The future of the Republican party
Is the Republican party moving in the right direction?
“In the latter months, the party moved further to the right,” said Colin Powell, a respected Republican who served as General and Secretary of State under the administrations of President George H.W. Bush and President George W. Bush respectively. She said Palin was a “polarizing effect” when she campaigned on “small town values being good.” Powell described this tactic by the Republican party as a failed, back-fired attempt to use polarization for political gain.
Powell believes conservative values are not the problem. Instead, he believes the future of the Republican party rests on whether the party can appeal to minorities. He says that in 20 years, “the majority will be the minority.” The Republican party, according to Powell, has failed to address issues facing minorities by choosing instead to influence voters solely based on Republican principles and dogma.
David Brooks, senior editor at The Weekly Standard and a columnist for The New York Times, said the Republican party would take “a long time” before being competitive again. He compares the current party to the British Conservative party, which took 10 years to regain political prominence. Brooks believes the power base of the Republican party currently rests with “people who want to go back to Reagan,” which he views as “too narrowing.” In his words, “The entire Northeast, the entire West Coast … has been driven away … [This is] narrowing your party.”
The party, according to both Powell and Brooks, must identify with metropolitan values to be competitive again.
Do you agree or disagree, and why?
I believe the Republican Party should embrace its pro-life heritage. I identify myself as a Reagan Republican.
The basic principles of individual self reliance, limited government, lower taxes, moral responsibility, have always been the strong core of the Republican Party. What hurt us was not the “shift to the right” brought about by Sarah Palin, what hurt us was much simpler.
Republicans have generally had one thing in common. No matter your social views, Republicans as a whole have identified themselves as Fiscal Conservatives.
Thanks to the failures of a Republican led Congress and a President who believes in bailouts, that principle was lost to the voters. We no longer had a base.
Sarah Palin’s conservative rally woke up a segment of the party that was willing to stay home rather then vote for McCain. If not for her, the Obama’s numbers would have been more like Reagan’s whopping of Mondale.
First, as Republicans, we must focus on our Fiscal Conservatism, that is what binds us. Then we can begin to once again discuss the social issues that we all believe in and what make our party great… truly the Big Tent that it is.
I believe that now — more than ever — we have to be the party of fiscal conservatism. Americans, by and large, are getting fed up with government bailouts to the atypical white male in a suit.
If we are ever to grow and sustain our political prominence, we’re going to need to reach out to minorities. So yea, I agree with both Powell and Brooks.
That’s not to say that all Republicans must give up their good-natured, conservative values. There are conservative parts of this country. However, we cannot ignore those areas that may be deemed as non-conservative territory just for the sake of conservatism.
If moderate Republicans can be competitive in more metropolitan and urban areas, then we can potentially win on a populist message. But we, as Republicans, do need some sort of connection and guidance to one another. And I fully believe that rests in fiscal and economic conservative principles.
I think one of the problems current conservatism has is that it is, as Mr. Powell so succinctly put it, “shouting at the world”. i.e., we are telling the other people that they are wrong, but when they challenge us on our beliefs, we simply yell more loudly, instead of actually giving them solid reasoning, and engaging them in true debate.
I strongly believe that conservative values - both fiscal and social - can have a place in metropolitan areas, et al. It’s all about their perception, which is forged largely by our presentation.
I also agree with Mr. Trabuco in that we must unite on principles of fiscal conservatism. We have one voice in regards to the social aspect, which I fear leads some to call us the “party of fundamentalists / evangelicals / (insert religious-right term here)”. Now, while we need not forsake these values, we should rediscover for ourselves what a true fiscal conservative is, and we should unite under that definition.
even if the majority is infact the minority in 20 yrs, which i have no problem believing, the Republicans should continue to speak up for the party members and what we all believe, no matter of numbers. it is time for people in washington to consider what is right and good for their country of greater importance than their own personal interest or political agenda. poltics shouldn’t be based on winning or losing or who has more constituants, i mean, i know it must, but more importanlty it is about giving every american a voice. Ronald Reagan was the perfect example of what a Republican should be.
I strongly disagree with General Powell and Mr. Brooks. The problem is not that the Republican Party has swung too far to the right. The problem is that the party has swung too far in practice to the left.
We were given six years with a Republican President and majorities in both houses, and instead of leading in the spirit of the Contract with America, we became the party of big spending, government intrusion and legislative pork. The Democrat sweep during the 2006 and 2008 election cycles wasn’t America saying, “We want more liberal policies,” or, “We want more appeal to minority interests.” It was America saying, “Throw the bums out.” The cruel irony is that in seeking more representative government (which the Democrats sincerely believe they can provide) the American people have voted for an alternative which will ultimately lead to less representative government, because the Democrats want to take us down the road of socialism, and socialism only works when government controls the people, not the other way around.
What we face right now, as Reagan so eloquently explained in his 1964 “A Time for Choosing” speech, is not a choice between left and right, but a choice between up and down:
“You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream - the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order - or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, ‘The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.’”
The principle Reagan was speaking of has not changed and never will.
Because of the actions of our party during the past eight years many of us have become confused, wondering, “What do we really stand for as conservatives?” I humbly submit that what we stand for is - and always has been - the preservation of personal freedom, the right to self rule, and for government which is run of the people, by the people and for the people.
What we need right now as a party is to have strong leadership that is governed by the principles list above; not leadership which is subject to the weather vane of popular opinion. We need leaders who, when nominated for office, are not led by their campaigns but instead are leading their campaigns.
If someone is not capable of leading their own campaign and is instead subject to handlers, they have no business running for high office. If their handler is doing the leading, then the person should step down from the campaign and let the handler run for office.
I think the last election demonstrates clearly that we are not headed in the right direction, and that moving toward the middle is not the answer. (Would Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, or any other conservative have won less states than McCain.) Personally, I feared that the election was sealed the moment McCain voted for the bailout. How can we call ourselves the party of small government and fiscal conservatism when the leaders of our party have supported the kinds of things we’ve seen in the past few years? (Bailouts, a huge perscription drug program, etc.)
I wish General Powell had elaborated on what he meant by us becoming more “metropolitan.” It is almost like he took the term “small-town values” literally. I think the expression has come to refer to things like independence, individualism, self-sufficiency, and a system of ethics based upon specific moral absolutes. (California is hardly seen as a place of “small-town” values, yet look at how Prop. 8 turned out.)
I realize that I’m probably older than most of the people on here, at 42, but I do remember when Reagan won a virtual clean sweep in ‘84, the first year I voted. Traditionally conservative philosophy can resonate throughout the country when properly, and sincerely, espoused. But if we try to appease the “other side” we will simply end up standing for nothing.
Also, on the matter of minorities, it seemed a little odd to hear General Powell complain personally. All he need do is look at his own resume…or that of Secretary Rice. But it is sad that Bush has been the exception…the party as a whole hasn’t done much to bring in diversity. Folks like Michael Steele and Bobby Jindal need to rise to the top; and I sometimes wonder why J. C. Watts wasn’t more visible in his tenure either. In addition, how much is being done to recruit minority candidates?
Sorry for my rambling…this is a really good topic. (By the way, I find Sarah Palin to be a breath of fresh air. It’s rather unfair to accuse someone of being polarizing when they were demonized from the moment they hit the stage.)
The Republican Party has nothing wrong with its ideology. The reason why people chose the Democrats over us this time because when the Republican Party took control, they did an inept job of ruling the country and became corrupt. The party is not too far right. The party as of right now does not have to move to the centre. The party needs REAL solutions to REAL problems. We must talk about ALL issues not just national security and taxes. We must talk about healthcare and the environment even if it is really hard to talk these issues. We must find a REAL solution to the Health crisis in this country via free market ideas. We must eliminate the problem of climate change even if we cannot agree on its origin. We must find a solution to kill the national debt. Becoming the party of solutions will help the Republican party in the future.
Not much to add to what GOPer and Ted had to say. I completely agree.
Something to think about…the people I know that are fiscally conservative but socially more liberal tend to vote for (R), at least up until this election, because money/economy is their most important voting principal. However, I think we have to maintain a socially conservative platform in order to get the base out, as Palin demonstrated, as social conservatism is their most important issue! If we can demonstrate conservative fiscal responsibility while maintaining our social conservatism, we will pull many of the socially liberal but fiscally conservative votes while at the same time getting out our base. This is how we will win elections. Nominating someone who is middle of the road (McCain) didn’t work, even though he is a highly respected individual, and he would have been absolutely crushed if it wasn’t for Palin.
And if Prop 8 can win in California, than I don’t think social conservatism is a losing issue.
I respectfully disagree with you, Liz, that somehow the party cannot appeal to minorities. Many Hispanics, Blacks, Asians have conservative values.
James:
According to the interview, Powell said conservative values were not the problem. He seemed to be referring to the party’s approach in courting the minority vote.
I supported Fred Thompson in the race because he understood states rights and conservative economics. He talked about abortion being left to the states and that we should look to balance the budge while returning to a sound monetary policy. His latest video sadly makes fun of the fact that we just print or rather create money.
Sarah Palin wasn’t bad; she supported Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul on many issues and that takes courage.
The Republican party needs to return to the party of big ideas. That is: limited government, personal freedoms and sound money. For example, Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater.
I disagree with Powell. Just because the Democratic party is now in control does not mean the Republican party is going to wane and disappear. When the next elections roll around, people will be tired of Democratic policies and the power will swing back to Republican hands just like it always does. The pendulum never stops, it always swings, which makes this country so beautiful!!
I agree with Powell when he criticizes the polarizing effects of the Republican Party message this last campaign, but I don’t agree with him when he says the Party needs to start “appealing” to black and hispanic minorities to win elections.
We should not be trying to “appeal” to any specific group. Instead, the politics of limited government and fiscal conservatism should allow for state and local governments to become more important in the lives of their citizens.
This goes hand in hand with the “morality” issue I always see presented in comments here. To be a proponent of limited government, it seems only logical that one would support individual freedom, as the opposite of that would be a stronger and more active government. I think it is important to lose this “we are the moral party” slogan that seems to have taken a hold of Republicans. We will win elections by treating people like adults, allowing them to live their lives, and expecting them to act responsibly.
I work with a awesome African-American teacher who wore a charcoal gray, deep purple pinstripe suit the day after the election. This man is conservative in every sense of the word except he votes Democrat. I asked him about his suit and he said, “I’m wearing this to honor my father and my uncle who did not live to see a black man as president.” All my life I’ve expected to see a black man become President, but this gentleman (mid-30s, degreed) hadn’t dared to believe this. For the first time, I understood that minorites really do believe that the government and the Republicans are out to get them. Our ideology is superior, we simply have a public relations problem. As they present themselves, we do need to have ethnically diverse spokespeople for our party.
As a further note, I disagree with Colin Powell on many levels, and I am glad he is no longer a diverse spokesman for our party. I believe he represents the east coast elite nobles noblige wing of the part.
John McCain was everything that Colin Powell has ever wanted in a candidate, and what happens when the moderate left gets a choice between a real moderate and a liberal? They choose the liberal. I think there are other strong voices in the party like Micheal Steele who actually VOTED for a republican to prescribe solutions for the party.
I agree with Colin on several points.
Being a Republican is not the instant game of saying “Since the Democrats say this, we’re saying the opposite!” It doesn’t work like that, and when the present GOP tries to do that, they fall into a negative light that turns off a lot of more moderate Republicans. The Republicans that sat on the fence and didn’t vote (or voted for Obama) did so because the GOP message was muddled, negative and irresponsible. This actually accounted for a lot of votes this year.
I agree with people like Daniel, Chris and Micheal (other commentors) that the Republican party went somewhere too far to the right then tried to rebound too far to the left. That’s not the answer - the answer is to stand up for the basic principles of liberty, smaller government, financial conservatism and the understanding of peoples’ rights. Not pandering to small groups of religious or liberal individuals. Reagan wasn’t an intolerant talking head - he did the job of President to the best of his ability doing what was right at the time for the country.
And that’s what the Republican party should stand for - not wallowing in trying to push some sort of an “agenda” in the self-interests of a few.
Palin represented many of the values that so many Americans hold true. I consider myself a Goldwater-Reagan Republican. A party is supposed to be polarizing, in my thought, because each party offers 2 different answers for one problem. Interestingly enough, many conservatives identified themselves better with Obama, still trying to figure that one out. I do not think the goal of the party should be to move to a more moderate view just to bring those who are more progressive in certain respects.
We should stick to our guns: Smaller government, strong defense, protection of life, taxes, etc. Transforming the party platforms will only turn voters away from republican ideals because we will garner much criticism for shifting with the political winds. This is the party of Lincoln, Roosevelt (the good one). Let’s not lose our focus for 2010 just to please a liberal biased media or Colin Powell who did not rally to fix what he saw as the deficiencies of the party but instead endorsed a candidate that does not represent that values I would suspect he holds dear as a Republican.
Some people here need some history. I have a lot of links in my opinion article on the Republican Party. I’ve been a Republican for 27 years - but it’s way too far to the right now. The GOP was NOT founded on pro-life - that’s a relatively late entry to the platform. The GOP was NOT founded on moral rightness, on forcing moral views on other peoples’ lives. The GOP was NOT founded as a Christian party designed to force Christianity on the country. We are the party of freedom, of smaller government, of getting government OUT of our lives. Today’s party leaders are all about controlling our lives top to bottom, bigger government of restrictions and personal-life-control.
Check out Crazy for God by Frank Schaeffer.
Cheers!
Thank you, Chuck Lasker! Well said. So much of the noise from the right these days is about religion and religiously-based notions. Those notions may be valid, but it’s a mistake to define Republican politics by them. Smaller federal government — absolutely. Fiscal conservativism — undoubtedly. But this “pro-life” absolutism is misplaced and misleading.
The country needs a strong conservative party, to control a tendency to the left inherent in U.S. governmental theory. Face facts: the U.S. is at its core a liberal experiment in government. If you were conservative in 1776 you’d have been a Tory, and had your view prevailed we’d all be royal subjects. What keeps our government alive is the balancing effect of a healthy, realistic conservative wing. Getting sidetracked by Bible-beating and intolerance only weakens our party and unbalances our country.
I believe that the Republican Party can rise again by using what Christ has said. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Talk is cheap and that’s what Republicans have done too much of, is talk, talk, talk about our values but not enough action to support them. We can support people temporarily till they get back on their feet but to do what? What have the Republicans done to help get down-and-out folks back to work, on their feet, self-reliant? We talked about Bush’s tax cuts but why did we make them so that they would expire at all? Why not indefinitely? If you remember the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus fed the people, so I ask, where are the fishes and loaves from the Republicans?
Leave a comment!
Latest Video
Recent Events
View more photos >
Connect On
Subscribe
© 2009 The New Republicans. All rights reserved. By using this site, you accept our Terms of Use.