In California a federal judge has just concluded an unusual trial.  The plaintiffs in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger seek to overturn California’s 2008 referendum banning same-sex marriage on the grounds that the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14^th Amendment.  The case has gained some unusual attention from the involvement of Ted Olson, a lion of the conservative legal movement.  Olson was Solicitor General under George W. Bush and the lead attorney in Bush v. Gore.  He is longtime member of the Federalist Society and a vociferous critic of judicial activism.  What’s remarkable about his involvement is that he has volunteered to take the plaintiffs’ case and is cooperating on it with his old opponent in Bush v. Gore, David Boies.

But there’s another twist that makes this case really interesting.  A constitutional challenge of this type usually receives a paper trial.  There is little testimony and most of that is submitted in written depositions.  The lawyers file their motions and make their oral arguments.  The judge evaluates their positions and renders a judgment which is promptly referred up to an appellate court so that the more interesting work can begin.

Judge Vaughn Walker, a Reagan appointee, has taken a different approach.  In a page right out of Inherit the Wind, he has held a full courtroom trial to explore all the aspects of this case.  The Judge’s efforts to have the trial televised were thwarted, but the transcripts of the trial were re-enacted each night and posted to YouTube.  This is not a dry recitation of constitutional theory.  Witnesses have been giving testimony on matters like:

- Is homosexuality a choice?

- What value does marriage have beyond procreation?

- How exactly would gay marriage damage heterosexuals?

- Does same-sex marriage harm children?

- Was California’s gay marriage ban motivated by hostility toward gays as a group?

The final legal outcome of the case is almost certain to be decided by the US Supreme Court, unless of course California reverses its ban prior to that point.  That is a real possibility.  But the trial itself is likely to hold a social significance independent of the final judgment.

There are many Americans like myself who are torn over the subject of gay marriage.  Many of us are troubled by the injustice of gay couples being unable to obtain the kind of basic legal protections available to married couples.  At the same time we are bothered by the idea of government re-inventing an entire social institution with the stroke of a Judge’s pen.

The trial in Perry v. Schwarzenegger offers a unique window into the myths and realities of gay marriage.  As details from the trial are distilled out into the public, it offers an opportunity for people to assess the question in a way that goes beyond emotion and bias.  Perhaps out of this trial and its long, upcoming appeal, the conservative movement in particular can develop a position on gay marriage that rises above the gay-baiting hysteria and honestly reflects our core values.

Travis Johnson liveblogged the President’s State of the Union Address earlier this evening. We’ve grouped several of his blog posts into one for people to read.

• David Gregory just said “Republicans United.” Heh. It’s only modesty that makes me think he’s not talking about us. Modesty and a taste for reality.
• I don’t care who’s sitting in the Oval Office the moment when the Sergeant at Arms announces the President is a pretty magical moment.
• Apparently the GOP Caucus has been reminded to be courteous tonight. Odd that that’s necessary.
• He’s invoking defeats in World War II, the Civil War and people being beaten during the Civil rights movement. Does not bode well…
• “They’re tired of the partisanship, the shouting and the pettiness.” I wonder if Pelosi wonders if he’s talking about someone else…
• Standing Ovation count:Â 1Â (Both sides)
• Coming down on the banks (Stand O count – 3 D only)…He’s justifying the bailout, though and saying he supported the Bush Administration’s move. Nice to see that he he’s not just blaming them…Fee on bailed out banks. I’m not sure why our side is (o Count 4 – D only) is sitting this out. User fees are a good thing…O count 4 – D only
• Does anyone know where the numbers come from when he says 2 million people have jobs who wouldn’t otherwise have them?…Frustrating to hear him talk about the benefits of the Stimulus Package based on anecdotal data without any reference to empirical data. I want stats.
• 30 billion dollars for small business loans…Small business tax cuts? Eliminate small business capital gains taxes? Wow. Nice.
• “I do not accept second place for the United States of America.”

  Got both sides on their feet for this. But it’s rhetoric. What does that mean?

  Here it comes..

  1. Financial Reform:Â (1) Ensure consumers are given infore mation to make good choices (2) Regulate reckless behavior
  2. Investment in Research:Â Clean nuclear energy! New drilling (Drill, Barack, drill!) Clean coal…cap and trade.
  3. (Very good point re clean energy: Even if you don’t believe in manmad glocal warming, it’s the way of the future. We should lead the industry)
  4. Double exports over 5 years which will mean 2 million jobs…
     

     • National Export Initiative – Aggressively seek new markets for our products (prediction:Â liberals will go nuts the first time we sign a deal with a “bad guy”)

  5. Investment in schools that are succeeding, no new funds for schools that fail.
• Both sides stood up for Health Care Reform…This is something the GOP desperately needs to make clear: we are not against reform. We are against Pelosi/Reid’s Reform!…(Michele Obama just told Congress to sit down.)
• Called out Republicans to bring forward our own Health Care plan. I say we call his bluff and barnstorm around the country on that plan!
• John McCain just said it best: “Blaming Bush.”…One year later…that’s just tacky and disingenuous. At what point does he own this?
• Paying off a trillion dollars:
  • Spending freeze for discretionary spending for three years.
  • Identified 20 billion dollars in cuts from the budget
  • Bipartisan fiscal commission…a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline. (why can’t he do that about health care? Answer: Because the unions know what they want)

  Republicans laughed at the spending til next year. An irritated Obama responds “that’s how budgeting works.” Yikes.

  And again he blames Bush. (“The last 8 years got us into this mess.” Uh, you were President for part of that…)

• He just dissed the Supreme Court! In the State of the Union!

  Joe Wilson just applauded a call for earmark reform. I see you, Joe!! (A proposal to publish all earmark requests drew bipartisan applause.)

• Best part of this speech:Â a bipartisan scolding for hyperpartisan politics.

  Okay…no. He tells the Democrats to use their majority power to pass their agenda. Then he calls the Republicans out for being “saying no.”  How can he rationalize that kind of cognitive dissonance?

• I’m happy to see that foreign policy discussions and discussions of our military still gets bipartisan support.

  I’m unhappy to see Members of Congress on their Blackberries in the middle of the SotU. Classless.

• End to Don’t Ask Don’t Tell by the end of this year. I, for one, thinks it’s about time. We can’t afford to lose anymore resources to a policy much of the military leadership doesn’t stand behind.
• Now he’s doing what he does. This is where he speaks to the better angels of the political class’s nature and asks for them to follow the example of the American people and move this country forward even in the face of adversity. That was the Obama of 2008…
• Well, it’s done.

  All in all, I think it was good. He gave Republicans things to support, and some things he knows we can’t or won’t. He called out our Party to step up to the plate and participate in legislation, and called out his own Party for what many liberals are calling cowardice.

  Our response to this can only be to fight back with ideas. Real ideas that address the needs of the American people, but do it in a way that is consistent with our beliefs: small, efficient, non-intrusive government.

It is hard to underestimate the significance of Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat being won by a Republican. Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts writes a new playbook for Republicans intent on building a stronger Party based on reasonable policies and a broad appeal.

Brown is a pro-choice Republican, who takes a refreshingly nuanced stance on the issue. He has avoided the lowest forms of red-meat politics, standard for the GOP in the Bush years, while still aligning himself with the right on issues of traditional values. He has opposed blanket amnesties for illegal aliens and gay marriage. But his campaign has steered clear of blathering tirades on the “liberal media,” the “gay agenda,” or a “socialist takeover.” In other words, he has run a Republican campaign for the reality-based community.

A narrative has emerged from the 2008 election that McCain lost because he failed to be “conservative” enough. The meaning behind the narrative is that McCain lost because he alienated fundamentalists and pulled back from the Party’s most obnoxious and divisive tactics. It was that narrative that fueled the humiliating spectacle of the Congressional Race in New York’s 23^rd district, which the GOP lost last fall for the first time in over a century. The Party’s fundamentalist wing injected themselves into that contest in a rabid frenzy. It was suicide politics – if our candidate can’t win, we’ll take everybody down with us.

Brown has had the wisdom to maintain a careful distance from the Tea Party movement and keep the Party’s most radical noisemakers at arm’s length. All the while, in vintage-Reagan style, he has kept the door open to the farthest right wing of the Party.

There is a lesson here that can lead Republicans to dominance not just in the Northeast, but across the country. The Brown Strategy can work elsewhere and bring the Party back to relevance. Drop the Nutjob Politics, speak like a grown-up, embrace genuine respect of both the right and the left, and find a voice in which to defend traditional values without scapegoating. Of course, being good-looking and having a lousy opponent doesn’t hurt, but it wouldn’t have been enough without the wider strategy.

The short-sighted media buzz coming out of this win will be about the unpopularity of the Obama health proposal and the loss of the Democrat’s 60-vote majority in the Senate. In reality, this shift is likely to force some humility and reason on the Obama Administration. This will in all likelihood help them right their ship. It will provide cover for them to kill off the Frankenstein-monster of a health proposal they have built and let the President move on to other, more productive objectives.

The real story here, likely to be missed in the media, is the impact this win could have inside the GOP. John McCain’s loss in 2008 removed one of the last national Republican figures who could steer the Party out of the fundamentalist swamp. Soon we may have another. This is good news for Republicans and fantastic news for America.

Ted Olson is no “RINO.” He’s the man who won Bush v Gore and was President Bush’s Solicitor General. He is a member of the Federalist Society and was on the board of the American Spectator. He is probably more Republican than you. And he is arguing FOR marriage equality…

Together with my good friend and occasional courtroom adversary David Boies, I am attempting to persuade a federal court to invalidate California’s Proposition 8—the voter-approved measure that overturned California’s constitutional right to marry a person of the same sex.

My involvement in this case has generated a certain degree of consternation among conservatives. How could a politically active, lifelong Republican, a veteran of the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations, challenge the “traditional” definition of marriage and press for an “activist” interpretation of the Constitution to create another “new” constitutional right?

My answer to this seeming conundrum rests on a lifetime of exposure to persons of different backgrounds, histories, viewpoints, and intrinsic characteristics, and on my rejection of what I see as superficially appealing but ultimately false perceptions about our Constitution and its protection of equality and fundamental rights.

Last time I posted, I broke a rule I set for myself very early on in this whole blogging process: never post a criticism without posting a solution. Time to rectify that…

The revelations about Harry Reid (and Bill Clinton, for that matter) have presented the American political community (but largely Republicans) a once in a lifetime opportunity. As anyone who’s been reading this blog knows there has been a movement afoot to develop a litmus test by which every Republican is judged. Ten principles that every Republican is supposed to follow in order to be considered a REAL Republican.

Sure, I’ve written pretty strenuously against the litmus test. Very strenuously. But, let’s think about this for a moment. Perhaps adopting a litmus test wouldn’t be so bad if, in addition to real conservative principles like efficiency, and low taxes and strong national defense, we included a line that read something like:

“As a Republican, and more importantly, as an American, I believe in the Constitutional principle that all men, regardless of race, are created equally and I will disavow and rebuke anyone who represents this Party who acts and speaks out in a way that contradicts that principle.”

In one fell swoop, the Republican Party would establish itself as firmly against racism in all its forms, sending the message to any bigots or racists within or without the Party that they need to look elsewhere for a political home. How would that Democrats answer that kind of courage? Probably with derision first, but then, once they realized the American people admired a bold move, they’d answer with a similar statement. Then it would be up to us, the rank and file of the Party, to hold our membership to these ideals.

Does our Party have the kind of courage necessary to make this kind of move? I think we do.

For years, ever since I announced that I was a Republican, people have asked me “how can you be a Republican?” Â In their words “Republicans are racist.”

As we start this year a look at the political landscape for Republicans shows that despite calls of a Republican revolution, such a thing may not happen. Tea Party conservative and libertarian purists are running amok, demanding that those within the party who do not represent their absolute ideological views be politically destroyed and thrown out of the party. Moderate Republicans such as Mark Kirk in Illinois and Charlie Crist in Florida face a populist driven movement of conservatives from their right flank made up of all brands from social to libertarian in a similar fashion as to what happened in NY 23 last year. It is a movement that nevertheless is fractured at this point and even if it can be organized enough, will not lead to any solutions. It is a movement that is made up of those who are merely reactionary and peeved by the idea that they had lost in the last few previous elections and who sometimes even put forth grotesque dreams of revolution and secession.

This is a movement that I saw firsthand at the largest Tea Party event in the nation held in San Antonio in front of the Alamo last year. It was an incredible event to go to as it enlightened me of a movement that had just started to form and before it started to fracture among its many lines of thought or personalities. I had a keen interest in this group, as I had no idea what type of people and what kind of overall crowd would be present that day. First off, I will say that regardless of what some liberal commentators have said, this was a grassroots event and it was a movement. Some have come to believe that it was only formulated and planned by large companies and conservative groups, and while the actual grassroots may have had quite the assistance from such entities, one cannot simply perceive that those thousands that came marching did so only because they were ordered to by corporate entities. If its conception and basic organization was FOX news and Glenn Beck, the people were the real thing. To understand this movement, we as centrists cannot merely wave it off as a non-viable group of people that is falsely labeled as grassroots. No, this was the real thing and those people that day were the real and upset partakers in a Tea Party that chanted and held signs in visible discontent with Washington.

In establishing that this is a real movement one would be able to see that it has an energy that political strategists may see as opportunities to use as a source of momentum; a wave which they may be able to ride to political office. This I do not totally disagree with for to do so would ignore the feelings of discontent in some parts of the nation towards the current administration and how that could be used for political victory. But what needs to be taken into account is not whether it is a viable and continuing movement or one that will dissipate if the economy begins to recover or not. What needs to be taken into consideration is whether or not making a deal with this movement is the right thing to do, or will it merely be an act of selling ones soul for short term benefit.

In that day I was able to see up front what the Tea Parties believed in, and what they stood for and it was one that brought worry to me on that day in front of the Alamo. First, let’s get something straight: this movement is not a movement of new ideas. It is exactly the same old ideas that drove the conservative revolution in the latter half of the 20^th century. There is nothing new with people and speakers believing that abortion should be outlawed and that God’s law be followed within government. There is nothing new with the idea that government is evil and inept and that inaction in a crisis is better than action. There is nothing new when science is generally regarded as a liberal plot and that Intelligent Design aka literal belief in a holy book as science, has actual real scientific backing and that global warming or even pollution are conspiracies for the government to tell the markets to make cleaner appliances and for vehicles to have slightly higher standards of efficiency, of which would be an infringement on their perceived rights and desire to do as they please regardless of the consequences to those around them and to our lands. There is nothing new with jingoistic and nativist sentiments that was dominant among the crowd and how the same sentiment towards the world that led to the neo-conservative foreign policy mishaps of the W. Bush administration were still present among these people who would say that they were so different from the prior administration. If anything other than the lack of spending vetoes they are every bit an embodiment not of W. Bush, but of the view of the nation and of the world that his administration implemented: arrogant unilateralism, general environmental policy negligence and denial, and a belief of government not as a tool to ensure balance and stability within the markets but as a hindrance to be left basically unused or without reform no matter the real world consequences. With most of these ideas, the Tea Party movement is one and the same.

As with most populist movements, it is by and large not made up of intellectuals or academics. In fact, these are the same people who believe that academics is elitism and that Sarah Palin with her hokey soundbites is better candidate for president than one that can actually present a nuanced view of policies. While I disagree with many conservative thinkers on their take on governance, at least they have given an actual amount of learned thinking to the process that led to their conclusions. Instead, this populist movement is based on sheer reactionary emotions towards how the political process panned out for their side. They simply did not like Obama from the start, and to a degree this is understandable. Their side had been blamed for symbolizing power or “the man” who was running the economy into the ground, creating an unnecessary war without finishing the correct one, and just being generally representative of a segment of the country that believes that God and guns is what we should be about while the rest of the nation became disconcerted enough to vote out their representatives in the Republican party twice. Now the Tea Party people like to tell how they are different from the Republican Party representatives, but in the end they actually agree with almost every aspect of the George W. Bush doctrine and his domestic views including the budget busting across the board, corporate aimed tax cuts. Now if only he had gotten rid of the Environmental Protection Agency and sold the national parks off to private owners to shrink the federal government. Then he would have started to gain real conservative/libertarian credentials. Whatever W. Bush has done was mostly within the realm of conservatism, and it is impressive to see those out there who actually want an even more hardline conservative take on government than what he has done. In the end, what is not reasonable is the absolute hatred towards the President that exists today within the Tea Party crowd.

By far and large there is no plan for America put forth by this movement that isn’t sheer idealism with a near complete lack of realistic thinking. It cannot see the problems that a complex world has brought and how it can’t be solved by merely chanting U.S.A and following a strict conservative ideology. It is a movement that was spearheaded by Glenn Beck and his misinformation and conspiratorial views. Only mere tub thumping that I had previously thought found only in protests based on the far-left was present that day as well. Most of the college students at the University of Texas at San Antonio by far and large did not participate, which will lead to another problem in having the Republican Party adopt this movement for its own. Most fit the description of white, middle aged and I would suppose at one time youthful members of the Reagan Revolution. It was interesting how many of them fit this bill, and how few minorities were present. I believe I could count the number of black people there on my fingers with the count being slightly higher with those of Hispanic origin. The average age of a Tea Party person was usually 40 with relatively few in the teens and twenties. Even 30 year olds seemed sparse. Confederate flags waved and secession/ states’ rights extremists were abundant. This is not some youth revolution: it is merely a disgruntled and aging echo of what happened in the 80’s.

This is a movement, but one that is a minority movement and not one that can be translated into a moderate or long term base of success. It a movement that only encases a small section of the white population and virtually none of the fast growing minority populations. It is a movement that is sheer emotion and one most clearly defined by unreasonable hate and vitriol and delusion by those that make up its members. Even if this was to bring short term success to the Republican party in the 2010 or even 2012 elections, it would fail to translate into a true winning strategy afterwards. This would mirror the same problems the democratic party experienced in the 1980’s with the then powerful liberal wing. Simply put, the Democratic party ended up realizing that despite their midterm wins during Reagan’s first term by going hard-left in their ideology, it was simply not the answer most Americans looked for in the long run of the late 20^th century. Despite the current leaders of the party who say otherwise, the Tea Party and its Tea Baggers are not the logical future of the Republican Party and a Republican resurgence. The Tea Party is merely a wild forest fire that unfortunately for the Republican Party will hurt many in the short term, both those who support them and those brave enough to stand against them; but it will eventually burn itself out and as a wildfire show how non-enduring populist movements rooted in anti-intellectualism are. When that happens, we as Republicans do not want to be on that same burnt out field. As we start off the new year which looks to be very rough to centrist republicanism everywhere, take heed and don’t cave in and I hope everyone had a happy new year.

In the run-up to the January 19 special election in Massachusetts to elect a replacement for the late Senator Ted Kennedy, all eyes were focused on the Democratic candidates with scant attention paid to Scott Brown the Republican nominee. After all, Massachusetts is the bluest of blue states and with no Republicans in the state delegation to Congress. This should be a cakewalk for the Democrats. And yet, Brown is nine points behind state attorney general Martha Coakley, the Democratic nominee.

So what is causing Brown to do so well? Rassumsen says it boils down to excitement and maybe the health care overhaul which is based on a plan passed in Massachusetts in 2006:

Special elections are typically decided by who shows up to vote and it is clear from the data that Brown’s supporters are more enthusiastic. In fact, among those who are absolutely certain they will vote, Brown pulls to within two points of Coakley. That suggests a very low turnout will help the Republican and a higher turnout is better for the Democrat.

In 2006, Massachusetts implemented its own statewide version of health care reform which has been cited as a model for the national plan. But just 32% of the state’s voters consider that reform a success. Thirty-six percent (36%) consider the plan a failure, and another 32% are not sure.

Despite the creation of a statewide health plan in part to address rising costs, most Massachusetts voters (54%) say cost is still the biggest problem with health care. Twenty-four percent (24%) cite a lack of universal coverage, while 11% say it’s the quality of care. Just three percent (3%) complain of the inconvenience of scheduling.

 A cursory look at Brown’s website shows that he is playing it pretty safe, staying away from red meat issues and at least presenting himself as a moderate conservative. What is also impressive is his use of social media (Ning, Facebook, Twitter, etc.).Â

Will Brown score an upset? I still think it is a long shot, however, if all the action on Brown’s Twitter and Facebook accounts translates into real votes, we could be seeing a Republican Senator from Massachusetts for the first time since Edward Brooke in the late 1970s.

What was going to be a sleeper race suddenly got interesting.

I’ve done more than a few posts on the quest by some in the GOP to want shrink the so-called “Big Tent.” Many of us have looked at how the Democrats have been able to welcome both liberals and moderates in the party.

However, two articles from two Democrats show that the Left is having its own problems on trying to reach and keep moderates and also please its base.

On Christmas Eve, former Commerce Secretary William Daley wrote in the Washington Post about trying to keep the Dems open to all viewpoints. He notes that Democratic wins in 2006 and 2008 was because the party reached out beyond its liberal base. It was because of the Big Tent, that Dems started winning in Republican-leaning districts for the first time in a long time. But all is now well in the party of FDR. Daley notes that currently liberals in the party are attacking their Centrist brothers and sisters for not being pure enough.

On the one hand, centrist Democrats are being vilified by left-wing bloggers, pundits and partisan news outlets for not being sufficiently liberal, “true” Democrats. On the other, Republicans are pounding them for their association with a party that seems to be advancing an agenda far to the left of most voters.

The political dangers of this situation could not be clearer.

Witness the losses in New Jersey and Virginia in this year’s off-year elections. In those gubernatorial contests, the margin of victory was provided to Republicans by independents — many of whom had voted for Obama. Just one year later, they had crossed back to the Republicans by 2-to-1 margins.

For Daley, the solution is to realize that what might be the agenda of the liberal base might not be the agenda of all Americans:

All that is required for the Democratic Party to recover its political footing is to acknowledge that the agenda of the party’s most liberal supporters has not won the support of a majority of Americans — and, based on that recognition, to steer a more moderate course on the key issues of the day, from health care to the economy to the environment to Afghanistan.

For liberals to accept that inescapable reality is not to concede permanent defeat. Rather, let them take it as a sign that they must continue the hard work of slowly and steadily persuading their fellow citizens to embrace their perspective. In the meantime, liberals — and, indeed, all of us — should have the humility to recognize that there is no monopoly on good ideas, as well as the long-term perspective to know that intraparty warfare will only relegate the Democrats to minority status, which would be disastrous for the very constituents they seek to represent.

Nonsense, says Robert Creamer, in the Huffington Post. The political organizer sees any attempt to become more “moderate” as nothing more than bowing to the political interests that got us into this mess called the “Great Recession.” Creamer believes the nation voted for substantial change is the Democrats must deliver on this change:

“Moderating” our goals is not a recipe for victory. It is a recipe for failure. Last fall, voters overwhelming voted for change, and they knew then — and still know now — the kind of change they wanted.

They wanted to end the stranglehold of the private insurance companies that continues to put every American a single illness — or one layoff — away from financial catastrophe. They want to take bold, clear action to assure that America is in the forefront of creating the clean energy jobs of the future — and leave a thriving healthy planet to our children. They wanted to fundamentally change the bull-in-the-china shop foreign policy of the Bush years and re-establish American leadership in the world. Most importantly, they rejected the failed economic policies that allowed the recklessness of huge Wall Street banks to plunge the economy into free fall — and cost millions their livelihoods. They desperately want leadership that will lay the foundation for long term, bottom-up, widely shared prosperity.

In other words they wanted… and still want… fundamental change.

Why does this all sound so familiar to me?

I think what Daley and Creamer show is that polarization really is taking place within the two parties, leaving those not “pure” enough out in the cold. Both hard core liberals and conservatives feel they have a pulse on what America wants and misinterprets an election win for a mandate for radical change.

But of course, they don’t understand the outside because their whole political lives are spent inside a bubble of their own making. Moderates in both parties tend to be the ones that know that all of America isn’t Berkley or Alabama. They are the ones that have a foot in reality.

Maybe what could happen is that moderates in both parties get tired of being treated like crap and create one or two political parties that are more in tune with the pulse of America. One can hope.

Finally,something that describes who I am.Â

 Let me explain. I’m a fairly well-educated guy that lives in the city, drive a Prius, gives to public radio and likes organic food. But if you think that his means I’m some kind of lefty liberal, you are so wrong. I don’t support the President’s health care plan (even though I do think there is room for reform). I am upset at his high spending habits. That should be something that would want to make the GOP go after people like me. But as Michael Petrilli notes, many in the Republican Party are not interested:

As less-educated seniors pass away and better-educated 20- and 30-somethings take their place in the electorate, this bloc will exert growing influence. And here’s the distressing news for the GOP: According to exit-poll data, a majority of college-educated voters (53%) pulled the lever for Mr. Obama in 2008—the first time a Democratic candidate has won this key segment since the 1970s.

Some in the GOP see this trend as an opportunity rather than a problem. Let the Democrats have the Starbucks set, goes the thinking, and we’ll grab working-class families. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, for instance, wants to embrace “Sam’s Club” Republicans. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee pitched himself in 2008 as the guy who “looks like your co-worker, not your boss.” Even Mitt Romney blasted “Eastern elites.” And of course there’s Sarah Palin, whose entire brand is anti-intellectual.

Ross Douthat and Riehan Salam have written an entire book that tends to praise the “Sam’s Club” Republican while giving short shrift to more upscale Republicans, branding them as nothing more than Democrats in drag.

As Petrilli notes, the other the name for “Whole Foods Republicans” is moderate Republicans, those socially moderate-to-liberal, fiscally conservative Republicans. But these people have been tagged as “RINOs” and have been ignored by the GOP. And because the GOP has targeted such people as worthy of being purged, these “Whole Foods Republicans” aren’t showing a whole lotta love back at the GOP:

Do these Republican party leaders even appreciate how off-putting their comments are to someone who has at least an undergraduate college education, let alone an educated individual who can even think independently for themself? The Republican leaders of my youth were people like New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller and Massachusetts U.S. Senator Edward Brooke. Those Republicans were generally socially moderate to liberal and fiscally conservative. Where have all of those Rockefeller Republicans gone? The above has made me very suspicious of the Republican Party.

I am equally suspicious, if not even more so, of the Democratic Party. Lifestyle choices aside, I view big government (and the often associated ineffective bloated bureaucracies) with great suspicion. “There’s no law that someone who enjoys organic food, rides his bike to work, or wants a diverse school for his kids must also believe that the federal government should take over the health-care system or waste money on thousands of social programs with no evidence of effectiveness. Nor do highly educated people have to agree that a strong national defense is harmful to the cause of peace and international cooperation.”

Perhaps this is why I remain an independent voter (and more and more college educated people like me are becoming so). What is wrong with having moderate to liberal views on social issues and being fiscally conservative at the same time?

Indeed, what is wrong with having moderate to liberal views on social issues and yet being fiscally moderate?

Right now, the GOP is withholding outreach towards more upscale folks for a few reasons: one, they are afraid of being painted as an “elitist” and then run out of the party; and two, because some still adhere to the Karl Rove school of electoral politics- rally the base and get just enough moderates to win narrowly. But the math shows the such a strategy will only last for so long. At somepoint, you will lose the moderates and the base is not big enough to bring victory.

In the end, three things will happen to the GOP in regards to “Whole Foods” voters: either they will reach out to them on their own, be forced to change by younger voters, or ignore them and become the modern “Know-Nothing” party that will be a regional party at best.

It’s up to the GOP leadership to decide.

David Frum has an awesome summation of GOP strategy in the last twelve months and how we have fared against the Democrats.

The result? Not so good:

1) Instead of a healthcare reform to slow cost increases, Democrats in the Senate seem to be converging upon an expansion of Medicare to include age 59-64 year olds and an expansion in Medicaid up to some higher multiple of the poverty limit. You might wonder why they didn’t do this before: expanding existing programs is always easier than creating new ones. So now instead of a new system that attempts to control costs, we’re just going to have a bigger and more expensive version of the old system, with a few tinkers around the edges. Republicans could have been architects of improvement, instead we made ourselves impotent spectators as things get radically worse. Plus – the bad new Democratic proposal will likely be less unpopular with voters than their more promising earlier proposal. Nice work everybody.

2) House and Senate conferees last night rejected a proposal to deny EPA funds to enforce its new powers over greenhouse gasses. So instead of an economically rational approach to carbon abatement – a carbon tax or even a cap-and-trade system stripped of the abuses and boondoggles attached to it by House Democrats – we’re going to have the least rational approach: bureaucratic enforcement.

As Frum notes we are ending up with pretty bad plans, plans made worse by not negotiating with the Dems and cutting a deal.

And who does Frum blame for all of this? If you said the leaders in Washington, you don’t get the free t-shirt:

Most Republicans will shrug off that news. If polls are right, rank-and-file Republicans feel little regard for the Washington party, and don’t expect much from it. But it’s the rank-and-file who are the problem here! Republican leaders do not dare try deals for fear of being branded sell-outs by a party base that wants war to the knife. So we got war. And we’re losing. Even if we gain seats in 2010, the actions of this congressional session will not be reversed. Shrink Medicare after it has expanded? Hey- we said we’d never do that.

And there is a fatal truth here that the angry base is missing: once a plan to expand government has been enacted, it is next to impossible to then turn around and get rid of it. Interests pile up around it and become addicted. Those interests are then going to make sure a program never sees a cut or a needed reform.

As Frum notes, all of this stands on the notion of conservative standing on “principle.” They go back to “Goldwater Myth” that Frum talked about earlier this year, which states that Goldwater lost in 1964, but then the conservative movement grew and was able to win sixteen years later with the election of Ronald Reagan. But Frum notes back then that the myth omits some important facts:

What happened in 1964 was an unredeemed and unmitigated catastrophe for Republicans and conservatives. The success that followed 16 years later was a matter of happenstance, not of strategy. That’s the real lesson of 1964, and it is the lesson that conservatives need most to take to heart today.

1964 was always bound to be a Democratic year. The difference between Barry Goldwater’s 38.5% candidacy and the 44% or 45% that might have been won by a Nelson Rockefeller or a William Scranton was the effect on down-ballot races.

Republicans lost 36 seats in the House of Representatives in 1964, giving Democrats the biggest majority in the House any party has enjoyed since the end of World War II. Republicans dropped 2 seats in the Senate, yielding a Democratic majority of 68-32, again the most lopsided standing in any election from the war to the present day.

This huge congressional majority – call it the Goldwater majority – liberated President Johnson from any dependence on conservative southern Democrats. In 1964, only 46 Senate Democrats voted for the great Civil Rights Act; 21 opposed. Without Republican support, the Act would not have passed. (And indeed while 68% of Senate Democrats voted for the Act, 81% of Senate Republicans did.)

While dependent on southern Democrats, President Johnson had to develop a careful, pragmatic domestic agenda that balanced zigs to the right (in 1964, Congress passed the first across the board income tax cut since the 1920s) with zags to the left (the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 which created Head Start among other less successful programs).

Then came the Republican debacle of November 1964. Goldwater’s overwhelming defeat invited a tsunami of liberal activism. The 89th Congress elected in 1964 enacted both Medicaid and Medicare. It passed a new immigration law, opening the way to a surge of 40 million newcomers, the overwhelming majority of them from poor Third World countries. It dramatically expanded welfare eligibility and other anti-poverty programs that together transformed the urban poor of the 1950s into the urban underclass of the 1970s and 1980s.

Suppose history had taken a different bounce in 1964. Suppose somebody other than Sen. Goldwater had won the Republican presidential nomination. Suppose his narrower margin of defeat had preserved those 36 Republican seats in the House – or even possibly gained some seats. (The big Democratic gains in 1958 and 1962 were ripe for a rollback in 1964 – and indeed were rolled back in 1966, when the GOP picked up 47 seats in the House and 3 in the Senate.)

Under those circumstances, the legislation of 1965 might have looked a lot more like the more moderate legislation of 1964. The Voting Rights Act would surely have passed, and so too would some form of health insurance measure for the poor – a measure supported by the American Medical Association and health insurers as well as by congressional liberals. But Medicare might never have happened, or might have taken a less costly form. The immigration bill might have been more carefully written so as to achieve its declared purpose: eliminating racial discrimination in immigration without expanding the overall number of immigrants from the modest level prevailing in the 1950s and early 1960s.

True, the liberal triumph of 1964 set in motion the train of disasters that laid liberalism low in the 1980s. But those disasters followed from choices and decisions that liberals made – not from some multiyear conservative grand strategy for success in 1980. It was not Goldwater who made Reagan possible. It was Carter. Had Carter governed more successfully, the Goldwater disaster would have been just a disaster, with no silver lining. And there was nothing about the Goldwater disaster that made the Carter failure more necessary, more inevitable.

The Goldwater Myth might have led to Reagan’s victory, but it also led to some really bad policy decisions by the Democrats. Because the GOP wasn’t around to check some of excesses, that led the Dems to whatever they wanted- and they did.

What would have happened had Republicans actually negotiated with the Democrats in crafting a health care deal? It might have put forth a plan that was more focused on cost savings than the current plan. It also could have crafted something that was more along the lines of a Singapore-style health care system instead of the expensive mismash we got. And on climate change? Well, we might have forced the Dems to support a more efficient carbon tax; instead we might get a bill that is a boondoggle and if that fails, we get the command-and-control regulatory scheme of the EPA.

The GOP might pick up seats next year after how bad the Dems have governed so far. But it will be a phyrric victory.

Principles are important. But I don’t see the value in principles if we never use them to try to make government work, to make it more efficient. I don’t see the value in only being obstructionist. I don’t think we elect GOP leaders to just say no. A monkey could do that. We elect GOP politicians to take their values and work with others to get something done. I want Republican leaders in Congress to use their brains. Yes, we want less government. But people also want health care to be reformed. We need to find ways to create a health care system that helps people and in not as intrusive into public lives.

The rank-and-file see politics as a war that has to be fought and won with an enemy that is vanquished. I find that an innacurate strategy, since the Democrats are not our enemies per se. Yes, we disagree with them and will oppose their policies, but they are fellow Americans wanting to push their ideas as well. In reality, politics is more like a chess game, where we make moves and countermoves. Republicans have to learn the art of governing again: learning when to negotiate and compromise, and when to oppose. If not, then get ready for more bad programs from the Democrats.

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 immigrants

Okay, 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.

Originally posted at The Big Stick

In 2005 Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam authored a piece for the Weekly Standard entitled, “The Party of Sam’s Club: Isn’t it time the Republicans did something for their voters?” Eventually the work of Douthat and Salam evolved into a book called Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream. Neither the article or the book lay out a roadmap for change but instead offer a series of possibilities. Possibilities for a Republican party that must evolve if it is to attract new voters and remain relevant. The brand of conservatism that they subscribe to would best be described as populist conservatism or as Douthat and Salam like to call it ‘Sam’s Club conservatism’. Read more »