Republicans, Conservatives and Independents

Since the November loss, not just for the presidency but also regarding seats in the Senate and the House of Representatives, there has been an ongoing debate on how to rebuild the party. The two predominant ideas are either to make the party more appealing to Independents or to return to core principles of conservatives. This competing idea is playing out in the NY23 race where the GOP nominated a moderate candidate Dede Scozzafava (as they called her) with the belief she will be more appealing to independents. In response, conservatives and conservative commentators have come out roaring against a candidate they consider either a RINO at best, or a far left at worse, in favor of a non GOP candidate from the Conservative party of NY, Doug Hoffman.

Conservatives Call On Scozzafava To Withdraw
Conservatives roar; Republicans tremble

I believe the GOP bosses are making several huge mistakes. Firstly, all successful organizations need people to do the work and believe in the work. Without the base, the party is certain to fail.

Rasmussen: 73 percent say GOP leaders have lost touch with Republican base

Secondly, there is also a divergence of the party's goal and the base's goal politically. The party wants to win election. Thus it makes perfect sense for the party to focus on candidates they believe are electable with appeals to the middle. But the base is more concerned with how the party will govern once elected. By having candidates that are far removed from the base's ideology, once elected they don't necessarily vote with the party. See Arlen Specter and Olympia Snowe as examples.

Thirdly, the choice between electability and adherence to party ideology is a false choice because you could have both. Independent voters are frequently not wedded to a particular ideology. They do not have their own party or party platform. They thus choose from what is offered by the current parties come election time. Thus when the choice is between idea X and idea similar to X, the tendency will be to go with idea X itself rather than X-lite. But when the choice is between X and Y, where both are clearly different, Y becomes distinguished and appealing in its own right.

Obviously if an idea is clearly bad, it will not be chosen. I do not believe this is the case with the ideas of Conservatism. I believe the ideas of Conservatism continue to be sound and appealing to most of Americans, not just conservatives. As is, conservative outnumber liberals and twice as many Americans are becoming more conservative than more liberal.

While some politicians focus on winning elections,
On the NY23 Race, We Have A Practical Choice To Make

other remembers why why politicians are elected for office to begin with.

The votes of every member of Congress affect every American, so it's important for all of us to pay attention to this important Congressional campaign in upstate New York. I am very pleased to announce my support for Doug Hoffman in his fight to be the next Representative from New York's 23rd Congressional district. It's my honor to endorse Doug and to do what I can to help him win, including having my political action committee, SarahPAC, donate to his campaign the maximum contribution allowed by law.

* * *

Political parties must stand for something. When Republicans were in the wilderness in the late 1970s, Ronald Reagan knew that the doctrine of "blurring the lines" between parties was not an appropriate way to win elections. Unfortunately, the Republican Party today has decided to choose a candidate who more than blurs the lines, and there is no real difference between the Democrat and the Republican in this race. This is why Doug Hoffman is running on the Conservative Party's ticket.

Republican Party & Conservatives Ideology

According to wikipedia, conservatism in the US is described thus:

is a major American political ideology. In contemporary American politics, it is often associated with the Republican Party. Core conservative principles include a trust in God and country, and many U.S. conservatives support a fiscal policy rooted in small government, laissez faire capitalism, and supply-side economics. In foreign policy, American conservatives usually advocate some moderate aspects of "American exceptionalism", a belief that the U.S. is unique among nations and that its standing and actions do and should guide the course of world history.

The above description links two things that are currently incompatible in practice, the Republican Party as a vehicle to elect Conservative politicians with Conservativism consisting of "a fiscal policy rooted in small government, laissez faire capitalism, and supply-side economics. The reality is that any conservatives entering politics may believe sincerely in small government but how can one reasonably expect anyone to work to make one's job less essential? How to be in government in order to make government smaller? Isn't this what is expected of a Conservative Republicans?

Democratic politicians believe in big government. They enter politics with the goal of enlarging the role of government. The longer they stay in government, the larger role they play in government, the more successful they are at achieving their political ideology. This will not be true for Conservative Republicans. The longer Republicans stay in politics, the less conservative they become in terms of small government. Once they lose the Conservative political ideal of small government, they really are no longer Conservatives. They may remain social conservatives or religious conservatives, but even social conservatives prefer the government not to dictate social conducts and even religious conservatives prefer government apart from their church. Thus a Republican politician that is not a Conservative will at best become ineffective as a Conservative, or will betray the Conservative cause.

This is playing itself out in US politics. The Republican Party, as directed by long time DC insiders, long term Republican politicians, is growing away from from Conservative voters political ideation. Witness the low turn out for McCain before Palin and the current Tea Parties. I believe most Republican politicians may earnestly believe they are doing the best they can, and that having been in government longer, they may even know better than the Conservatives that voted them into office. Some I believe already know they have strayed far from Conservatism and just don't care. Some of these latter, like Arlen Spectre, renounce their Republican status and run as a Democrat. Some of these latter continue to masquerade as Republicans and help direct and run the Republican Party. Because of their self-serving dishonesty, these are the most despicable of politicians, Republican or Democrats. Regardless, the longer a Republican stay in the same political office, the less Conservative they become.

As is, the only way I can see to minimize the natural political corruption of Republican politicians is term limits. Republican politicians or the Party should adopt and declare voluntary and self imposed term limits. Waiting for a law to impose term limits is very unlikely to happen. Term limits hurts the Democrats and is counter to their political goals and ideation. Term limits allows Republicans to adhere to their political goals and ideation. I actually believe that when a politician declares he will limit his political career, to achieve a declared goal in a set time, or step away and let another try, will help his electoral chances.

Sarah Palin: 2010 and 2012.

On July 3rd 2009 Sarah Palin declared her political independence from out current politics as usual mess. She did so by resigning from being governor of Alaska rather than waiting till her term expires in 2010. Her surprise resignation has led to speculation of an impending scandal or a mark of erratic lack of endurance for public life. Many, believes her resignation regardless of her reasons signifies the end of her political career. I am not among them.

On first response I too thought this was a bad political move on her part. That she would have been better off finishing out her term in 2010 and subsequently run in 2012, assuming she retains an interest in politics. This is indeed the conventional wisdom. But you just don’t go against conventional wisdom to be contrarian. What could possibly be so urgent that she could not wait until 2010?

Lets look first at what she had to gain by finishing her term. She would have established a track record of executive leadership experience. She then would have had a year plus to then pre-campaign in the lower 48 states. All along she could have continued to increase her fund of knowledge in areas she is weak in (foreign relation and economics) as well as strengthen and refine her political stance regarding energy independence, small government, and strong national defense. She would have remained one of the leading contender going into the Republican primaries.

I stopped at this point trying to figure out what would be so great for Sarah Palin to do the politics as usual pathway to nomination. The primaries are creaky process that completely ignore must win states, in many places open to democrats and independents to manipulate the nomination process, and encourages candidates to yield to the front runner. And for Republicans in particular it is a process that somehow manages to nominate the next in line, like Dole and McCain. This implies that the Republican Poobahs have a lot to say in the nomination. The Democrat nomination process in 08 was certainly suspect for manipulation to nominate Obama over Hillary.

Even if Sarah decides to go through this nomination process, she would be challenging the Republican Washington DC Inside the Beltway types. Without broad base political support, she runs the risk of being marginalized and perhaps even passed over. Being stuck in Alaska until the end of 2010 will certainly limit her ability to campaign for other politicians. And politicians owe no debts until they get elected. There are no significant races in 2011. She needs to be able to campaign in the lower 48 starting Spring of 2010 in order to build political debts for 2012.

She may be also contemplating campaigning for local officials running for state offices. I expect her to have significant appeals to local communities and candidates. Why would she do this? Because a few states will be expected to gain congressional seats based on the 2010 census, and it will be the state legislatures that will draw congressional district maps for the 2012 elections. Even states that are expected to lose seats could be impacted by her campaigning for local officials to minimize loss of conservative congressional seats.

Note that Palin has stated she will campaign for conservatives, not just republicans. This is exceedingly smart for three reasons. Firstly, there has been a growing disparity between the national Republican party and the conservative voters. This is likely a result of Republican Poobahs living too long inside the DC beltway. Secondly, if she does win the Republican nomination, she will need the support of conservative Democrats in the general election. Thirdly, if she can help conservative democrats raise money, they might become less beholden to the Democrat National Committee.

And she can help campaign against Obama’s awful economic policies as a way to initiate relationships with fiscal conservative Democrats and Republicans. None of her options to build a lower 48 political base and influence can be achieved as a Governor of Alaska.

Sarah Palin's Resignation

Two thoughts on John’s post at Powerline on Sarah Palin to comment on.

Is Sarah Palin an arch-conservative? No. She has social conservative beliefs on military, religion, gays, and abortion, thus she has taken a stance and of a character that does appeal to arch-conservatives. That she does not seek to impose these beliefs during governance should make her appealing to independents. As a politicians who believes in small government, fiscal responsibility, and good governance as you pointed out, she should be appealing to all voters. I do not believe this has changed at all since August of 2008. Yes, her selection as McCain’s Vice-President running mate opened doors for her and you can argue she is being an opportunist. But given the opportunity to make a positive impact and real change for our nation, she should explore her potential to do so. In fact, I believe it would be irresponsible for anyone, not just her, do hide out and not make a difference.

Is Sarah Palin a target of political attacks? Certainly. Not just in the media but also by frivolous ethic charges. All the ethics charges evaluated thus far has been dismissed. Has the cost been significant? Not really though half a million dollars is a lot. Has the ethics charges been crippling to her governance? Probably and this is hurtful to Alaska’s use of tax payer not just in terms of money but in terms of man power and resources. Has the ethic charges been crippling to her ability to be a politician? Certainly. To resign because of it and retreat from public life would add fuel to the fire and embolden other attacks on other politicians, right or left. To resign because of it and enlarge her public life would completely defeat the political motivations behind the attacks. After all, aren’t the ethic charges intended to anchor her down in Anchorage (i know Juneau is the capital), shut her down and silence her voice? If so, then whenever she appears in the lower 48 at any and all sorts of political and economic events it will be a complete victory over those who seek to corner and limit her political influence.

Is her resignation politically risky? Yes. But to maintain the status quo is defeat. To be paralyzed politically, cost your states resources on frivolity, and encouraged continued devious political attacks, just so she can claim a full term as Governor when campaigning in 2012 is irresponsible.

Conservatives & Republicans

Conservatives and Republicans are not synonymous. The contentious line between the two will only be highlighted with this election losses. There has been consideration for Republicans to build a bigger tent to get more independent voters. Conservatives have considered moving to form their own party that better represent their thoughts. And then there are the Libertarians, with many similar ideologies.

I believe the Republicans should continue to be a political machinery to elect candidates. I believe the Republicans should be a party of strong national defense, sound fiscal policies, small government, personal responsibility, economic opportunity, and family value.

I believe if people can identify personally with 3 or 4 of these six platform, then they should be welcomed into the party, as long as there will not be compromises on the other 2 or 3 platforms. Then we can have that big tent without driving away conservatives or independents. I do not believe there needs to be or should be a split between Conservatives and Republicans. I also believe that it would be a good thing for the Republican Party and conservatives to continue to have some differences of opinion as a contest of ideas can only make both stronger.

I believe the party should also reach out to Libertarians for similar reasons.