There is unrest amongst the grass roots and discontent with all politicians – not just Democrats. At the moment, it looks good for the Republican Party but it is a long way until November 2010. Things change and the unpredictable can alter any trajectory in politics. Therefore, the Republicans need to be coming up with candidates who will stand for something, not just counting on the voters being angry with the other side.
Whether candidates are chosen via caucuses or primaries, the Republican Party needs to have a clear identity to present to the public. While RINO hunting can be a valid sport there can be a tendency to go overboard in purity tests. Likewise, the “Big Tent” approach can lead to leftwing liberals like Dede Scozzafava running as a Republican. It would help if the GOP actually stood for something basic while still allowing a variety of candidates to be fielded in the very different districts that make up the political landscape.
I submit that we must use a variation of Reagan’s three legs of a stool test. Reagan’s idea was that a Republican movement needed to be fiscally conservative, socially conservative, and defense hawks. This is the ideal for a candidate and can be achieved in solidly red districts – in fact it must be the criteria there.
But what of weaker areas? Realistically, we have to face that there will be districts that a pure conservative cannot win. Still, we need a Republican who will vote most of the time with the caucus. By that, I don’t mean 51% of the time. In those weaker districts a Republican who votes conservatively 66% of the time is the bare minimum.
In choosing a candidate, I have come to the conclusion the person must meet at least two of the following criteria:
1. The candidate must be fiscally conservative, no exceptions! A true fiscal conservative will also favor small government and won’t do anything to grow government. This criteria is absolute and inflexible.
Next at least one of the following stances must be held:
2. The candidate is socially conservative. This generally means pro-life, pro defense of marriage, and/or pro Second Amendment. The beliefs must be solid and not based on pandering.
3. The candidate is a defense hawk who supports the military. Our men and women in the armed forces need all the backing they can get as we confront terrorism and other threats.
Two out of three should give us conservative legislators who will work together well at the state level and in Congress. This is The 66% Rule.
Holding only one of these conservative credentials is not enough even in the bluest of districts. In order for the Republican Party to have a cohesive identity and work together, there has to be common ground other than merely having the label “Republican.” It isn’t enough to just win elections – the goal has to be advancing our political philosophies. Otherwise, the Democratic Party will continue to use divide and conquer tactics to get their legislation passed.
If we keep the Rule of the Three Legged Stool in solidly conservative districts and follow The 66% Rule for weaker districts, I believe Republicans can win in 2010 and 2012. More importantly, it will give us candidates who will advance the conservative cause and undo some of the damage done by the current Congress and administration.
While this is a broad and simplified set of criteria, anything more complicated becomes cumbersome and subject to constant amendments. There will be “moderates” who will be upset at the rule and there will be “true conservatives” equally unhappy with it. It doesn’t matter. Things are at a dangerous point in our governance and we don’t have time to play internecine games that only strengthen the political Left.
We need to keep things simple and focused while remembering that most of the country considers themselves conservative one way or another. The public craves politicians who will stand for something and actually live by their words. There was a whiff of desperation in the voting choices made in 2008, a hope that if everything was turned over to the Democrats things would be better. Many Democrats shaded their stated positions toward the middle to get elected, much like President Obama did and more recently Owens in NY-23. Once in place, they didn’t live up to their statements and went left.
The Republican Party lost its identity some time back and the voters haven’t forgiven us for it. We need to win the people over and to do that we have to have cohesion in our ranks. Until then, any victories we have will be short lived. With a true identity, the Republican Party could retake power and stay there for some time.
2 comments:
Pat,
that's kind of where I am, but more like 80/20.....66% will do it. On the social issues, my weakest personal area where I can overlook many things, I think the harpies cost elections. We Republicans are known for shooting ourselves in the foot or mouth and so it is beginning to look like we can lose it with our race to endorsement.
There is always a danger of having the wrong candidate endorsed, whether it be by a small cadre of activists or by Republican voters in a primary. I'm curious as to how CA handles endorsements -- any insights?
In the end, I believe in decentralization so that each district chooses their own candidate. I think that's why we saw the "litmus test" at the RNC shot down. We might not have gotten Scott Brown in with it in place.
Post a Comment