What The Hell Is Wrong With The MNGOP – Part II
By Mitch Berg
One of the most frustrating things about being in the Minnesota GOP is that the factionalism gets downright awful at times.
It’s unavoidable, of course; the GOP is the big tent party in this state, for better or worse.
But Reagan once said that to succeed as a party, we – the good guys who share a big tent, and disagree about a few things here and there – need to focus on the things we agree on -the 80 or so percent of conservative/Republican belief that most of us have in common.
Unfortunately, Minnesota Republicans tend to beat each other to death over the other 20%.
I’m not talking about the Override Six – because hammering out differences in opinion is for the run-up to elections and sessions. Once your party’s governor has stepped out onto the high wire is no time to untie one of the wire anchors. Screw the Override Six; two of them retired from politics, two got fumigated at the polls, and here’s hoping the other two get religion.
I am talking about how we hammer out consensus – almost a dirty word, in some GOP circles – among each other and, more importantly, how we proceed forward against the bad guys. And it’s something we need to wrangle out, because the next time I hear a “conservative” say he’ll never vote for Tim Pawlenty (as good as giving a vote to Mike Hatch or whomever) because he “isn’t a conservative” and ignoring the fact that he has done more to limit government growth and hold the line on taxes than any governor in recent history, I might not be responsible for my actions.
We know the things that separate us: some of us are spending moderates, others are tax hawks; for some gay marriage and abortion are the biggest issues, and for others they get nodding points; there are ideological purists and political pragmatists. We are a “big tent”, all right – and that’s not a good thing. The Democrats are a small tent in that you can be of any race, orientation or class, as long as you believe in redistribution and big government. We have to satisfy a lot of different demands – or resign ourselves to being like the Independence or Libertarian Parties.
What we need to do is find the things we agree on. And unite behind those things.
So what are those things?
A long time ago, True North posted our “manifesto“; we focus on:
- Liberty: lower taxes, less (and more sensible) regulation, and a focus on freedom, whether economic, intellectual or political.
- Prosperity: the promotion of the freedom of the market to bring the most opportunity to the most people, and the promotion of merit that drives this prosperity.
- Security: the defense of this nation from enemies abroad, the protection of its citizens from crime and criminals at home, and the security of our borders.
- Culture: The recognition that America is a melting pot that welcomes newcomers who come with a desire to join in our novel experiment, enjoy freedom, wealth and a brotherhood of common principle, rather than view it as a candy store to be plundered.
- Limited Government: A government that is focusing on whether you’re smoking or eating Big Macs is a government that has too much time, money and power on its hands.
- Family: the belief that government needs to uphold, rather than undercut, the basic building block of all healthy societies, the family.
Of course, True North is conservative, rather than Republican – so those are the things that we agree on.
So how about the party at large? Especially you pragmatists, all you moderates, and those of you who are more motivated by party than ideology? What do you agree on, to the point where you’d downplay your differences over other points for purposes of presenting a unified party with a positive message the voters?
What, in biblical terms, would it take to make the hawk lie down with the RINO?
No, I don’t expect this thread to drive any discussion in the GOP. But it’s something the party needs to think about. Short, positive messages sell – and Reagan showed that that message can be more robust than “yes we can” and still spark the imagination.
Which is what we need to do next year.
Note: Thread is restricted to Republicans – or at least to parties interested in this discussion Snarks will be expunged sooner than later.





January 29th, 2009 at 10:08 am
Mitch predicted: “Until Obama’s administration really takes effect? Sure.
But you ain’t seen nothing yet.”
Mitch omitted: Ba-ba-ba-baby!
January 29th, 2009 at 10:13 am
my death (see, e.g., In re: Terri Schiavo)
While Grace, a 9/11 truther, would seem to have suffered some sort of head trauma, she’s not actually dead.
The last I checked, Bush had nothing to do with that controversy.
my health (anti-choice)
While Grace’s logic is infantile, she’s not actually a fetus.
And the last time I checked, abortion is legal.
my bedroom (anti-gay)
I’m not aware that Bush passed any legislation against gay sex. Please enlighten.
my religion (Christianist policies)
Which passed into law in a form that affected Grace Kelly (a 9/11 truther) and her liberties exactly how?
January 29th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Mitch omitted: Ba-ba-ba-baby!
She said “any traffic’s good traffic…”
January 29th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
My Goodness! AC is actually trying to define and defend an argument!
He’s not doing very well, though. He’s being vague. What the heck are ‘Christianist policies’? Does Obama promote ‘Atheist policies’?
October 25th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
[…] name-calling – especially inasmuch as calling me an apologist for the MNGOP establishment is just plain […]