I have been following the writings of the various folks on this site for some time. Obviously the intelligence, the passion and the desire is there. What I also unfortunately see is a lot of posts complaining that the party won’t accept the author’s particular brand of hyphenated Republicanism and isn’t that mean of them. To that I can only hand out some tough love and say grow up folks. You are interested in politics? Great. Politics are dirty. And that isn’t a recent development. Read some accounts of the way the Forefathers talked about one another. Political mudslinging, both within and without political parties was probably first pioneered in the Roman senate and continues today. To suggest we can evolve beyond it is akin to suggesting we can evolve beyond the need to breathe.
What we can do though is to move beyond some of the divisiveness in a fairly easy way. The idea is that we stop defining PEOPLE with these ridiculous sub-labels and start labeling our POSITIONS. The intellectual forefather of most modern Republicans, Theodore Roosevelt, was a very outspoken critic of what he called ‘hyphenated Americanism’ in his day. He believed that sub-labels were a barrier to the assimilation of immigrants and were simply un-American. So do not various political sub-labels create similar problems? I admit, I’ve fallen into this trap. My blog was started as a forum for ‘progressive conservatism’ which is something I still believe in, though no longer shout from the mountaintops. Why? Because after the Republican defeats of 2008 I realized the only path forward for the party was unity. That can only be accomplished when we stop giving ourselves these labels, often in an attempt to sound intellectually pedigreed, and start thinking of ourselves as playing for the same team.
The only plausible reason I can think of for this obsession with sub-labels is deniability. It’s a way of being able to say, when someone complains about Republican positions on a given issue, “Oh, I’m not one of them, I’m a (insert sub label) Republican.” How’s that for ‘Republicans United’?
Let me be clear. I don’t like political litmus tests for candidates. I don’t subscribe to the notion that a candidate must have a certain number of boxes checked before they can get party support. What I will suggest is that they should at least have most of the boxes checked in the conservative column if they want to call themselves a Republican. That conservatism can be of the mainline or the moderate variety, but it should still be conservative i.e clearly distinguishable from the positions of the Left.
The problem that folks like Ross Douthat (to reference Dennis’ latest post) and myself see with the current ‘moderates’ in our midst is not an effort to seek moderate forms of conservatism that have the potential to appeal to Independents but rather people who hold positions that can only be characterized as liberal, but insist on calling it ‘moderate Republicanism’. Let me be clear here; there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a Republican/conservative and holding a handful of liberal opinions. I will freely admit that on issues like immigration, I’m pretty liberal and I’m also a real bleeding heart when it comes to my opposition to teaching Intelligent Design. But those positions do no make me a ‘moderate’. They make me a Republican who holds some liberal views. I don’t need a sub-label to explain that.
For the party itself, let me advance what may be a revolutionary idea; let’s stop talking about our various sub-labels for ourselves and talk about the issues. I stand here (metaphorically speaking) as an open-minded Republican who would like to be persuaded why the pro-choice position is right for our party. I also stand here ready to be persuaded as to why I should support gay marriage and how it is compatible with Republicanism. Let’s talk about the ISSUES folks. Let’s refuse to be drawn into circular conversations about moderates and tea partiers and progressives and Centrists and mainliners and Rockefellers and instead talk about the ISSUES that should define our party. Let’s have healthy debates among intelligent people about gun policy. Let’s kick around ideas for a Republican approach to education. Those are the conversations worth having.
That’s my plea. I’m tired of sub-labels and I’m tired of infighting about sub-labels. My line in the sand is this: if you think about the modifier to your Republicanism more than your Republicanism itself, then party politics are not your thing. Modifiers imply self-interest and we have to put ego aside if we are going to truly be Republicans United.
Email this post
From the left side of the aisle – here here!
The question isn’t why gays should be allowed to legally marry, it’s whether the state has the right to prohibit it.
I can see no credible precedent for it.
I believe that “gay” is something people are born with, isn’t it?
If a small percentage of people are born this way, and always have and always will, then isn’t it like a handicap or something? Adults under 4′ or over 7′? By what authority does the state have to keep people who are different from marrying? They aren’t contagious or mentally challenged. Why would anyone want to deny them the same rights as everyone else? (I have several answers for that question)
I think we need to consider the fraud abuse potential. Are college room-mates going to say they’re married to get additional benefits? Do we need to rewrite every law, policy, or rule that provides incentives for marriage? Is that wise? I think marriage is important for children. Hmmmm.
OK, that’s all I’ve got. Oh yeah, what about the constitution? Aren’t they protected from this? why not?
I think many republicans that may not adhere to strict conservative ideology would very much be open to your offer, but they’ll just get chased out every time. Already the extremists not from Florida itself but the national tea party people are getting ready to come down onto Crist in Florida.
In places where economic centrists and social liberals will get a republican win, let them run without having the conservative base far away in some southern region come on in and wreak havoc on them trying to purify the party, as happened in NY 23. People including Hoffman, Palin and others who weren’t even from there crashing the GOP just to satisfy their litmus tests.
It would be great if we could drop the hyphenated labels but understand this, as long as these foolish attempts at purges of centrists from the party by the conservatives keep happening, or the idea that we’re just going to be good soldiers and adhere to conservative ideology, we’ll keep fighting back and the party will continue to be in turmoil. The ball’s not in our court, it’s in the conservative court.
Martin,
If people stop sub-labeling themselves, isn’t it a lot harder to target them for primary and general election challenges? A sub-label is a generalization and it leads to stereotyping. The best way to avoid it is to refuse to be labeled as an individual.
Contrary to popular belief, the good folks of Maine — well known for their liberalism and open mindedness — just said ‘no’ to gay marriage and ‘we the people’ repealed the law that made it legal.
And I don’t think that they bused in their voters from the conservative South.
The challenge is that ‘marriage’ is an emotionally charged word. For all of recorded history ‘marriage’ has been between a man and woman.
Another challenge is that the push to legalize gay marriage is moving faster than the rate of growth among mindsets. It is probably reasonable to assume that anything new can take 1-2 generations (30-50 years) before it becomes ‘normal’. Immense strides have occurred and mostly only in the last 10 years.
Want to move this issue forward? Stop emphasizing it as a major issue. If it is a major issue to you then it is a major issue for your opponents, too.
Want to move this issue forward? Support more libertarians who focus on government not having a relevant role in the personal affairs of individuals. Marriage is not a constitutional issue, other than fair and equal application of the law. Furthermore, marriage is a state power.
The value of supporting more libertarians is that they will enthusiastically support individual rights in general.
If you want to attract libertarian support then you need to deemphasize the need to make gay marriage a legal right, and focus instead on government not having a role other than recognizing unions. Many Americans that oppose ‘marriage’ have no problem with civil unions.
Many times those that are more centrist don’t openly say they are. Usually that label is bestowed upon them by the media and the far-right itself when they realize how the candidate doesn’t agree with them on everything. Crist in Florida hasn’t labeled himself a centrist, but the conservatives have. Again, it’s in the court of the conservatives.
So Crist needs to spend some time explaining how his views fit into the notion of Republicanism. I’d say it’s worth his time and effort. If his views aren’t really conservative, or there are more conservative opinions held by his challengers, well isn’t that what the primaries are all about? You can’t ask for blind acceptance Martin. Positions have to be defended. If Crist is being characterized as a Centrist unfairly, then he can try to steer the conversation back to the issues. That’s what politics is. If he’s being called a Centrist and it’s accurate, isn’t it normal that more conservative challengers would be out there?
It seems like you don’t really like the notion of defending one’s positions or having to control the conversation if you’re in politics. This isn’t a college poly sci class. This is real-world stuff.
I’m not sure if it should be done away with all together. The politically inept (which is probably 1/3 of voting Americans at least) may be prejudiced against Republicans thinking they are all exactly like Bush or Palin. As a political tactic, letting them know you are different is smart.
Mike is right about some things though. If you look at history Thomas Jefferson hired a journalist “hitman” to follow Alexander Hamilton and attack the federalist cause. They started a paper that labeled him as a “monocrat” and accused him of corrupting George Washington so that he [Hamilton] could eventually become king. Much like the people throwing the socialist label at the president. This was really ironic considering the times.
In those early years campaigning was an odious thing. You weren’t supposed to “prostitute your views” as they said. Solicitation and ambition were looked down upon back then. Showing you wanted office deemed you unfit for office. If you promised favors it was said that would prevent you from judging the common good. You would be supporting local or parochial interests. Its funny how different things were 220 years ago. Now politics is more of a beauty contest.
I don’t see why Crist can combat both the far-right and the Dems. He should just point out what he’s going to do differently and sell the people on why the opposition is wrong. Trying to lie and hide what he is wouldn’t be right either. Focus on the right because that’s where most of your votes come from and if you have extra time, focus on the interests of moderate Democrats. Crist will be excellent on key issues that Republicans want, he needs to divert the far-rights attention away from issues that they differ on.