I have a column in TIME magazine in which I describe the three different camps Republicans have broken into in the aftermath of the 2012 election, some policy proposals the GOP might consider, and urge Republicans to draw on a conservative tradition that:
seeks to accommodate timeless principles to shifting circumstances, that rejects unyielding orthodoxy and believes prudence, not purity, is the cardinal political virtue. And while it believes in limited government, it is not carelessly antigovernment. The 19th century economist Alfred Marshall elegantly described government as “the most precious of human institutions, and no care can be too great to be spent on enabling it to do its work in the best way. A chief condition to that end is that it should not be set to work for which it is not specifically qualified, under the conditions of time and place.”
I’d add to this several other suggestions.
First, Republicans should make front-and-center their plans to reform public institutions that were designed for the needs of the mid-20th century. Our health-care and entitlement system, tax code, schools, immigration policies and regulatory regime are outdated, breaking down, and creating substantial wreckage. If I had to boil it down to a single sentence, I’d urge the GOP to develop its reputation as the party of reform and modernization.
Second, Republican leaders at every level need to conduct themselves in a manner that not just reassures voters but appeals to them. As former Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels has put it, “as we ask Americans to join us on such a boldly different course, it would help if they liked us, just a bit.” This is not just a matter of style; it’s a disposition that reflects an approach to the world. And it matters.
Third, Republicans must resist the temptation of defeatism, enervation, and turning against the country. It is entirely within the power of the GOP to both remain principled and appeal to a majority of Americans. An intellectually self-confident party would, in fact, be energized by a challenge of this scale.
But it seems to me that the main reason for Republicans to be confident, and the main reason they should act quickly to revive their party, is that reactionary liberalism is exhausted. It has nothing to offer when it comes to the greatest domestic threats facing America: our massive fiscal imbalance, the impending collapse of our entitlement programs, our insanely complicated and inefficient tax code, and anemic economic growth. By the end of President Obama’s second term, the Affordable Care Act will be viewed as a monumental failure. Liberals will have had nothing useful to say about combating poverty, improving education, energy independence or stabilizing a disordered and dangerous world. The propositions of progressivism will have been tried and found wanting in almost every respect. The public will again turn to the Republican Party.
For the GOP to fully reposition itself will require the right presidential nominee to emerge. But the groundwork needs to begin–has begun–with governors, members of Congress, public intellectuals and policy entrepreneurs.
In 1980, Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan admitted, “Of a sudden, the GOP has become a party of ideas.” As it was, so shall it be again.
Very good. Most important of all, if the Republicans are to be a political party and not just a think tank, is to "appeal to a majority of Americans". In order to 'appeal' to the American people, the party must both understand what the 'majority' of the people want, and educate and thus create a 'majority'. To do the latter, the party must find a way around or through the present extremist and bigoted media – the NY Times, the LA Times, the NBC liars, the CNN liars, the CBS liars, etc., etc.. Last, and not least, it must not be a party espousing ANY religious beliefs. The party has failed badly in that respect. Stick to the ten commandments and leave it there.
Both Democrats and Republicans say the blame for the coming economic rests squarely on the other. How are we, American citizens, supposed to react? Both have opposing ideas. One thing we can do is to take polls and follow the majority. n nMay I suggest a different way of making a decision? We need to write in clear English the economic principles underlying each party’s approach. Secondly, we need clear English statements of historical and mathematical evidence. n nThis approach worked with the development of the bacterial cause of infectious diseases. Doctors had different ideas. They examined relevant scientific principles and evidence. This was extremely successful, and led to our modern medicine practices. May I suggest a similar approach to economics? n nI am a university mathematics professor, and insist students write clearly and explicitly their assumptions when doing problems. We need to take this approach dealing with the government. n nCurrent policy debates are based upon emotion and individual cases that are not statistically significant. People do not know what the economic principles of our major parties are, as our Congressmen and reporters are not discussing them. Let us follow the ideals of the great pioneers of modern medicine and clarify our assumptions and evidence. n
You are a mathematics professor which means that, first, you are smarter than 99.9% of the rest of us, and head and shoulders beyond the intelligence of anyone currently serving the nation in DC, and second, are trained in considering evidence and principles. My father is a brilliant civil engineer. Over the years he's had to deal with politicians over issues involving offshore drilling. The fools he talks to don't get "evidence" or "principles". Sadly, it is the nature of the system. nThankfully, the democratic process had nothing to do with the development of modern medicine, or we'd still be subjecting ourselves to leaches (the blood-sucking animal, not the Democrats).
"I have a column in TIME magazine…" nWhy?