see this country moved in the right direction; they do not want to see consistent bickering.
The call, by some Republicans, including Utah’s congressmen, Jason Chaffetz, for congressional authorization of the no-fly zone is a prime example of this misguided policy. Relying upon Obama’s own asinine comments made to this effect while a candidate, Chaffetz argues that the president must turn to Congress for approval. This argument, though, is a straw-man, used by the opposition party for decades. Congress has not officially declared war since World War II, while numerous military actions have been initiated by presidents in the years since. The ability of the president, as commander-in-chief, to send troops into battle has been a long-settled issue. While Congress should undoubtedly be consulted prior to military action and should maintain certain controls and inputs into its execution, the current criticisms are nothing but transparent attacks on the office of the president.
Republicans should not join the far-left in this attack. That ground should be left to Dennis Kucinich and his loony friends who are mulling impeaching Obama. Instead, if the GOP feels the need to separate itself from the administration, it could look to some of the mistakes made in the implementation of the no-fly zone, in particular the long delay in its initiation. Jonah Goldberg, at National Review Online, makes the most poignant argument in this regard. While fully supporting the mission, he argues that the delay in getting it started has added some considerable difficulties. Goldberg blames this on Obama’s desire to be a multilateralist and fear of “too much unilateral hot-dogging” if the United States had taken the lead. His analysis is quite astute and correctly separates the tactical blunders made by the administration from the strategic necessity of intervention.
For Republicans who cut their teeth on opposition to this president, throwing their weight behind him will be a bitter pill to swallow. But doing right, by American interests, their principles, and the Libyan people, is far more important than partisan brownie points. Republicans need to show their principles and their mettle and support the president.
As outlined in the letter, there are a number of tactical considerations that must be publically clarified. Presumably some of Obama’s hesitation is due to the image of the anti-war president that he assiduously crafted as a candidate. But while questioning these tactical and even broader strategic concerns is valid, the underlying need and motivation for intervention should be off the table.
Not only would such partisan attacks smack of raw politics but they would establish a huge contradiction within Republican ideology. Republicans have spent over a decade defending the need to promote democracy across the globe. While there have arguably been missteps in the implementation of this mission, the underlying goal is sound. For a few partisan points in their political battle with Obama, it would be foolish to throw all of this away.
Instead, Republicans should jump on board with the no-fly zone, throwing their support behind the president and showing America that when the Democrats choose to do the right thing, bipartisanship can prevail. Not every policy initiated by the current administration need be opposed; fighting across the aisle is only warranted when the other side is grossly out of line, for instance as the Democrats were on Obamacare. Americans want to see this country moved in the right direction; they do not want to see consistent bickering.
The call, by some Republicans, including Utah’s congressmen, Jason Chaffetz, for congressional authorization of the no-fly zone is a prime example of this misguided policy. Relying upon Obama’s own asinine comments made to this effect while a candidate, Chaffetz argues that the president must turn to Congress for approval. This argument, though, is a straw-man, used by the opposition party for decades. Congress has not officially declared war since World War II, while numerous military actions have been initiated by presidents in the years since. The ability of the president, as commander-in-chief, to send troops into battle has been a long-settled issue. While Congress should undoubtedly be consulted prior to military action and should maintain certain controls and inputs into its execution, the current criticisms are nothing but transparent attacks on the office of the president.
Republicans should not join the far-left in this attack. That ground should be left to Dennis Kucinich and his loony friends who are mulling impeaching Obama. Instead, if the GOP feels the need to separate itself from the administration, it could look to some of the mistakes made in the implementation of the no-fly zone, in particular the long delay in its initiation. Jonah Goldberg, at National Review Online, makes the most poignant argument in this regard. While fully supporting the mission, he argues that the delay in getting it started has added some considerable difficulties. Goldberg blames this on Obama’s desire to be a multilateralist and fear of “too much unilateral hot-dogging” if the United States had taken the lead. His analysis is quite astute and correctly separates the tactical blunders made by the administration from the strategic necessity of intervention.
For Republicans who cut their teeth on opposition to this president, throwing their weight behind him will be a bitter pill to swallow. But doing right, by American interests, their principles, and the Libyan people, is far more important than partisan brownie points. Republicans need to show their principles and their mettle and support the president.
Monday, December 27, 2010
Tequila for the GOP
The newest thing to hit the newspapers is the Tequila Party. No, it’s not some college drinking game, but an incipient grassroots political movement. Modeled after the Tea Party (in structure, not agenda), it aims to mobilize Hispanic voters to push for immigration reform.
Its founders threaten to break the Hispanic vote off from the Democrats, where it has long served as a bastion of support. The Tequila big-Shots argue that the Democrats have taken the Hispanic vote for granted and have thus done little to meet their needs. This undoubtedly true, but unsurprisingly the heavy-hitting and xenophobic fringe of the GOP has prevented the Republican Party from peeling off the Hispanic vote. Until maybe now. The Tequila Party is yet another sign of the need for realignment in the political landscape. The GOP should do everything it can to promote the free movement of the Hispanic vote.
The logic behind this strategy is clear. First, as the Tequila Party displays, there is growing dissatisfaction in Latino communities at being a rubber stamp for Democratic candidates. This opens a prime window for the GOP to step in. Second, due to demographic changes, the Latino population is becoming increasingly important in many electoral districts. This has been compounded by redistricting following the 2010 Census, where Hispanic-heavy states such as Texas, Florida, Arizona, and Nevada, all gained seats in the House or Representatives (and Electoral College). As The Washington Post expounds, “Much of the population growth is attributed to Hispanics, who tend to vote Democratic. As a result, Republican candidates won't necessarily have a lock on all of the seats created.”
These ‘logistical’ issues alone demand Republican attention; however, Hispanics often make natural allies for the GOP on many issues. For instance, many Hispanics share traditional, family-oriented values that are endemic on the Right. However, due to the Democrats’ success, aided by a small but vocal far-right, at portraying Republicans as anti-Hispanic, the Left has been successful at minimizing the rightward drift of the Hispanic vote. This has chiefly, although not exclusively, been an issue in the immigration debate.
The GOP needs to change tack quickly. The new Congress should come out leading on immigration reform and attempt to set a tone and agenda that displays a pro-Hispanic sentiment. This does not mean discarding the principles of border security, legality, and fair-play that have been staples of the Right’s position, but redefining the battle with the Left to not only display a new image but to show those Hispanics who have blindly followed the Democrats that there is another perspective that can speak to their interests.
First, anti-illegal immigration has to be separated from anti-immigration. The GOP must come out strongly in support of legal immigration. Not only is our nation built on this open model, but continued immigration is necessary for America to maintain its primacy. Democrats have done a phenomenal job at muddling the two issues, which has done the GOP much disservice. Rhetorically, for every attack on illegal immigration from the right and every labeling as anti-immigrant from the left, Republicans must respond with acclamations of support for legal immigration. Words, however, are useless alone and must be complemented with proposals to facilitate easier and fairer immigration for both skilled and un-skilled workers.
Second, the GOP needs to demonstrate that playing by the rules is in everyone’s interest. While seemingly obvious on its face, this point often gets lost (or drowned) in the hubbub of politics. In particular, it needs to be shown that having clear-cut and enforced rules for immigration benefit not just non-Hispanic Americans, but legalized Hispanic-Americans as well. Secure borders and fair-play (not cutting the line via amnesty) are necessary for all Americans to get the most out of this country. Playing by the rules is not an excuse for exclusionary action but the structure that is necessary for a functioning society.
Third, Republicans need to offer a solution to the immigration issue that reconciles the need for immigration (pro-market and pro-Hispanic family) with the needs for rule-of-law and security. This is something that is easily achievable if Republicans simply take the initiative. Immigration reform is essentially a political problem that can be solved under fair, conservative principles. Aside from the far-left open-border type and the far-right xenophobes, a solution could be designed that would satisfy most Americans. The underlying principle that costs to illegal immigration need to be sufficiently high, while costs to legal immigration sufficiently low is the logical starting ground.
Immigration reform should be the first area where the GOP begins its efforts. It is clearly the most volatile and emotional issue. Republican leadership (and justice) on this issue will create significant advances into a community that can serve as a strong electoral base. While the Tequila Party may not end up being the ideal vehicle for GOP inroads into the Hispanic population – its platform is still largely unclear, if not non-existent – the message it brings is resounding – the Hispanic population is a prime and necessary demographic which the GOP needs to start courting.
The logic behind this strategy is clear. First, as the Tequila Party displays, there is growing dissatisfaction in Latino communities at being a rubber stamp for Democratic candidates. This opens a prime window for the GOP to step in. Second, due to demographic changes, the Latino population is becoming increasingly important in many electoral districts. This has been compounded by redistricting following the 2010 Census, where Hispanic-heavy states such as Texas, Florida, Arizona, and Nevada, all gained seats in the House or Representatives (and Electoral College). As The Washington Post expounds, “Much of the population growth is attributed to Hispanics, who tend to vote Democratic. As a result, Republican candidates won't necessarily have a lock on all of the seats created.”
These ‘logistical’ issues alone demand Republican attention; however, Hispanics often make natural allies for the GOP on many issues. For instance, many Hispanics share traditional, family-oriented values that are endemic on the Right. However, due to the Democrats’ success, aided by a small but vocal far-right, at portraying Republicans as anti-Hispanic, the Left has been successful at minimizing the rightward drift of the Hispanic vote. This has chiefly, although not exclusively, been an issue in the immigration debate.
The GOP needs to change tack quickly. The new Congress should come out leading on immigration reform and attempt to set a tone and agenda that displays a pro-Hispanic sentiment. This does not mean discarding the principles of border security, legality, and fair-play that have been staples of the Right’s position, but redefining the battle with the Left to not only display a new image but to show those Hispanics who have blindly followed the Democrats that there is another perspective that can speak to their interests.
First, anti-illegal immigration has to be separated from anti-immigration. The GOP must come out strongly in support of legal immigration. Not only is our nation built on this open model, but continued immigration is necessary for America to maintain its primacy. Democrats have done a phenomenal job at muddling the two issues, which has done the GOP much disservice. Rhetorically, for every attack on illegal immigration from the right and every labeling as anti-immigrant from the left, Republicans must respond with acclamations of support for legal immigration. Words, however, are useless alone and must be complemented with proposals to facilitate easier and fairer immigration for both skilled and un-skilled workers.
Second, the GOP needs to demonstrate that playing by the rules is in everyone’s interest. While seemingly obvious on its face, this point often gets lost (or drowned) in the hubbub of politics. In particular, it needs to be shown that having clear-cut and enforced rules for immigration benefit not just non-Hispanic Americans, but legalized Hispanic-Americans as well. Secure borders and fair-play (not cutting the line via amnesty) are necessary for all Americans to get the most out of this country. Playing by the rules is not an excuse for exclusionary action but the structure that is necessary for a functioning society.
Third, Republicans need to offer a solution to the immigration issue that reconciles the need for immigration (pro-market and pro-Hispanic family) with the needs for rule-of-law and security. This is something that is easily achievable if Republicans simply take the initiative. Immigration reform is essentially a political problem that can be solved under fair, conservative principles. Aside from the far-left open-border type and the far-right xenophobes, a solution could be designed that would satisfy most Americans. The underlying principle that costs to illegal immigration need to be sufficiently high, while costs to legal immigration sufficiently low is the logical starting ground.
Immigration reform should be the first area where the GOP begins its efforts. It is clearly the most volatile and emotional issue. Republican leadership (and justice) on this issue will create significant advances into a community that can serve as a strong electoral base. While the Tequila Party may not end up being the ideal vehicle for GOP inroads into the Hispanic population – its platform is still largely unclear, if not non-existent – the message it brings is resounding – the Hispanic population is a prime and necessary demographic which the GOP needs to start courting.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
A Word to the Wise
As Republicans sharpen their knives for what looks to be an early Thanksgiving feast on November 2nd, they would be wise to heed a lesson from an unlikely mentor – Barack Obama. When the jubilations subside and the ticker-tape has been carted-out to recycling, Republicans must be prepared to offer America the leadership the country demands.
After having been banished to the wilderness only two years ago, the Republicans will indubitably be crowned victors in two days. However, a resurgent GOP, led by the pugnacious Tea Party, runs the risk of blinding itself with hubris if it fails to correctly interpret its win. Like Icarus and Obama, they may find themselves quickly plunging back to earth – setting the stage for dismal failure in 2012.
The risk that faces the GOP is the same miscalculation that the Obama administration made in 2009. Coming off an astounding victory, Obama misinterpreted his win as a mandate to lead America down a radically new and audacious path. America, he thought, had voted for him and for his new ideas. But the truth was much different and, after two painful years, reality has become palpable to the administration. In late 2008, America, blinded by Obama’s charisma and the amorphous promise of change, voted, not for Obama’s policies, but against George W. Bush.
The same story line applies to the upcoming election. America, after realizing that the administration was not the anticipated godsend, has increasingly become frustrated with the Democrats. As the party of “no,” the GOP has been able to hasten the administration’s decline; however, it has not endeared itself to the American public. Its anger and obstinacy, however justified, have not offered America the answers it has been demanding. Tuesday will be a vote against Obama and the Congressional Democrats, but not one for the Republicans.
The GOP needs to use the pending electoral win to show America that they can offer sound, thoughtful, and practical solutions to the nation’s problems. If they misinterpret the electoral results as a vote for the GOP, they will replicate the mistakes of the Democrats and fail to provide America with the leadership it wants. History will repeat itself and in two short years, the Republicans will find themselves on the receiving end of an angry and disappointed America, with a reinvigorated Obama celebrating another four years in the White House.
After having been banished to the wilderness only two years ago, the Republicans will indubitably be crowned victors in two days. However, a resurgent GOP, led by the pugnacious Tea Party, runs the risk of blinding itself with hubris if it fails to correctly interpret its win. Like Icarus and Obama, they may find themselves quickly plunging back to earth – setting the stage for dismal failure in 2012.
The risk that faces the GOP is the same miscalculation that the Obama administration made in 2009. Coming off an astounding victory, Obama misinterpreted his win as a mandate to lead America down a radically new and audacious path. America, he thought, had voted for him and for his new ideas. But the truth was much different and, after two painful years, reality has become palpable to the administration. In late 2008, America, blinded by Obama’s charisma and the amorphous promise of change, voted, not for Obama’s policies, but against George W. Bush.
The same story line applies to the upcoming election. America, after realizing that the administration was not the anticipated godsend, has increasingly become frustrated with the Democrats. As the party of “no,” the GOP has been able to hasten the administration’s decline; however, it has not endeared itself to the American public. Its anger and obstinacy, however justified, have not offered America the answers it has been demanding. Tuesday will be a vote against Obama and the Congressional Democrats, but not one for the Republicans.
The GOP needs to use the pending electoral win to show America that they can offer sound, thoughtful, and practical solutions to the nation’s problems. If they misinterpret the electoral results as a vote for the GOP, they will replicate the mistakes of the Democrats and fail to provide America with the leadership it wants. History will repeat itself and in two short years, the Republicans will find themselves on the receiving end of an angry and disappointed America, with a reinvigorated Obama celebrating another four years in the White House.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
The Conservative Purity Test
The Washington Post's Dana Milbank has performed yet another analysis of the so-called conservative purity test - the call by the supposedly "pure" members of the GOP to purge the RINOs. Unsurprisingly, a high number of historical giants within the Republican Party failed to pass muster - including both Bob Dole and Gerald Ford. Why is it that so many insist on purging the moderate and "liberal" Republicans from the ranks of the GOP? Isn't the goal of a political party, particularly in a two-party system, to expand the tent to include as many allies as possible? Even if one disagrees with a liberal Republican, it is likely that there is more ground for agreement with them than a Democrat. Driving them from the party helps no one but the other side. If the conservative members of the GOP really want a more pure (whatever that means) party, they're better off trying to convince these "tainted" Republicans of the rightness (pun intended) of the conservative viewpoint, thus keeping them in the fold. After all, while ideology is important, in a democracy, numbers matter too.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
The Road to El Dorado
As Obama’s second year in office begins to pick up steam, one of his primary campaign promises has yet to be addressed. However, as Time.com suggests, the administration will begin to push for immigration reform in 2010. If they are wise, Republicans will take the lead and beat the Democrats out of the gate. Not only is immigration an important issue but successful handling of reform could reap political rewards for the GOP.
If Republicans fail to offer a concrete proposal they run the risk of being portrayed as obstructionist. This has been all too evident in the political quagmire that has become healthcare reform. Rather than playing defense against a filibuster-proof Senate, Republicans need take the offense and offer solid, well articulated policy. The need to frame the debate is important for two reasons.
First, as in healthcare, there are divergent principles at issue and the deck is already stacked against conservative ideals. The Democrats’ first salvo will all but obliterate any Republican counter-attack. In order to jumpstart the type of honest national debate that was absent in the healthcare process, Republicans need to get their ideas out first.
Primarily, the GOP needs to emphasize that the rule of law has to be maintained under any system. Individuals who violate laws, whether immigration or otherwise, cannot be allowed to reap the benefits. However, simultaneously, Republicans must emphasize that this is a pro-immigrant policy. Immigration has been and will continue to be the backbone of this country. The majority of, if not all, Americans are descended from or are immigrants. Any Republican plan should trumpet this fact. Upholding the rule of law means supporting the honest and hardworking immigrants, who choose to make the legal journey to citizenship or other legal status. It does not mean penalizing them by rewarding those that chose an illegal method.
This is important in light of the second reason: the Hispanic vote. As a recent article in The Economist reports, Hispanics are one of the fastest growing populations in America. Although, as a second article in The Economist reports, they voted approximately two-to-one in favor of Obama in 2008, they are far from a solid Democratic force. The article states:
If Republicans fail to offer a concrete proposal they run the risk of being portrayed as obstructionist. This has been all too evident in the political quagmire that has become healthcare reform. Rather than playing defense against a filibuster-proof Senate, Republicans need take the offense and offer solid, well articulated policy. The need to frame the debate is important for two reasons.
First, as in healthcare, there are divergent principles at issue and the deck is already stacked against conservative ideals. The Democrats’ first salvo will all but obliterate any Republican counter-attack. In order to jumpstart the type of honest national debate that was absent in the healthcare process, Republicans need to get their ideas out first.
Primarily, the GOP needs to emphasize that the rule of law has to be maintained under any system. Individuals who violate laws, whether immigration or otherwise, cannot be allowed to reap the benefits. However, simultaneously, Republicans must emphasize that this is a pro-immigrant policy. Immigration has been and will continue to be the backbone of this country. The majority of, if not all, Americans are descended from or are immigrants. Any Republican plan should trumpet this fact. Upholding the rule of law means supporting the honest and hardworking immigrants, who choose to make the legal journey to citizenship or other legal status. It does not mean penalizing them by rewarding those that chose an illegal method.
This is important in light of the second reason: the Hispanic vote. As a recent article in The Economist reports, Hispanics are one of the fastest growing populations in America. Although, as a second article in The Economist reports, they voted approximately two-to-one in favor of Obama in 2008, they are far from a solid Democratic force. The article states:
In a fair number of keenly contested states, the Hispanic population in effect holds the balance of power; and as long as they continue to vote solidly Democratic (as they did in 2008, by a whopping 67-31% margin), that is great news for the blue party. The big Hispanic vote for Barack Obama in Florida turned that vital state from Republican to Democratic; the Hispanic vote also proved crucial in Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada. It is not impossible to imagine that, in time, Texas’s huge Hispanic population could turn America’s second-largest state DemocraticThe Republicans would be wise to heed this poignant analysis. By articulating an immigration policy that appeals to Hispanics and conservative principles, the GOP would not only fend off attacks from the Left but possibly be able to swing a number of blue states in their favor (such as New Jersey which just elected a Republican governor). Furthermore, a successful policy maneuver will redeem the opposition Republicans’ image and give broad swaths of voters a renewed confidence in the Party’s ability to lead. If they fail to appropriately frame the debate, the GOP will not only be demonized by the Democrats as racist, xenophobic, and anti-immigrant, but will likely lose the chance at capturing the increasingly important Hispanic vote.
If the Republicans want to avoid that fearful fate, they need to reconnect with Hispanic voters, and fast. In principle it ought not to be too hard. Culturally conservative, strongly religious, family-oriented and with a long and distinguished tradition of service in America’s armed forces, Hispanics are natural Republicans. But they are also, on the average, poorer than whites, and they are rightly incensed at anything that smacks of xenophobia.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Hearts vs. Heads: Time for Some Brains in the GOP
Recently The Economist wrote:
Stated in a discussion regarding Sarah Palin, The Economist brought forward a poignant issue plaguing both America and the Republican Party. The past election was rife with populism and anti-intellectualism- two closely related problems that only serve to degrade policy and hinder the growth of America.
From the support of Obama based on the rejection of Bush to the selection of Palin as running mate, the election was won and lost by the hearts, not the minds. This trend unfortunately still continues. The Republican Party, which made a disastrous choice with the populist, philistine Palin, continues to seep deeper into the brackish backwaters of anti-intellectualism.
The problems with populism and anti-intellectualism are twofold. First of all, it is quite easy for such leaders to appear narrow minded and possibly downright stupid. While, as The Economist article pointed out, some people may gain comfort in voting for someone ‘just like them’, the risks of turning everyone else off to such a politician are extremely high. Sarah Palin, for one, is either loved or hated. To those who champion her she is the ‘gal next door’; to those who ridicule her she is a redneck idiot. However, this polarizing persona is not a viable route for a party that aims to run a diverse country.
Secondly, and more importantly, populism and anti-intellectualism do much harm for developing strong policy. While many people may vote with their hearts, there are ways of communicating ideas and concepts that even non-policy experts can understand. At the end of the day, it is smart policy and smart discussion that will make our country better. This can only be achieved through continued discourse of ideas, by promoting thinking, and offering new ideas and solutions.
Unfortunately, the Republican Party is in a downward spiral away from the light and into a new dark age. Rather than learn the lesson of the Palin failure, the party elite has jumped on the narrow-minded bandwagon. Fresh ideas have so far been thoroughly rejected. While there are some shining lights, the Party as a whole is struggling to find its intellectual position.
The anti-intellectual, populist movement that has bound the Republican Party will prevent it from rising to its true conservative potential. It may appeal to a narrow, but vocal, minority in the hardcore base. Those that are well convicted in their ideology or simply too ignorant to think of voting for anyone but a Republican will be unlikely to leave the base. However, the rest of America – the ones that any party has to convince to win elections – will not be impressed.
In order to advance the party, the GOP must reevaluate its position. With Palin fortunately out of the way, concrete steps need to be taken to minimize the role outspoken sensationalist Republicans play as the de facto leaders of the party. While many of these talking-heads are right-on in policy they are ultimately entertainers that are performing for a specific audience. They are phenomenal at what they do, but are ill prepared to serve as national voices of the party. In their stead we need fresh ideas and new leaders to offer them. The Republican Party has the perfect opportunity to offer sound, well thought out ideas to America. As Obama continues to prove that he is unable to lead America and is devoid of a basic understanding of how so many things work the Republicans have the opportunity to steal the show. America has realized that being lead by its heart was foolish. It is calling for ideas. It is high time the GOP realizes this too.
Many Americans want as president someone who is exceptionally well informed about public policy, who surrounds himself with experts, who weights the evidence and then does what is best for the country. But few people are policy experts, so they often follow their hearts rather than their heads when deciding whom to vote for.
Stated in a discussion regarding Sarah Palin, The Economist brought forward a poignant issue plaguing both America and the Republican Party. The past election was rife with populism and anti-intellectualism- two closely related problems that only serve to degrade policy and hinder the growth of America.
From the support of Obama based on the rejection of Bush to the selection of Palin as running mate, the election was won and lost by the hearts, not the minds. This trend unfortunately still continues. The Republican Party, which made a disastrous choice with the populist, philistine Palin, continues to seep deeper into the brackish backwaters of anti-intellectualism.
The problems with populism and anti-intellectualism are twofold. First of all, it is quite easy for such leaders to appear narrow minded and possibly downright stupid. While, as The Economist article pointed out, some people may gain comfort in voting for someone ‘just like them’, the risks of turning everyone else off to such a politician are extremely high. Sarah Palin, for one, is either loved or hated. To those who champion her she is the ‘gal next door’; to those who ridicule her she is a redneck idiot. However, this polarizing persona is not a viable route for a party that aims to run a diverse country.
Secondly, and more importantly, populism and anti-intellectualism do much harm for developing strong policy. While many people may vote with their hearts, there are ways of communicating ideas and concepts that even non-policy experts can understand. At the end of the day, it is smart policy and smart discussion that will make our country better. This can only be achieved through continued discourse of ideas, by promoting thinking, and offering new ideas and solutions.
Unfortunately, the Republican Party is in a downward spiral away from the light and into a new dark age. Rather than learn the lesson of the Palin failure, the party elite has jumped on the narrow-minded bandwagon. Fresh ideas have so far been thoroughly rejected. While there are some shining lights, the Party as a whole is struggling to find its intellectual position.
The anti-intellectual, populist movement that has bound the Republican Party will prevent it from rising to its true conservative potential. It may appeal to a narrow, but vocal, minority in the hardcore base. Those that are well convicted in their ideology or simply too ignorant to think of voting for anyone but a Republican will be unlikely to leave the base. However, the rest of America – the ones that any party has to convince to win elections – will not be impressed.
In order to advance the party, the GOP must reevaluate its position. With Palin fortunately out of the way, concrete steps need to be taken to minimize the role outspoken sensationalist Republicans play as the de facto leaders of the party. While many of these talking-heads are right-on in policy they are ultimately entertainers that are performing for a specific audience. They are phenomenal at what they do, but are ill prepared to serve as national voices of the party. In their stead we need fresh ideas and new leaders to offer them. The Republican Party has the perfect opportunity to offer sound, well thought out ideas to America. As Obama continues to prove that he is unable to lead America and is devoid of a basic understanding of how so many things work the Republicans have the opportunity to steal the show. America has realized that being lead by its heart was foolish. It is calling for ideas. It is high time the GOP realizes this too.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
A Civil Union Between Gay Marriage and Republicans
One social area where the Republican Party needs to reevaluate its stance is the issue of gay marriage. For two major reasons, the GOP is facing a losing battle. For the sake of electoral success, the party needs to reevaluate its current position.
First and foremost, the party is fighting a losing battle. It is inevitable that the rights of gays will grow over time. Currently this is occurring across many states. The inevitability is easy to see if one studies American history. Over time, all minority groups have gained more rights and equal treatment. Even if at one point or another there have been set backs, the overall trend of history is constant. The simple logic behind this is that a minority has a lot to gain by fighting for his or her rights; while relatively speaking the majority does not have a lot to lose by granting those rights. The minority will be able to fight indefinitely; while the majority will eventually tire. Ultimately, the minority will win this war of attrition.
Because of this inevitability it is fruitless for the GOP to waste its time and energy. Not only does it divert resources from other issues and causes, but it puts the party on the losing side of history. This is a cost that is too high to pay. Despite the fact the fact that it was the Republicans that freed African-Americans from slavery, the party is portrayed as the loser in the culture wars and thus, at least for the foreseeable future, precluded from the African-American vote. By fighting gay marriage, the party only provides fodder to the left to incorrectly portray the Republicans as intolerant.
Secondly, the current party stance is inconsistent with the intellectual basis of American conservatism. Conservatives call for a limited government role in the individual’s life. The government should be small and efficient, staying out of the private lives of its citizens. Unlike liberals, conservatives argue that in regards to the vast majority of issues individuals are capable of making their own decisions and leading their own lives as they see fit. However, the current gay marriage platform flies in the face of this. It calls for immense government control over a major part of many American’s lives.
Social conservatives attempt to justify this by turning to their religion and emphasizing the alleged societal costs. The ‘family values’ viewpoint asserts that gay marriage is wrong (according to the Bible) and damaging to society. Accordingly, the standard, historical heterosexual family is the basis of society and needs to continue in order to preserve the integrity and sanctity of the country. However, a modified approach to gay marriage is in no way inconsistent with the strong family values held by the majority of America. Furthermore, a modified approach would be more intellectually consistent with limited government conservatism.
An easy solution would be for the Republican Party to separate the issue of marriage into its two natural components: ceremonial marriage and legal rights. One of the roots of the current problem is that these two issues are intermingled. A logical Republican alternative would be to remove the state from any sort of marriage. If marriage is truly a spiritual and community-based institution it should be left to the churches, mosques, synagogues, and other religious organizations to decide how it functions. What is left is the legal rights component; something that is naturally a function of the state.
Essentially, this allows the state to only play a role in determining the legal rights and obligations of an individual in regards to his or her partner. Everyone can get a civil union from the government- where they can choose one partner with whom they can file taxes, receive employment benefits, make health decisions and the like. The spiritual institution of marriage is then left for private communities and religious organizations to determine.
Critics will claim that this issue can’t be easily compartmentalized in this fashion. The strongest arguments point to supposed societal damages caused by gay partnership. Specifically, raising children is one main issue. However, there are two flaws with this argument. First, many of these rights are already given to gays. For instance, they can often adopt. We have yet to see a breakdown of society or a pervasion of the younger generations as a result. Secondly, there are much broader problems with the American family than sexual orientation. Divorce rates are astronomical and many parents do not have a clue how to raise children. Republicans and America are better served by focusing on educating individuals on how to responsibly build a strong, morally-upright family. Right now we spend far too little time learning about family, child rearing, and inter-spousal relationships – three of the most central facets of American life.
A combination of government civil unions, religious marriages, and increased education to establish strong family values will lead to a better Republican Party. With such a policy the GOP will be able to speak to a wide swath of America. Furthermore, it will maintain an intellectual consistency. Lastly, it will help develop a healthier America.
First and foremost, the party is fighting a losing battle. It is inevitable that the rights of gays will grow over time. Currently this is occurring across many states. The inevitability is easy to see if one studies American history. Over time, all minority groups have gained more rights and equal treatment. Even if at one point or another there have been set backs, the overall trend of history is constant. The simple logic behind this is that a minority has a lot to gain by fighting for his or her rights; while relatively speaking the majority does not have a lot to lose by granting those rights. The minority will be able to fight indefinitely; while the majority will eventually tire. Ultimately, the minority will win this war of attrition.
Because of this inevitability it is fruitless for the GOP to waste its time and energy. Not only does it divert resources from other issues and causes, but it puts the party on the losing side of history. This is a cost that is too high to pay. Despite the fact the fact that it was the Republicans that freed African-Americans from slavery, the party is portrayed as the loser in the culture wars and thus, at least for the foreseeable future, precluded from the African-American vote. By fighting gay marriage, the party only provides fodder to the left to incorrectly portray the Republicans as intolerant.
Secondly, the current party stance is inconsistent with the intellectual basis of American conservatism. Conservatives call for a limited government role in the individual’s life. The government should be small and efficient, staying out of the private lives of its citizens. Unlike liberals, conservatives argue that in regards to the vast majority of issues individuals are capable of making their own decisions and leading their own lives as they see fit. However, the current gay marriage platform flies in the face of this. It calls for immense government control over a major part of many American’s lives.
Social conservatives attempt to justify this by turning to their religion and emphasizing the alleged societal costs. The ‘family values’ viewpoint asserts that gay marriage is wrong (according to the Bible) and damaging to society. Accordingly, the standard, historical heterosexual family is the basis of society and needs to continue in order to preserve the integrity and sanctity of the country. However, a modified approach to gay marriage is in no way inconsistent with the strong family values held by the majority of America. Furthermore, a modified approach would be more intellectually consistent with limited government conservatism.
An easy solution would be for the Republican Party to separate the issue of marriage into its two natural components: ceremonial marriage and legal rights. One of the roots of the current problem is that these two issues are intermingled. A logical Republican alternative would be to remove the state from any sort of marriage. If marriage is truly a spiritual and community-based institution it should be left to the churches, mosques, synagogues, and other religious organizations to decide how it functions. What is left is the legal rights component; something that is naturally a function of the state.
Essentially, this allows the state to only play a role in determining the legal rights and obligations of an individual in regards to his or her partner. Everyone can get a civil union from the government- where they can choose one partner with whom they can file taxes, receive employment benefits, make health decisions and the like. The spiritual institution of marriage is then left for private communities and religious organizations to determine.
Critics will claim that this issue can’t be easily compartmentalized in this fashion. The strongest arguments point to supposed societal damages caused by gay partnership. Specifically, raising children is one main issue. However, there are two flaws with this argument. First, many of these rights are already given to gays. For instance, they can often adopt. We have yet to see a breakdown of society or a pervasion of the younger generations as a result. Secondly, there are much broader problems with the American family than sexual orientation. Divorce rates are astronomical and many parents do not have a clue how to raise children. Republicans and America are better served by focusing on educating individuals on how to responsibly build a strong, morally-upright family. Right now we spend far too little time learning about family, child rearing, and inter-spousal relationships – three of the most central facets of American life.
A combination of government civil unions, religious marriages, and increased education to establish strong family values will lead to a better Republican Party. With such a policy the GOP will be able to speak to a wide swath of America. Furthermore, it will maintain an intellectual consistency. Lastly, it will help develop a healthier America.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Palin Resigned to Fail?
Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin’s recent resignation is mind boggling to say the least. Every sign since she stumbled onto the national scene last fall indicated that she was gearing up for a 2012 presidential run. If there was a modern day political truism, it was that Sarah had her heart set on making Todd Palin the first ‘first gentleman’. Her resignation has thrown every understanding of her into a tailspin.
One possibility is that she is simply fed up. The daily stresses that she and her family go through could have reached a breaking point. Whether it was her ethics issues in Alaska, the constant haranguing from the media, her daughter’s pregnancy, or any other of the many issues, the private life may have simply become the priority. While this is seemingly the only ‘logical’ explanation it does not jive with her expressed and highly visible desire for the presidency. It also does not mesh with the fact that she refuses to rule out a presidential run.
However, the converse is equally implausible. If she does plan on running for president, resigning from the governorship is about the most bone-headed thing she can do. It is one thing to choose not to run for reelection in order to focus on an election campaign. Many governors, including Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty, have done this. It is quite another thing to quit a lame-duck position. The bottom line is that such a move is a surefire way to sink a potential campaign. It shows she lacks commitment and drive, and has her priorities out of sorts.
Regardless of what the motivation for her resignation was, it is reasonably safe to say that Palin’s political future looks dim. While we may not have seen the last of her, her position is severely diminished. This is a most fortunate event for the Republican Party. Palin was the biggest mistake of McCain’s campaign, ultimately costing him the election. While her anti-intellectualism and populism may stir a small, but vocal, part of the base; she is unappealing to many in the traditional Republican base [fiscal conservatives, security conservatives, etc.] and certainly to the independents that are needed to elect a Republican president.
The flirtation with the Palin wing of the party has done more than enough damage to the image and platform of the Republican Party. Her imminent demise is nothing short of a blessing to free us from her anti-intellectual shackles. Hopefully the GOP leadership will realize that the party must return to the big-tent party of Reagan. While many ‘Palinites’ talk in Reaganesque terms, the party is becoming the antithesis of what Reagan built. With Palin (hopefully) removed from the limelight, the party will be able to correct its image, develop new leadership, and reassert its position as the intellectual and policy leader of America.
One possibility is that she is simply fed up. The daily stresses that she and her family go through could have reached a breaking point. Whether it was her ethics issues in Alaska, the constant haranguing from the media, her daughter’s pregnancy, or any other of the many issues, the private life may have simply become the priority. While this is seemingly the only ‘logical’ explanation it does not jive with her expressed and highly visible desire for the presidency. It also does not mesh with the fact that she refuses to rule out a presidential run.
However, the converse is equally implausible. If she does plan on running for president, resigning from the governorship is about the most bone-headed thing she can do. It is one thing to choose not to run for reelection in order to focus on an election campaign. Many governors, including Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty, have done this. It is quite another thing to quit a lame-duck position. The bottom line is that such a move is a surefire way to sink a potential campaign. It shows she lacks commitment and drive, and has her priorities out of sorts.
Regardless of what the motivation for her resignation was, it is reasonably safe to say that Palin’s political future looks dim. While we may not have seen the last of her, her position is severely diminished. This is a most fortunate event for the Republican Party. Palin was the biggest mistake of McCain’s campaign, ultimately costing him the election. While her anti-intellectualism and populism may stir a small, but vocal, part of the base; she is unappealing to many in the traditional Republican base [fiscal conservatives, security conservatives, etc.] and certainly to the independents that are needed to elect a Republican president.
The flirtation with the Palin wing of the party has done more than enough damage to the image and platform of the Republican Party. Her imminent demise is nothing short of a blessing to free us from her anti-intellectual shackles. Hopefully the GOP leadership will realize that the party must return to the big-tent party of Reagan. While many ‘Palinites’ talk in Reaganesque terms, the party is becoming the antithesis of what Reagan built. With Palin (hopefully) removed from the limelight, the party will be able to correct its image, develop new leadership, and reassert its position as the intellectual and policy leader of America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)