Yesterday we talked about coherence among the Republican Party. Cutting the group into segments of “true” conservatives and RINOs who aren’t as iron-clad in their ideology is certainly counterproductive. If you bite your friends, your enemies won’t need to.
But let’s take a moment to look at bigger picture reality. The maps on the nightly news paint the country into “blue” states and “red” states—places on the two coasts that are heavily indentified as liberal bastions and areas of the heartland that are viewed as redneck frontiers of independence, otherwise known as conservative. That might be the stereotypical view, but the truth is that every state has some liberals and some conservatives—folks that identify themselves that way. The proportions vary, but there are always some of the other color wherever you go.
Nationally we find that the nation is politically divided into thirds, not halves. It isn’t “either-or” with regard to liberal or conservative, but one third liberal, one third conservative and one third moderates or “independents.” If you listen to Rush Limbaugh, a moderate is someone to be reviled as unprincipled without ethical or moral grounding. I would rather view them as individuals who potentially might be either Republicans or Democrats depending upon the candidates at the forefront and the particular issues that trigger their involvement.
If one wishes to gain the Presidency and control of the governmental majority then one must garner all of the votes of your own party. That goes without saying. But please recognize that won’t get you elected. You ideally should try to whittle away some supporters of your opponent. But that is unlikely and still gets you no majority. You MUST attract the preponderance of those despised moderates. Without them, abandon all hope.
That is why it was ordained early in the election cycle that John McCain would lose. Rush and Hannity and Coulter and O’Reilly and the pantheon of conservative idols all sought a “true” conservative as the party standard-bearer. Unfortunately they couldn’t really find any of the candidates who were ideologically pure enough. Each had some redeeming qualities, but none were perfect. Each fell by the wayside as John McCain carried some base constituencies (like former military), and inexorably attracted independent voters who actually liked the idea of a conservative who wasn’t at the extreme right. McCain was palatable to them, but not to his own party hard-core.
Limbaugh went to the extreme of denouncing McCain as the nominee of those cursed moderates and the media, somehow ignoring the millions of voters in Republican primaries who checked McCain’s name. You simply can’t win, when you don’t carry all of your own party and you disdain the moderate voters you need. That is reality.
So, step two of the remedy for the Republican Party after tempering their dealings with their own members who aren’t ideologically perfect, is to then reopen the doors to the Big Tent. Create an agenda of moderation which appeals to the politically uncommitted middle class of America. Moderation isn’t unprincipled it is attainable and reasonable policy that preserves the baby in the bathwater until carefully separating the two without further damage. Give people a reason to support you and then welcome them when they do without demanding unconditional commitment to an agenda they may only support 60% of the time.
A majority in America requires building coalitions, not throwing up obstacles to support. That’s reality.
1 comment:
Using these past two posts as a point of departure you could write a book sketching out the framework for such a coalition. Chapters might include treatments of American political history and heritage (with emphasis on Locke and Jefferson); education; athletics; the military and American culture; an American model of public service; elitist social engineering vs. emergent patterns of societal evolution rooted in the expansion/maintenance of a middle class production/trade economy; popular culture; patriotic obligations in relation to dissent, free speech and consensus; American religion (religious toleration, church and state, an underlying belief in universal justice verified by skeptical/empirical inquiry . . . which brings us back to Locke again); and so on.
Not only moderates but also many Republicans, Democrats, and liberal/libertarian independents would respond favorably to an informed and balanced formulation of American cultural and political identity.
Considering your background, interests, taste for intellectual honesty, and your verbal directness, I think you are cut out for such a project.
Post a Comment