Shining City on a Hill
By Flyover Country Posted in The Parties — Comments (24) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
This entry is a follow-up to my previous diary that floated the notion of the "Big Tent" concept. It was met with open arms by some, and a measure of hostility by others. I believe the hostility to have been by and large the result of some poor wording on my part(i.e. using phrases that appeared to attack the social con base) and an idiotic stubbornness on my part in sticking to my guns on phrasing. I owe most of the commenters a sincere apology for that. I'm on the Right's side 100%, and so I will clarify here a proposed, work-in-progress roadmap to utilizing first principles and strong conservatism as an outreach tool to a majoritarian political center who could be useful political allies.
You can call it mysticism if you want to, but I have always believed that there was some divine plan that placed this great continent between two oceans to be sought out by those who were possessed of an abiding love of freedom and a special kind of courage." -- Ronald Reagan, 25 January, 1974
Ronald Reagan is viewed by most on the Right as a political chimera, a man who infused the three legs of conservatism with a vigor and primacy of place never before witnessed in America. Reagan has since become a mythical creature of demi-god proportions, because he proved that a principled conservative politician could win - and not just win, but dominate this country's political landscape like no conservative ever has.
Under Reagan, the United States regained its economic swagger and its fearsome reputation as the defender of freedom. The question is now being asked, "where's our next Reagan?" I posit that perhaps the question is irrelevant. Ronald Reagan was only a man - an incredible, effective leader, no doubt, but still just a man. It was his pinciples that re-energized America. It was nothing more than a strong man, wielding unbeatable principles. I look at some of the leaders on the Right, and they too are capable of carrying on Reagan's true legacy (not the squishy, big-government "compassionate conservatism" of the succeeding Bushes).
I look at leaders like Bobby Jindal, Jeb Hensarling, Jim DeMint and Sarah Palin, and I see men and women who live and die by conservative principles. They are photogenic, incredibly intelligent and possessed of dignity and honor. They can be Reagan. It was not as much the man as his unswerving, eloquent promotion of first principles and conservatism. What can the next generation of conservative politicians do to raise the banner again, and carry a true majority mandate to shrink government and save the republic?
Read on...
First, and most importantly, is a commitment to "first principles". Fred! has a great article up at the Wall Street Journal from May 23 about the exaggerated demise of conservatism. It is a choice cut, as are most of his articles, but one phrase stood out for me:
In this unpredictable world, conservatives should adhere to their fundamental ideals. These ideals have brought our country much success, and may well win the day again. Conservatives must have faith that, more often than not, Americans will make the sacrifices necessary to preserve national security and prosperity."
First principles, in my mind at least, consists of four basic components:
1. Strong commitment to federalism and limited government
2. Strong commitment to defense, both of our own nation, and those of our allies
3. Strong commitment to free markets and private property rights
4. Strong commitment to originalism as it applies to the Consitution
These principles should ideally be augmented and buttressed by general social con principles (I do not want to get into the nitty-gritty here, as I've learned that many people have fairly strong, detailed ideas about various planks of the social con platform):
1. A respect and compassion for human life
2. A respect and desire to co-exist peacefully with other religions without attacking or attempting to forcefully convert non-believers - the religions must play nice (no fatwas to kill infidels, church bombings, synagogue shootings, racial demagogues dressed up as ministers, etc.)
3. A tolerance of alternative lifestyles (this is absolutely not the same as acceptance or promotion of said lifestyles)
4. A commitment to be a sheepdog, defending at all costs friends, family and neighbors from the wolves who would violate the sanctuary of American society and laws
5. A firm respect for all races as equal human beings
6. A disgust for, and aversion to, criminal behavior (for many, this also equates to morally impermissible behavior - I'm not going to argue this point, as each person's moral compass should guide them - the law is the easiest standard to apply when discussing permissible and impermissible behavior in a national sense)
Abiding by this platform (first principles, and a general adherence to the social con planks) will net you close to a majority in nearly all cases. But a near-majority is not the same as a true majority, or better yet, a super-majority. So, how can conservatives cast the net a little wider, and bring in enough fellow citizens from the center to ensure a super-majority, where the overriding first principles and most (if not all) of the social con principles are steering the ship of state?
The second point, and I cannot overstate this, is to market ourselves better. The center is apolitical in nature, and typically shies away from direct approaches about various pieces of the conservative platform. However, utilizing the first principles as an outreach tool, while using the greater moral scope of the conservative movement as an anchor, is our best bet to quickly change the national voting pattern from 50% indifferent, 25/25% partisan, with a third-party run or independents being the swing votes.
This is because, I believe, a majority of the center simply wishes to be left alone. Given a choice between a platform of higher taxes, more government involvement and a deliberately apathetic approach to national defense, or a platform of originalism, limited government and low taxes, I think the center will break heavily for the Right, and actually turn out to vote in greater numbers to boot. This is contingent on a couple of things:
1. They do not feel attacked on the basis of "moral issues", even if they know the Right to be heavily invested in such things. The center does not necessarily have to agree with the Right on issues like abortion, gay marriage or school prayer (though the merits of opposing the first two and promoting the latter issue are not in doubt to the Right), but they certainly will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the Right in issuing full-throated condemnation of expansionist government and weak national defense.
2. The Right holds to their word to promote their stated principles. We are a group built on integrity, tradition and fundamental truths. To fail to abide by them produces electoral disasters and deep distrust on the part of would-be allies who agree with the message, but not the "messengers".
The above points are, I believe, the true magic of Reagan Republicanism. It's why conservative Democrats, moderates and the Right all broke so heavily for him, twice. To be sure, there were a million exacerbating factors (Iran, Jimmeh's idiotic policies, economic stagnation, so on and so forth), but Reagan was more than the right man at the right time. He was the Right's man at the right time, a vocal advocate of the true nature of American glory and founding principles. The time has come again for us to toss out the chaff, preserve the wheat and take back the center-Right. It will take unusual courage, dedication and good old-fashioned American grit. We can win. We will win. Such is the nature of a true American.
-- Flyover Country
with the notion that conservatism doesn't do enough to help itself, regardless of what angle it is marketed from. I was not intending to blunt the impact or importance of the social con message; rather, I was trying to embrace the more "inclusive" theme of first principles (which is see as being of primary consideration). I believe that social conservatism is an incredible force for social benefit. I guess it's my impersonal view that social conservatism is simply one of the three major legs supporting the conservative movement, with first principles being the animating force of the movement in general.
I'll use the analogy of a motorized tricycle. Each wheel is critical to maintaining the overall balance and performance of the implement, and cannot be separated from the whole, but the motion is driven by the engine (or first principles, in my analogy). Nor do I believe that a two-wheeled motorcycle would be better (thus ejecting the social cons). I believe the movement works best with three main groups supporting the whole.
I guess I'm searching for a unified theory that can win right now, and will also provide a clear-cut path to victory in the future as well. I like much of what you have to say, though. Thanks for your honest input.
We should be able to do it. Most so-cons got politically active due to 5 fed judges imposing secularism on them in schools and the public square.
We should unite with libertarians to say that these issues need to be settled on the local level.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
I consider myself to be a three-legged conservative. During the primary season I was seriously alarmed when so many Huckabee supporters defended his use of the phrase "living and breathing Constitution". I came to conclude that people can be on the right without really being conservative.
I think that there really is a split between the so-cons and the fi-cons in so much as a sufficient number on each side (1) think the other side has been living it up and it is now their turn (2) don't care about the other side.
As someone on both sides who has been pushing for reconciliation, I am starting to lose confidence.
in favor of activist judges mean when they use that term. In fact, Huckabee was saying the opposite, as he was arguing for a constitutional amendment and that our constitution allows same, and so is alive. Huckabee is not a lawyer and is obviously ignorant about a lot of things, but he was not advocating for activist conservative judges.
Trust me. I am a lawyer and Bork is my God! (After Jesus of course)
That said, as you probably know, I was for Fred and Mitt and even Rudy at the beginning.
I actually don't think there is an actual significant split on issues. I think that the media spins a split with selective quotes from non-representative "leaders."
I think the main problem for the self-identified fi-cons is that they have yet to go beyond slogans to formulate and sell a real smaller government agenda that shows the public what their vision would look like, how its better than today and how we get there. Their rhetoric scares people used to the nanny state.
So-cons, on the other hand are quite narrow and specific. Judges that don't make laws.
I actually think McCain is a good compromise in this respect, and I g-tee that so-cons will come out and vote in large numbers against obama.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
I just think it took that incident for me to better understand how disjointed we have become.
We have a lot to learn from Huckabee in terms message and style.
He shined in debates. He had a pulse.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
a leave us alone IN OUR STATES AND LOCALITIES position. I think we need to emphasize that instead of const amendments. This is a bit of a shift for me due to Fred's arguments.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
There is really nothing more I can add.
I have always said there are solutions to issues social conservatives and liberals might agree on. Greanted my idea needs refining, but I think it can work.
(even though he did actually add something - just an affectionate dig medium sizegatorfive)
Simply brilliant man.
more later
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
you shouldn't have any trouble welcoming this guy (a "moderate independent") or this guy into our ranks, right? After all, that would help us move to the center.
You didn't do it in your first post, and you still haven't done it here: demonstrate how you're going to compromise on either the defense or the fiscal aspects of conservatism - only on social issues. This is the same thing as the previous posting. No difference. You simply dropped the inflammatory terminology and added some Reagan flavoring.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
in absolutes? Pure political theory, as I've said, exists only in a vacuum. The absolutists on either side are always destined to exist either as a vocal minority, or are relegated to the dustbin of history. Nowhere in this platform is social conservatism sacrificed on the altar of winning. It is a placement of priorities in order to achieve a larger ends.
Try to see what I've written from this viewpoint: would you rather remain a purist, and see your issues pushed aside anyway by a left-controlled majority, or be willing to tone down the rhetoric on heavily-partisan issues, and see your policies triumph in the long run?
What better serves your purpose in an imperfect, corrupted world? Is it losing by remaining bold and strategically flawed, or winning at minimal cost? The way I see it, you are not sacrificing principles by marketing one set of priorities over another. You are enabling the whole (in this case, the Right) to achieve a greater end. I guarantee you this, bs - if you are always unwilling to see the forest for the trees, you will forever find yourself lost in the woods.
A Left government will never promote and advocate the values we live and breathe on. A Right-controlled government, elected by a center-right coalition based on first principles, will enable you to see your values enacted as policy. In this, the cost of losing is far greater than the cost of winning.
I've asked at least five times and you have not answered it.
The question is: would you propose that the GOP welcome those who oppose the Iraq war or those who support tighter restrictions on free trade or those who support socialized medicine?
For the umpteenth time - from everything of yours I've read, your definition of centrist is restricted to eliminating social conservative positions from the GOP. Either answer the question and prove me wrong, or confirm my conclusion.
Let's be practical here for a moment - if we just would back down on our rigid, unwavering support for the Iraq war, then we'd cast a far wider net and have many more people open to supporting GOP candidates. After all, the exit polls from the 2006 elections showed clearly that the biggest issue that sent voters to Dem candidates was the GOP support for the Iraq war. If all you want to do is draw in more voters and ensure a GOP victory, then let's cave on the big kahuna...it'll be a lot more effective.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
I think you're trying to pigeonhole me into making a carte blanche rejection of social cons to prove your point. My point all along has been that none of the three major legs are rejected outright, but instead we focus on marketing the "tie that binds", i.e. first principles. Not every conservative will necessarily agree with whole-cloth social, fiscal or defense conservatism as they exist in their purest form. However, I believe that the first principles are what unites us all as conservatives, and therefore is what should be focused on when reaching out from the Right into the center.
You are reading my promotion of defense and free markets (#'s 2 and 3) as first principles, while seeing nothing for the social cons. In this, you read into what I wrote as an attack on social conservatism and an attempt to remove them from the platform. I am not ushering the social cons to the back of the bus. I think you've staked out an unmovable position here, and I respect your absolute commitment to social conservatism. Just know that not every American does. Nearly every American, however, wants fiscal and defensive conservatism, because those are a little bit easier to grasp in a fundamental fashion. This is why I chose to highlight them as the walls of the movement, with socially conservative values as the foundation.
In that alone, you have answered the question implicitly. You have obfuscated and avoided the core issue, which that you say that "socially conservative values (are) the foundation" but you will only compromise on those and not any others.
Same old, same old. Another libertarian. May I suggest http://www.amconmag.com/2005_03_14/article1.html?
Nothing new here, as I suspected all along.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
Let me preface my comment with the admission that I am still trying to wrap my brain around the political language used by everyone here; my democrat background is way too used to language that describes feelings, not actual substance - I am in recovery so to speak. Anyway, it seems to me that you are bent on trying to rewrite the platform of Repubs to make it a little more p.c. for our times; quick to point out though that you don't want to throw out social principals with the bath water. Rather, allow the social conservative principles to be more of an afterthought so we don't scare off the skittish center. Unfortunately, to do so would be to violate your second point as to why those in the center would move towards the right. If we are "a group built on integrity, tradition and fundamental truths" would it not be failing to abide by those principles if we were to now send a slightly different message to appease the undecided and uncaring? And to that end to "produce electoral disasters and deep distrust". No, now is the time to stand firm for ALL that encompasses our party; your "first principles" and social principles on even ground. Obviously there is a divide within the party as to which direction to go, and I understand the temptation to explain in softer terms that we aren't as bad as they think we are - what with the idea that Barack Obama could potentially be the next leader of this country and the sad state of affairs that would bring. Personally I like my politics like I like my religion (and I'm sure you could've guessed that) and I'm not about to rewrite the Bible because the times are getting tough. I will stick to my guns and have high hopes that in time more people will understand the party I now stand with; because I've explained it correctly not sugarcoated it. Please let it be noted as well that I am not waiting for the next Reagan. I will get behind the nominee, but I won't sit quietly when that person goes against the previously stated principles of the party and likewise I won't be thumbing my nose at the party's traditional stance because it's unpopular at this time.
and avoid to a degree the problems in your last diary.
Kudos for working hard to refocus the discussion. Expanding the tent is a great idea as long as we don't follow the Democrat method of standing for everything and ending up standing for nothing. Still, I for one appreciate your perseverance in coming back to try again after hitting the headwind last time. Recommended for your efforts. Keep on plugging.
I too will recommend because I'm glad for the discussion. You make a very convincing argument and I know you aren't alone in your opinion. I look forward to further analysis and perhaps even resolution.
so long as what we're talking about here is -marketing.-
I think most Conservatives would agree that your basic "platform" is, for the most part, what Conservatism has always been built on (with the exception of 'tolerance' for alternative lifestyles -- I think it's needless to have it as part of a stated platform; I prefer apathy); it's just that the Left has co-opted much of our language of real equality and transformed it to equality of outcome (throwing money at people will, sadly, always be a bigger vote-getter than telling them they have the power to -earn- money).
It's too early to deconstruct that enormous run-on sentence I just wrote... if it's confusing, let me know.
In any event, what I'm seeing with this post is not so much the idea of compromise, but rather that of focusing on shared values. This is, over-all a great idea, in theory... and works well with many, as demonstrated by Reagan, and by the continued presence of "Rockefeller Republicans" within our ranks.
Having said that, though, there comes a time when the focus on shared values -becomes- a request (or demand) for compromise -- as evidenced by the current situation within the Republican Party. And, basically, those who hold social conservative values (I myself hold MANY of them) are unwilling to compromise. This is to be expected -- they wouldn't be values if we would willingly part with them at the first mention of political failure.
If the Republican Party is going to embrace this "big tent" idea, then, basically, those who are apathetic about social values are going to have to give way to those who are passionate about them, to an extent. What this means in the short term is not asking SoCons to compromise on things like Abortion.
What I'm basically saying (and failing miserably at keeping it simple -- hey, you try doing this with toddlers running around demanding attention) is that if the "big tent" idea causes the Republican Party to lose its identity -- to transform into "democrat lite" -- then screw the "big tent." .
rstreu, I agree with what you're saying. I do sincerely believe it is possible to market ourselves better, become a "big tent", while remaining strong in our core principles.
I'll use a very basic example. If we build Widget A, and it comes with three attractive features, then we find ourselves wondering how to bring it to market. Do we emphasize Feature 1 over Features 2 and 3? Or is Feature 3 the superior avenue of marketability?
The answer rests in your target market. Does Consumer X desire Feature 1, 2 or 3? So we test-market. Consumers X, Y and Z each have a preference for Features 1, 2 and 3, so they each buy Widget A, while being apathetic towards what they consider to be ancillary. The thing is, they all bought Widget A, knowing full-well that there are features they care less about, while focusing on the one(s) they do like.
My point in this whole thing has been that we on the Right need to understand that our conservative movement is more than the sum of its parts. It is more than fiscal, defense and social conservatism. That recipe has an alchemical nature whereby the whole of conservatism is transformed into something of greater value than the three legs taken separately. I sincerely believe this, which is why it puzzles me that some commenters are trying to rip the idea to shreds because they see it as a veiled attempt to hijack the party and move it either to the Left, or into the radical libertarian Right.
It is precisely that attitude I'm trying to overcome. It is a mindset such as this that will ensure defeat. Ronald Reagan, the ostensible hero to the Right, had this to say about absolutist politics:
The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor."
Again, I'm not proposing to eject all morality and values from the conservative movement. I'm merely emphasizing different features to a target market that is looking towards them. It's bad business, and worse politics, to demand that others adhere to a 20-point platform, else they're not to be trusted. Mark my words: if we on the Right do not come up with a way to appeal to potential allies in the middle, then the Left surely will. And since the Left currently holds the reigns of power in government, the center will inevitably move to the Left, as lefty policies and regulations will force them there.
and I agree. But there is a temptation, becoming more and more prevalent, to deride Social Conservatism. The thinking, evidently, is that Social Conservatism is a hard sell, so rather than do what you suggest and emphasize the other planks in the platform, we get the suggestion that SoCon principles should be abandoned, and that those who won't consider it are being too rigid, are bigoted, or don't belong in the Party (Let's not forget part of the reason Johny Mac is so very unpopular with SoCons -- or the recent bouts of infighting here on RS). Which, of course, goes against the very nature of the "big tent."
I will say this: I think your approach is a winner. To not deride or abandon planks that are a "hard sell" -- the SoCon plank is real, and it stays -- but to emphasise the other legs with which more people would agree.
And finally, I would add, that if we're to be a complete party, which satisfies every plank, the leader of that party -- the presidential nominee -- ought to be a champion of ALL THREE.
.
You hit the nail on the head with this comment:
And finally, I would add, that if we're to be a complete party, which satisfies every plank, the leader of that party -- the presidential nominee -- ought to be a champion of ALL THREE.
A million agreements here, my friend. I'm rooting for Sanford, DeMint, Hensarling, Gingrich, Palin and Jindal.
Thanks for being willing to consider the larger point. I'm glad many seem to be realizing that I'm not abandoning the SoCons. The Right has too long been under fire for its values and principles, and the SoCons tend to get the brunt of it, so I understand their reticence on considering a "big tent" marketing approach. The SoCons are indispensable, and critical to maintaining the moral and political compass of the Right.
consider.
One way to summarize these alternative thoughts is to say the following:
Huckabee did a lot better in 2008 than most would have expected
What I am getting at is that there a quite few social conservatives out there who don't really care about free trade, union overreach, and free markets. I am not saying that they are against such things, I am just saying that they are not really motivated by such things.
Huckabee ended up saying the right things on many of these types of issues, but it is clear that his heart wasn't really in it (given his past statements and actions). His views were reflected by quite a few posters at RedState who considered themselves to be die hard conservatives who nonetheless casually criticize CEO salaries, Big Pharma, free trade deals, etc.
I am not sure your "leave us alone" coalition will ultimately be more successful than the alternative. Being from Michigan, I can tell you that there are a lot of Reagan democrats in this state--people who love America, are socially conservative, but think that government should do more to fix this and that, support taxing the rich more, and otherwise quite interventionist when it comes to the economy.
I am not convinced that a "leave us alone" coalition is the best way to approach the electorate. Why not embrace social conservative issues (which is what Dems are doing in Red districts), and instead take the basic step of saying that Republicans are not the party of the nanny-state telling you whether or not you can smoke, what goes on in your bedroom, etc.
We can appeal to the "leave us alone" coalition voter by better explaining the goals of social conservatives instead of muting the social conservative message.
Im summary, conservativism needs to be better explained in all of its aspects. Approaches that involve muting the message to avoid people miscontruing what conservatism is actually how we got here in the first place.
In other words, perceived weaknesses of conservatism should be addressed head on. Conservatism should not be softened to avoid the criticism.