MSNBC’s First Read is reporting that a resolution is floating around that could be interpreted as an official litmus test as to whether or not the Republican National Committee should support a candidate. The resolution, called “Resolution on Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates” lists 10 principles that candidates should adhere to. This includes:
(1) Smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill
(2) Market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;
(3) Market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
(4) Workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check
(5) Legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
(6) Victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
(7) Containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat
(8) Retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
(9) Protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
(10) The right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership
The supporters of this resolution cite Ronald Reagan in saying that if one supports 8 of the 10 resolution, then  they are considered friends, not enemies.
What if someone only agrees with seven of the ten? Then, the supporters of this resolution call for the RNC to withhold financial assistance and endorsement.
First Read notes, this resolution has not yet been voted on, but it might be taken up at the Winter meeting of the RNC come January.
So, is this a litmus test? I tend to think it is. When Reagan said that he wants someone that agrees with him 80 perent of the time, I don’t think he had a some list in mind. It’s yet another tactic to get rid of “squishy” moderates and it’s the exact opposite of what I think the GOP needs to do: open itself up to seek converts not followers.
Rob Bernstein notes that Reagan wanted a Big Tent GOP; a party that had people of differing views. It was that Big Tent that lead Reagan to impressive victories in the 1980s and ushered in a Conservative Age in America.
What I believe is being offered here is a “Pup Tent.” Gone is the spirit of wanting to be a movement that welcomes everyone; in it’s place is a spirit of exclusiveness that somehow believes that a pure party can be a winning party.
But I am curious how others feel about this. Is this a limit test or not? Will it help of hinder the GOP?
Email this post
{ 19 comments… read them below or add one }
The RNC should at least strive to break the longest suicide note world record. One page down, 58 more to go.
On all seriousness, this is a bad turn. They are not presenting how they are going to fix and/or improve things, but rather what they oppose (7 out of 10).
Two other positions are (chicken)hawkish in nature, and have not been well received (both Iraq and Afghanistan wars are unpopular). And again, they are in direct contrast with the current Obama policies (careful analysis and decision making in Iraq and Afghanistan, and solving Iran and North Korea thru diplomacy). What’s more glaring is that both hawkish positions (6 & 7) can and do work out against position #1 (how can you finance 4 [effectively] wars without raising taxes or increasing the national debt).
The remaining item in the list is a lip service to the Religious Right, to separate them from the evul Democrats.
I can’t help but notice the of a movement whose extremists have not hesitated to call their opposition “Nazis”, are steadily moving towards a purity of thought requirement.
I mean’t to say “I can’t help but notice the irony…..”
Yea, it’s crazy what they’re trying to do. I’m not a big fan of a list of 10, for instance I like a broad stance in order to let in the most amount of new ideas with maybe being a fiscal deficit hawk and centrist based economics/government fusion as the shared values. Everything else, let in new ideas, and God knows that our party needs it.
Are these items in the Republican Party platform? If so, then I think the list is fine. Purity would demand that one agree with all 10 points, and that is not being asked here. It seems to me that a person who calls himself or herself a Republican (or a Democrat) should agree with the overwhelming majority of the party’s platform.
I do agree with Dennis that agreeing with 7 out of 10 points would suffice. However, 6 or less would not. A party has the right to ask that its candidates have fidelity to its core principles, if they desire to be funded with folks’ hard-earned contributions. If certain candidates don’t like their party’s platform or its core values, then become an independent (as I am; I swing my vote based on the candidate) or form your own political party.
The moderate Republicans wanted a big tent and gave conservatives 5 trillion in additional debt, expanded entitlement spending, proposing selling U.S. citizenship for a few dollars, dumbed down the schools, and added thousands of pages of additional regulation with no definable benefit.
Moderates are always going to oppose any policy proposals becuase they do not believe in making policy proposals or in thinking about the long term conseuqences of their proposals.
Being in favor of everything excpet when you are not is not moderate, and is no way to run the government.
Here’s a contradiction:
(1) Smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus†bill
(6) Victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges
How is sending more troops to Iraq and Afghanistan going to create smaller government, national debt, lower defecits and taxes? When we’re paying for rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure(that, according to hearsay, won’t be accessible or used), we’re not stimulating our economy. If the gov’t wants strong security, and multi-modal infrastructure, they should close the borders to passport/legal immigration and create jobs by providing new infrastructure projects(eg. bridge repair, HSR, etc.)
On another note:
1,2,3,4,5,7,9, and 10 are all reasonable stances on the issues. I will say that item number 8 is just asking for trouble, and social issues shouldn’t be on the party’s platform. Period. Pro-Choice, Less Government.
I think though, that there shouldn’t be a definition as to what the party’s core principals require/entail. Taking Christine Todd Whitman’s perspective as the GOP being not a big tent, but “umbrella” party(eg. handle = core , I think that the interpretation of the principals should be left up to the individual(there is much debate as to what less government and freedom mean)
Re: Shay’s comment
*applause*
Superdestroyer, it was modern conservative thinking that got us fiscally imbalanced, don’t put that grave sin on our heads. Put it on the conservatives and followers that were insistent on massive across the board tax cuts regardless of the irresponsibility of such action.
Why do I think this is a liberal-media lie?
A political party is not a social club. It is brand. People hear “Republican” and think X, Y and Z. Reality is that ‘GOP’ may just as well be spelt ‘GM’.
GM has great products, but it tries to be everything to everyone. It became a generic automotive manufacturer. Ford produces much the same fare yet Ford didn’t need a bailout. Ford is associated with tough trucks and solid family cars. It staked out its reputation on ‘Ford Tough!’ GM vehicles are commodities. People attach little value to commodities. The GOP has become a commodity political party.
The 10 litmus tests leave much to be desired. But they are a step in the right direction. Conservatives are moving to reclaim the brand.
If you don’t like that then you need to reclaim the brand, as well — and that won’t happen with generic commodity feel-good statements of minimal faith as to what your brand of Republicanism stands for.
“Superdestroyer, it was modern conservative thinking that got us fiscally imbalanced, don’t put that grave sin on our heads. Put it on the conservatives and followers that were insistent on massive across the board tax cuts regardless of the irresponsibility of such action.”
It was a lack of fiscal conservatism that got the GOP in trouble, Mr. Rybicki. You ignore that it was tax cuts ***coupled with increased government spending** – not the tax cuts alone – that did the harm. What should’ve happened was massive tax cuts and government spending cuts at the federal level, and getting the feds out of areas where they have no constitutional authority.
Shay,
There is nothing wrong with tax cuts in the government is willing to make spending cuts. However moderates and progressives never, never propose spending cuts. Moderates kept on propsoing spending increases such as NCLB, Medicare Part D, or pointless reorganizations of the government.
Why should any conservative be interest in progressive Republicans when The only solution ever proposed by a progressive Republican in more spending, bigger government, and less freedom?
Superdestroyer you are ignoring the basic principle and idea behind the massive tax cuts that have been embraced by conservatives and that has been rightly ridiculed by the progressives and moderate republicans, that in creating massive tax cuts it will drive us into major debt but to not worry – that people will spend so much and become such wasteful consumers that the money will be made back. This late 20th century conservative idea simply failed time and time again.
You seem to equate the tax cuts with how much W. Bush spent. There is no comparison, simply put that the government budget was balanced in a sustainable way before the massive tax cuts were implemented. It wasn’t broken, so then conservatives ended up breaking it with their tax cut fetish. And this wasn’t the billions being spent on bills that were not vetoed. We’re talking about trillions of dollars lost in unnecessary, conservative ideological tax cuts.
I think a better question is why should the American people have any interest or trust in a group of people who adhere to an ideology that in the name of conservatism and anti-government sentiment, drives the nation into debt from a point where there was no debt.
You are simply adhering to an ideology that has failed time and time again as each time it has been implemented whether it be W. Bush (a conservative due to his tax cuts) and Reagan himself, tax cuts according to the theory that was behind it do not work. All they bring is more debt.
While there certainly must be more effort at controlling spending, going about by starting off with massive debt inducing tax cuts is the most irresponsible action that can be taken by an elected official. This is what your modern conservatism was about, and we had 8 years of this conservative ideology. The past merely proves, that when centrist republicans are in charge, we get a much more fiscally balanced government. With conservatives, not so much.
Martin,
The government was running in deficit in January 2001 before President Bush ever was inaugurated. However, progressive Republicans (also known as compassionate conservatives) showed up on day one demanding more spending for things such as NCLB. There is no way that you can claim that expanding the scope of the federal government and increasing spending is in anyway conservative. NCLB was considered a progressive idea.
Of course it makes sense that the progressive republicans are working so hard to run away from all of their policy failures. Being a morates means never having any long term beliefs and throwing people under the bus whenever there is any short term advantage.
Conservative lost their way when they tried to pander to both moderates and minorities.
Of course, since the moderate republicans have no philosophy to guide their governance and seem to spend all of their time having the Democrats lead them around by the nose, they are irrelevant.
Just look at how incompetent, inarticulate, and uninformed moderate Republicans like Snowe and Collins are. They make former President Bush look like a genius in comparison.
Your faulty thinking and reasoning lies in your premises of progressive republicans equaling “compassionate conservatism” as done by W. Bush. Compassionate conservatism is nowhere near progressive republicanism. It is modern conservatism.
Compassionate conservatism is just conservatism, with less emphasis on the veto pen but still advocating budget crushing tax cuts that are an important part of modern conservatism with the idea that this will result in such increased consumer spending as to make up any loss, which doesn’t work but that conservatives cling to.
Snowe and Collin’s success in their continued service of their state of Maine shows that even in an area that is quite moderate to liberal, these republicans have shown themselves to be quite capable at governance, something conservatives and modern conservatism, that you cannot seem to admit is inherently flawed in its ideology, has been able to offer.
Incompetence is inherent in this compassionate conservatism, with its basic ideology rooted in failed massive tax cuts which in following basic logic would make W. Bush part of your camp. The failure by republicans was not in going back to their actual roots of centrism, which they did not, it was by adhering to the basic failed tenant of late 20th century conservatism.
The tea party crowd and their extremist rantings about “czars” without really knowing what they mean, or if Obama is secretly a muslim, and who cling to ideology while abandoning common-sense governance, it is these hardcore conservatives who end up making W. Bush look like a genius.
Martin Rybicki,
If people want high taxes, big spending, social engineering, they will always vote for the Democrats. Collins and Snowe will give the Democrats anything they want to include massive expansion of entitlements, higher taxes, more spending, open borders, and political correctness.
The so called progressive Republicans are so afraid of being called red neck or racist, they you will always give into the demands of the Democrats such as expansion of Medicare, NBLC, open borders, and creating new cabinet departments.
Collins and Snowe represent their constituents and provide what they want, basic governance which is something that conservatives like yourself are unable to provide which is why the nation is not about to go back and have some sort of conservative revolution based on failed modern conservative ideology.
I’m sorry, but Republicans have created departments from Lincoln and his creation of the agricultural department through Teddy and Ike. Even Reagan expanded programs such as that to fight drugs and believed in using 3% of GDP to bailout S&L.
So while you are entitled to your anti-government beliefs, Superdestroyer, you should just come out and say it; in realizing what Republicanism is really about by looking back through the history of the party, you are NOT a Republican or have the least in common with republicanism. Simple as that.
The Republican Party will soon be irrelevant because of moderates and progressives in the Republican party. People keep thinking that being Democratic-lite big spending, big brother party is a way to win. Anyone who wants big government will always vote for the Democratic Party. That will not support a cheap imitation that a progressive Republican Party would be. However, small government conservatives will walk away from a party of open borders, race based governance, big entitlements, big regulations, and intrusiveness.
Why not adopt the idea that adults should act as adults instead of supporting the nanny state idea that Americans are too stupid to think for themselves and need the government to control them and make all of the decisions for them.