The following post by Richard Ivory originally appeared on Hip-Hop Republican.com.
Recently a group of RNC members began a move to force the RNC to endorse what can only be construed as a set of official litmus test. According to the New York Times, the resolution will punish any “Republican candidate who broke with the party on three or more of these issues- in votes cast, public statements made or answering a questionnaire. They would be penalized by being denied party funds or the party endorsement”.
According to Frum-Forum, “The GOP purity test resolution has obtained the necessary co-sponsors to bypass the RNC’s resolutions committee and bring the proposal forward for an eventual vote”.
Here is the resolution’s list:
(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;
(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care;
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation
(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges
(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership
It is my sincere belief that if the Republican Party is genuinely serious about an urban Republican emergence, it must reject such a move. The test, if implemented, would deny much-needed funds to candidates campaigning in inner-city areas. Urban Republican candidates do not generally face the same problems as rural or suburban candidates and thus need more flexibility in shaping their message to their constituents. Often times, their constituents are low-income and receive government benefits.
Any inner-city Republican candidate running on a platform that says “I want your vote because I want smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill” will loose. Again, this language may play rather nicely in many areas around the nation, but not in major urban settings. The better argument for urban Republican candidates is an emphasis on personal and community empowerment, and a focus on efficient and, where possible, limited government. The public policy agenda should be one centered on finding metrics to determine if services are empowering recipients or hindering them.
When this is determined an alternatives should be sought with enforcements and progress reports. The overall goal, over time, by introducing metrics of accountability is to have an informed and empowered voter. This, however, as any person living in an urban setting realizes takes time. Any litmus tests that forces a candidate to choose between getting funds and the overall tailoring of his message is undemocratic and a chilling violation of free speech and is a sure bet to loosing.
Case in point: Joseph Cao, the current U.S. Representative from Louisiana’s 2nd Congressional District. Perhaps, he more than any other Republican candidate knows the complications inner-city Republican candidates can face when walking a fine line between party loyalty and practical politics. These past few weeks have been a doozie for Congressman Cao.
Cao’s troubles started a few weeks back when he voted for the Health Bill, making him the only Republican to do so. Since then, some conservatives within the party have been calling him everything from a traitor to a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Only a few months back, Cao was being praised as proof that the Party was competitive in urban areas. Nevertheless, alas, who has time to recall long-ago memories of a competitive party when you are “hunting rhinos”? Of course, it’s easy to point fingers and call names, but when your district is 70 percent African -American you must do what your constituents mandate.
It is easy to be for smaller government when your entire voter base agrees with you. What if, however, you represent Louisiana’s 2nd Congressional District? Louisiana’s 2nd Congressional District is an area affected by Hurricane Katrina. It is, consequently, a place of poverty and of lost dreams where only a few years ago the streets were covered by a flood. The area to date has only one hospital for all its residents. It is easy to say “I don’t want the governments help” when your house is up. What if, however, a flood of water destroys your house? How many conservatives States each year ask the government for help when hurricane season approaches?
Congressman Cao’s District, more than any other, needs help! This is why, no doubt, he supported The Healthcare Bill. While the new congressional representative may have had problems with the bill, he was dealing with his political reality. Not to mention that he’s up for reelection next year. While many may not agree with Joseph Cao, we can all certainly agree that he is dealing with a set of cards which many Republicans have never had to play.
Recently, Cao’s spokesperson, named Princella Smith, told put it this way while defending Cao from attacks: “He thinks for himself and works on behalf of his district. That doesn’t mean that he’s not a Republican. It means he’s doing his job. One vote is not going to change that. That’s why the GOP leaders respect him. Consequently, if there is any Republican – any official – who can win LA-02 in 2010, it is Joseph Cao.”
Any policy requiring urban candidates to follow a litmus test before they can receive funding will undermine all sincere efforts to promote a civil Republican message in inner-city and urban areas. After looking over the list I’m not sure Lincoln himself would be eligible for funding and that’s scary folks!
So, lets just take a look at what may happen if an inner-city canddiate ran on these issues:
(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill
In rehtoric and theory there is nothing wrong with this except that to run on this as a campaign slogan in order to get funds is nutty. Most voters (and that’s what you need to win) would see that as opposing money to help them. Any Republican running against a Democrat is going to loose if they follow this.
(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care
Again if Cao had opposed Obama’s healthcare plan he would have lost hands down!
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation
Okay sounds great but that’s probably not going to be a campaign slogan folks will pay attention to in most urban areas.
(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check
Okay, again sounds great except that Unions run most urban areas and to deliberately p
provoke them means millions of dollars being run against you. And I seriously
doubt the RNC will make up the difference!
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrantsOkay, sounds great of all your neighbors are legal and citizens but what if there thousands that aren’t but there “voting children” are?
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges
Hey, I am the biggest Neo Conservative there is but I would never run a pro war message while running for office in Harlem.
(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat
Again, as most urban city dwellers will tell you  there is an anti war thread running through the head of most inner-city voters, especially with minority women who see there sons being blown to pieces and there teh ones who vote in larger numbers..in other words not an effective campaign strategy.
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act
So, by the time youre campiagn  introduces itself   to the public you will be blasted for being a hatemonger and a  homophobe by the end of the week. After this the powerful urban GLBT community will pour millions of ads againts you just to make you suffer. By the end your opponent will look like teh moderate and you the extremist. And voting patterns show that voters will always choose moderatoon over extremism. Again, running on this just to get a few bucks from the RNC is laughable and you will loose.
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion.
Okay, so now you have offended teh GLBT community you can move on now to have women and pro-choice groups and voters attacking you. I mean you can’t make this up!
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.
Sounds great on a farm in North Dakota but try to run that through Detroit or Harlem and see how far you get.
So given this why would any one want to have a litmus test and why now after so many years? Politico the online political magazine provides a possible answer.
According to Politico:
“The primary goal of the purity resolution is to belittle and hamstring RNC Chairman Michael Steele. The resolution is made of key lieutenants behind the failed reelection campaign of Karl Rove’s RNC chairman, Mike Duncan. Steele ran as the outsider to reshape the national GOP purpose and opposed the get-along Republicans who squandered a dozen years of GOP “control.”
RNC Chairman Duncan’s reelection bid was particularly hurt by President George W. Bush’s staggering embrace of subsidizing the U.S. banking and auto industries in the waning days of his administration. Under Bush, government did not diminish. The RNC suffered massive alienation and loss of support from the grass roots, until Steele won an upset victory against Duncan in February. Steele went to work.
The back story is that the purity author, while undoubtedly a good lawyer, was also a close supporter of the defeated Duncan administration. He must have been good – for years, he billed and collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from the RNC, doing its legal work. In fact, he received more revenue from the RNC than all other 163 members combined. His firm’s contract with the RNC was cut off after Steele’s election. Losing a valuable client is always tough. But mixing one’s politics with personal business interests always raised a conflict problem.
Steele is having a blowout year. The grass roots responded with record-breaking donations, even overwhelming the Obama Democratic National Committee machine. The RNC is now out of debt with millions more for next year’s political wars. The gubernatorial victories by Chris Christie in New Jersey and Bob McDonnell in Virginia have cemented Steele’s reputation. He personally directed the largest RNC funding to any state election in its history. He staked his reputation on those states, risking his chairmanship for underdog Christie and McDonnell.
In other words, this is pay back and the folks behind the resolution are the same ones who probably think Steele himself couldn’t pass the test. They probably hate Steele’s guts and decided to concoct tactics to cripple him given his recent success in winning elections and fundraising. Any person who lives in an urban area knows that a campaign like this is a recipe for disaster. It doesn’t take a genius to see that such a direction in the longer-term will undermine the Party’s chances of winning elections and remaining politically relevant. This purge would also push out moderates, and even Conservatives like Huckabee & Ron Paul. Such a litmus test like the one being proposed will accomplish only one thing cementing the party’s image as a rural and mostly Southern Party.
But hey, maybe that’s just what the sponsors wanted.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Richard Ivory is the Publisher and Founder, of Hip-HopRepublican.com, a blog that delves into urban issues from a centrist perspective. Mr. Ivory is a political consultant who has worked on over a dozen political campaigns around the country. He has worked for both the Republican National Committee and was the College outreach director for Republican Youth Majority. He is the founder of The John Langston Forum and is at present the College outreach director for Republicans for Black Empowerment.
Email this post
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
A long article that justifies why the Republicans must ignore urban areas and why the U.S. will soon be a one party state. Non-whites will never be conservatives and will always vote along ethnic lines. Non-whites in the U.S. see whites as the source of tax dollars and will vote for the Democrats because the Democrats promise to tax whites and give the money to them.
What conservatives and moderates need to do if work on policy and laws to limit the damage that the urban voter can do to the rest of us. Appeal to urban voters or hoping that they will stop support damaging programs.
Your urban voters theory is fine and dandy, except for one tiny, insignificant detail: non-urban voters are in decline. The RNC won’t win the WH without a larger segment of these urban voters. Alienating urban voters will only ensure a Democrat WH and quite a bunch of Democrat Congressmen, unfortunately.
Also, you are misrepresenting the minorities votes. As HHR have shown several times, most minorities cultures are actually quite conservative. Why they aren’t in the Republican Party now is mainly due to the, shall we say, icy reception minorities have gotten from the RNC, especially since the Southern Strategy was implemented in the 60s. Nativism and anti-urbanism, among other insanities, play a huge role on why the minority voters aren’t likely to join the Republican ranks anytime soon.
No wonder your nickname is superdestroyer.
The idea that blacks and Hispanics are conservative is insane. Just look at the voting records of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. They are the two most liberal groups in Congress and receive overwhelming support from black and Hispanic voters. Just look at black urban mayors. Not one conservative policy or position among any of them.
Just because Hispanics and blacks go to church and hate liberal white homosexuals does not make them conservative. Republicans need to separate voting patterns from what blacks tell pollsters. When you see what how blacks and Hispanics act, they are almost universally liberal and have zero interest in any conservative idea.
Running Republicans in urban districts makes it harder for suburban Republicans to win state wide officers. Appealling to blacks and Hispanics means blatant pandering and abandoning any pretense of being a conservative party.
In the long run, blacks and Hispanic birth rates and immigration are going to bury the Republican Party or any conservative Party. Republicans would be better off voting in the Democratic primary to minimize the influence of the very liberal black and Hispanic voters. Pushing for moderate and conservative Democratic nominees to offset liberal blacks and Hispanics would be a much more achievable goal than trying to make the two most liberal groups into conservatives.
“Appealling to blacks and Hispanics means blatant pandering and abandoning any pretense of being a conservative party.”
Because if the Republicans are not going to be the conservative party, then they are just a me-too Democratic-lite party. If people what liberal policies, high taxes, race based government, then they will always vote for the Democrats.
If all politics is about liberal policies, then the U.S. only needs one political party and the primary elections of the Democratic primary can serve as the real elections. Why does the U.S. need two parties that have no policy differences?
Keeping the Republican Party around as a brand so that rich white boys can get jobs as consultant is worse than pointless.
I just interviewed Jerry Hall as part of my new series Lookout 2010. He’s a devout Christian and common sense Republican running for Congress in Texas. Even he thinks the purity test is a dumb idea. I’ve posted his interview on RU as well and I implore you all to read it. Martin, I know he’s not in your district but you should try to help his campaign he seems like just the kind of fresh face we need.
Superdestroyer, you along with your fellow tea party members should just go off and form your REAL conservative party. They did it in NY, so I think that is an alternative for you. It’s not like it would be difficult and since you and they don’t care about our party’s past history which would contradict your ideals that you hold, it would just make more sense.
Martin,
I am not a tea bagger because even the tea party types are stupid enough to believe that demographics does not affect politics.
Instead of insulting people that could possibly supporting some of your ideas, the progressive and moderate Republicans need to develop a consistent philosophy of governance. Just having the Democratic party lead you around by the nose is no answer. Look at Specter. His moderate philosophy seems to be what is good for Arlen Specter is good for the Republicans. The moderate Republicans seem to have the same idea.
You need to find something to unit a party besides just being a brand name that will give suburban whites a place to run for office in irrelevant elections.
I will be open to listening to people on the right who don’t ask moderates to shut up on a moderate republican website.
Just because our ideas are not polar opposites of the democratic party’s does not mean that we are being led around by the nose. Having alternative ideas that don’t have that anti-government aspect but that provide alternative solutions and ways of running government was what our party was good at and won in urban areas frequently in the past.
Many on the right are disappointed in their losses and have convinced themselves that they weren’t conservative enough, they need to go further right, and that’s after how we saw conservative republicans running the government in such a debilitating manner as conforming to their ideology of modern conservatism.
You want to somehow unite the right, there is an almost impossible way for that to happen when the right is always out to hunt down the centrists in our party. When that happens, you get a party in the state that it is now, which is minority.
We are a party that presents alternatives at being pro-government and markets, not just this “government is the problem…always” mentality. That does not present a real alternative since that destroys the idea of government being used as a valuable tool to help the people, be it in finding government, mixed, or market solutions. Something which a proud republican history backs up from Lincoln to Teddy to Ike and even Reagan (despite his campaign soundbites). Competence is lost when extreme conservatism such as this becomes the dominant idea for all to follow.
Maybe it won’t provide the clear distinction that you would like, as maybe fascism vs. anarchy probably are just clear enough, but having a hard clear cut distinction so that even a baby could see the difference is not always the best way to govern. You want a party that, in order to give you your clear distinction that you seek, one that will be on a self-destructive mindset to go against any idea that government itself has a role direct and indirect in helping the American people. That may be a good idea for those like you who want such a cookie cutter clarity, but that ideology simply goes against Republicanism.
And again, the previous statement still stands- If you want a real conservative party, go form a Real conservative party. This party was just not meant to be an ideologically hard-right party, one that could honestly be called “the” conservative party. Many of our proud and past republican leaders and party members just don’t follow your ideology. And here you are determined to keep this party strictly conservative or one where all others must bow down to and defer to the conservative wing. How about taking a good look at yourself and your ideas and at the Republican party and considering these unavoidable facts. I know, I know, the past and the facts can be quite a bother, especially to a hardline conservative.
Martin,
Until you can write something that explains the philsophy and ideas on governance that the moderate and progressive Republicans support, then everyone will see the progressive Repubicans as nothing more than me-too Democratic-lite.
As far as I can tell, Progressive Republicans are more interested in the approval of their hip Democrat friends than actually trying to win election, actually making policy proposals, and actually trying to have any idea on governance.
The right is made at moderate Republicans because the right keeps voting for moderate Republicans and end up with $5 trillion in additional debt, an expansion of the government, more unworkable government programs, open borders, and constant short term thinking.
Conservatives want their Republicans leders to always think about the long term. Open borders, new entitlements, new cabinet department were all short term ideas and been shown to be failures.
Until moderates and progressives can propose something other than a program guaranteed to fail, the conservatives will continue to consider moderate Republicans failures and not worthy of support.
Also, you should give up on the Teddy Roosevelt lien considering that only white men voted in those elections. Once again, an exmple of short term thinking. Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians could not care less about Teddy Roosevelt but they do care about taxing the crap out of you and giving the money to themselves. Until moderates propose a way to stop wealth transfer by the government based upon race, then moderates need to shut up.
“Early Republican ideology was reflected in the 1856 slogan free labor, free land, free men. “Free labor” referred to the Republican belief in a mobile middle class that left the workforce and set up small businesses. “Free land” referred to Republican efforts to facilitate this spirit of entrepreneurship by giving away government owned land. The Party hoped that this rapid growth would help check, and eventually end slavery. The party’s founding members chose the name “Republican Party” in the mid-1850s in part as an homage to Thomas Jefferson (it was the name initially used by his party).The name echoed the 1776 republican values of civic virtue and opposition to aristocracy and corruption.
Moderates in the Northeast and upper Midwest often point out that the GOP is a historically moderate party with roots in the Northern United States, while many of their conservative critics (especially in the South) are recent converts to the party. Examples include Alabama Senator Richard Shelby, and former Louisiana Congressman Billy Tauzin, both of whom began their political careers as conservative Democrats.