Our Peter Wehner and his colleague Michael Gerson have made a valuable contribution to the debate about the future of the Republican Party with their feature in the March issue of COMMENTARY. Their evaluation of the factors that led to the GOP defeat in 2012 seems to be unexceptionable. While there will be some who will disagree with some aspects of their five recommendations for steps to take to revive the party and help expand its appeal, this manifesto is an excellent starting point for a discussion that can and must be held.
While I concur with many of their conclusions, I would like to comment on another aspect of this conversation that ought to be taken into account as conservatives ponder how to adapt to changing circumstances. The cost of ignoring the need to reach out to a broader audience is obvious: electoral defeat. Yet while rebooting the party’s image and its focus is necessary, there is an inherent danger in the process that needs to be understood properly if Republicans are to avoid making a different mistake than that of being stuck in the political paradigms of the 1980s and 1990s. As bad as that might be, becoming the all too reasonable echoes of Democrats on major issues is just as much of a threat to their political future as anything else.
In the midst of an ongoing bitter debate about the sequester budget cuts, the thought of Republicans being too nice may seem comical. The harsh partisan tone that seems to inject itself into virtually every issue makes the possibility of a new era of good feelings in our political world sound more like science fiction than analysis. But lurking behind much of the pushback against the conservative resistance to President Obama’s agenda as well as the anger in some quarters of the GOP about the influence of the Tea Party is an urge not so much to calm the waters as it is to water down the differences between the parties. And it is that instinct that can lead the party down a long path of futility.
While Wehner and Gerson are clear that their suggestions for change must be carried out within a context that keeps Republicans true to their core principles, to listen to some of the talking heads who opine about this subject as well as some of the marginal political figures who support groups like “No Labels,” their focus is not to refocus the party so much as it is to trash conservatism. Their goal seems more about fitting in among the liberal talking heads on CNN and MSNBC than speaking truth to power. Being a liberal’s idea of a conservative is smart strategy for being employed at a major daily or network, but it is not a plan that any party should follow.
Wehner and Gerson do well to recall how Bill Clinton changed the Democrats and Tony Blair transformed Britain’s Labor Party in the 1990s. These success stories may not bring much comfort to conservatives who fear what a centrist GOP would mean for their core issues. But the point here is that it is possible for parties to hold onto their basic identity while becoming more electable.
But there is a different model that is also possible for Republicans to follow that holds no such happy electoral endings.
Democrats dominated American politics from the 1930s to the 1970s. The Franklin Roosevelt coalition of northern liberals and southern bigots eventually collapsed as the public realized the welfare state they had constructed created as many problems as it solved. But until Ronald Reagan came along, the biggest problem for the GOP was not being associated with the legacy of Herbert Hoover. Instead, it was the instinct of so many in the party to try and recast Republicanism in the image of the victorious Democrats.
For far too long, mainstream Republicanism became a function of politicians who saw their task as being to offer the public the Democratic platform minus 10 or 15 percent to show their fiscal prudence. They didn’t so much provide an opposition as an echo that enabled liberals to believe the country’s course was irretrievably set to the left even if there were momentary electoral hiccups such as the election of war hero Dwight Eisenhower on the GOP ticket. These reasonable Republicans were both polite and housebroken in a way that some current conservatives are not. But they were also a party of losers who stood for little that was worth fighting for.
It is that era when liberal and moderate Republicans ruled the roost in the party and routinely cut deals with the seemingly permanent Democratic majorities in the House and Senate that the GOP sympathizers of the “No Labels” crowd seem to invoke when they call for a return to the good old days of bipartisanship. And it was precisely to oppose this spirit of timorous accommodation that William F. Buckley helped found the modern conservative moment. Many so-called moderates now invoke Buckley when they call for weeding out conservatives in order to win more elections. They are right to the extent that the party ought to avoid nominating fools and outliers for winnable Senate seats like Christine O’Donnell and Todd Akin. But the idea that winning, even if it means diluting or even discarding conservative principles, is the sole point of conservative politics is the fallacy.
A Republican Party that ceases to be a place where tough conservatives are willing to muss up the hair of their liberal antagonists is not going to win many elections. The “No Labels” bunch may think they know more about the mainstream than the likes of Ted Cruz, but a party that loses its base is no more likely to win than one that can’t appeal to the center. Reasonableness that functions as a curb against principled opposition is a trap that Republicans would do well to avoid.
Republicans became a majority party not by being better liberals than the Democrats but by tapping into the support of most Americans for the values and ideas they stood for. If they are to regain that status, it won’t, as Wehner and Gerson rightly note, be by living in the past or failing to adapt. But it also won’t happen if they forget to be conservatives.
"Republicans Shouldn’t Be Too Reasonable" n nMission accomplished! n
You are still an idiot.
BDZ, you are too charitable labeling HiillelA as mere idiot.
far better to be narcisistic posseur with a court of self-congratulatory lapdogs n nnot a mission worth accomplishing but its the best the Demorats are up to, n nthat and skimming the cream off the top of an economcy made possible by the productive citizentry they leech on
You're a buffoon and a blithering idiot.
That's the whole point. What are the basic principles to be? "water down the differences between the parties"? That's baloney. There are issues that lose many many votes because the vast majority of Americans feel differently than the present 'base' of the GOP. Recasting that base is a necessity. Not doing that could mean the GOP becoming a third party – coming in third, i.e. losing. Primarily the recasting must be done at least on the social issues in which the GOP puts government in the business of dictating what most Americans consider their private discretion.
I should add that while Paul Ryan is a brilliant representative and did a wonderful job on controlling "entitlements", the GOP position just rakes in the vote for the Democrats. It should be watered down. In addition, the term 'entitlements' is an erroneous descriptive, genuine entitlements are just that – the recipients are entitled to what they receive. The GOP needs to win. That has to be a major objective. Priority number ONE.
Those putting government in the business of dictating what most Americans consider their private discretion are found among the Democratic leadership not the Republican leadership. Expressing the belief that abortion is legalized murder is not dictating anything. Attempting to appeal to one's innate morality is not dictating. Persuading is not dictating. Moral leadership is not dictating; sorry you see it otherwise.
It is not usually the positions of the "base" that are the problem. These people are too quick to letting their anger get in the way of common sense. They are easily seduced into letting Democrats win elections to "teach the Republican establishment a lesson."
Good point, however, the Republican establishment needs to quit folding on critical issues and ignoring the base when it seems politically expedient.
There is only one realistic answer: change the GOP establishment! Place the legislators of your choice in these key positions. You do not do this by either staying home on Election Day or wasting time with a third party candidate.
Reasonable Republican,cetainly an oxymoron.
" Republicans Shouldn’t Be Too Reasonable" nand Tobin shouldn't be such a devout Moslem.
Democrats turn out for personalities. Republicans turn out on principles and issues (unless a candidate like Dole puts them completely to sleep or Bush 41 disillusioned enough people to get Perot to run). If the Dems have a Gore or Kerry, they don't turn out (although people did like Bush 43 much more than anyone liked McCain or Romney, McCain and Romney really had issues problems with the base, problems like being too wishy washy on the issues and praising Obama too much). n nThe bad news is that Hillary is more popular than even Obama and the media lies for her as much as they do for Obama or Bill Clinton these days. The only hope is that someone who actually stands tall for issues that appeal to Republicans and the old "silent" majority will win the Republican nomination. It won't be easy — consider that Ryan could talk about issues, but Biden just smirked and guffawed at him and the MSM declared Biden the champ. It won't be easy, but maybe the truth will out … with a strong nominee!
Bush 41 was politically destroyed primarily because folks like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul were enraged by his allegedly being a flunky of Israel! Huh? Does that sound weird? What about James Baker? The reality is the old isolationist right and the "anti-war" libertarians were intent on destroying his presidency—long before the tax issue dominated the headlines. They were enraged that Bush invaded Iraq. The disillusionment you speak of was the result of months of slime jobbing by Buchanan and his ilk.
The real issue is that the Republicans don’t have one “base” but several. Fiscal and social concervatives both see their issues as the only thing that should matter to conservatives, and that doesn’t get us into the neo-cons or the libertarians. These groups often behave as if they think it better for the Left (there really aren’t any liberals any more) to win than to close ranks behind a conservative from one of the other factions.
The Left doesn’t have this problem. For them the issue isn’t issues, but power. They’re willing to do whatever is necessary to take and hold power. As long as conservatives are unwilling to unite to block the Left, it will have the inside track in every election.
Republicans need not embrace Bob Michel-ism to attract moderates and independents to the party, But I do think their message needs a slight but important adjustment to make it more attractive in these more anxiety-ridden times.Many Republicans are fond of summarizing their primary goal as one of "limited government." To conservative ears that is a succinct and fair way of encapsulating our views. But to people who watch news networks every day turn any disaster into a world-shattering cataclysm, "limited government" can sound suspiciously like absentee-government, especially when the Democrats' master propogandists get to work.Instead, we need to stress RESPONSIBLE government
By that I mean a government that does intelligently and efiiciently, and with a minimum of waste those things that are within the proper purview of government, and staying away from those things that are none of the government's business. Naturally, those things must be reasonably and adequately defined. n n
the government we have cannot turn on a dime, or on a michelin tire. the dems sell the dream of government not the borderline functional mesh of bureaucracies and crony capitalist subventions we are stuck with. private enterprise is also wasteful but it doesn't suck up tax payer funds. less might be inherently better–waste and inefficiency, duplication and graft might be features not "bugs"
The Progressive paradigm, which had been the basis for "normal science" since the turn of the last century, is failing. The evidence is clear worldwide. The Republicans will continue to fail as long as their working premise is "me too, but not so much". You cannot out demogogue the Democrat Party by offering less of the same thing. A new paradigm needs (I respectfully suggest that new paradigm might be based on an old one circa 1787) to be articulated and vigorously promulgated.