In 1993, disgusted with the GOP’s pusillanimous acquiescence on the Clinton Crime Bill (as gross an imposition on civil liberty as this country’s ever seen), I left the Republican party in disgust.
“What the hell was wrong with the GOP”, at that time, was that it had completely abandoned the notion of small government, and stampeded with a herd of Democrats to the left on a slew of privacy and civil liberties issues.
I figured that if the party actively subverted what I believed, and I didn’t have the capacity to change it myself or find enough people who believed as I did to change it, I shouldn’t be there. So I joined the Libertarians. I skipped the Gingrich Revolution (although I approved of it). I even ran for office. It was worth it; I developed an appreciation for what major parties are for; organization, mainly.
And in ’98, I came back. I figured I wasn’t going to win every battle, but it was worth fighting for in exchange for having a shot at getting what I believe actually in office.
———-
So after eight parts, I’ve said…what?
That the Minnesota GOP needs a message, one that attracts people.
Of course – as someone involved in party operations noted the other day – the party doesn’t put out messages. The party works the people who do – the candidates and the groups of supporters who put them into contention. The state party chairperson and the other officials elected by the Central Committee and, least of all, the party’s paid staff have very little to do with the message that candidates put out, other than making sure they don’t completely violate the platform.
All that’s true.
But there’s still a problem in the MNGOP.
As we all know, Norm Coleman trails in the “recount” process by something like 300 votes. Leave aside for a moment the byzantine nature of the recount, or the patchwork of “standards” (isn’t that an oxymoron?) that led to the 500 vote swing, or the danger this sort of uncertainty provides to democracy itself, what with not one in 100 voters being able to explain how we got here, and probably not one percent of those able to define the standards themselves.
Why is Norm Coleman behind by 300 votes?
Because he’s “too conservative?” Please. He was a DFLer. He nominated Paul Wellstone in 1996. He won two terms as mayor of Saint Paul as a moderate DFLer.
Because the opposition was so strong? Well, it was a bad year for Republicans. But the fact that such a relatively large number of people voted for Dean Barkley – the prickly wonk thrust into prominence by Jesse Ventura’s caprice and Paul Wellstone’s death – shows how little Barack Obama’s coattails were worth, even here.
All that is true. But Coleman also lost because several “Republican party” factions actively campaigned against him, because of some of his votes (ANWR, among others). Did these factions bring up a viable alternative within the party? Of course not. But they did actively sway people against Norm Coleman. Was it 300 votes worth? We will never know, but it’s not unreaonable.
These groups’ reasoning? “The GOP needs to learn its lesson”. So what did we get for it? If this recount wends its way to a Franken victory, we get an even more veto-proof Dem majority in Washington, to further grease the Obama Administration’s path, lubing up the skidway to hell.
So one of the things that’s wrong with the MN GOP is Minnesota Republicans themselves. The party is crowded with people who are in it for a single issue (pro-lifers, God bless ’em, in many cases), or a single candidate (Ron Paul). That’s good, as far as it goes – but here’s a suggestion: if you’re in the GOP, then by all means try to influence the GOP in the direction you want. That’s what caucuses and primaries are for. And an organized, well-motivated group can have quite an effect on the party, there; the Ron Paul supporters made quite an impact last year (and if they have the attention span, they can extend that impact into some real gains).
But if at the end of the day you call yourself a Republican but find yourself actively subverting the party’s candidates, you should ask yourself – is this where I belong? Is the damage I’m causing to what I believe in by, de facto, helping get Democrats and their entire agenda into office really the goal I had in mind?
No, I’m not saying “your party, love it or leave it”. Far from it; I applaud the Ron Paul crowd for the organizing and work they’ve done.
But I am asking; if you find yourself subverting the GOP after the caucuses and primaries, from either side – whether you’re a Coleman-hating paleocon or a Sturdevant-hugging Override-Sixer – then why are you in the GOP? Don’t you belong in the Constitution, Independence, DFL, Libertarian or Natural Law parties?
You’ve got a little over a year to think about it.
Monday: Summing up. I think.
It’s fine to say that Republicans have to support Republican candidates, but the reality is that Norm Coleman is not trailing in the recount because of Republican infidelity. In fact, he did better among Republicans than Franken fared among Democrats and he kept more McCain voters than Franken kept Obama voters. Coleman won every age cohort except one — young voters. Norm Coleman is not sitting in the U.S. Senate today for one reason — if he had even split the young vote with Franken, there is no contest. Republicans are as out of step today on issues like marriage equality as they were in the 1950s and 60s on civil rights and Medicare.
Mitch wrote:
“But I am asking; if you find yourself subverting the GOP after the caucuses and primaries, from either side – whether you’re a Coleman-hating paleocon or a Sturdevant-hugging Override-Sixer – then why are you in the GOP? Don’t you belong in the Constitution, Independence, DFL, Libertarian or Natural Law parties?”
Could you elaborate on what kind of activities you have in mind with the word ‘subverting’? Isn’t it a problem, strictly speaking in numerical support, that people HAVE gone to the parties you’ve named, as well as others? As I belatedly posted in reply to Troy back in part V, internecine conflict is not very appealing in attracting new people. And, respectfully, I would suggest that there are significant demographics of people who are unhappy with what was done when there WAS unity in the Republican party, with the avid support of conservatives. I don’t think it is generally viewed as a force that acted all that well, especially given the majority of the past eight years.
Nobody from outside has to lift a finger when inside groups beat each other up for them. Just having haters and huggers is a problem. A surmountable problem, but one that has to be addressed first.
I’m seriously thinking we need a new “Conservative” party. The GOP has set out to appeal to the most voters, rather than stand on principle. Too many deals made in the hope of winning in the election cycle. Ideals compromised inch by inch just to “all get along”. At the end of the day difference in the parties is barely distinguishable, and the standard bearers were RHINO’s.
I voted for Bush, McCain, and Norm, and held my nose all the way. It saddens me that this was the best our GOP had to offer.
Thought about it. Made my decision. See ya.
“It was worth it; I developed an appreciation for what major parties are for; organization, mainly.”
Yes, as opposing teams who choose their positions on issues, year by year, election by election. When I hear “PartyX is all about IssueY, and have been since the time of CandidateZ”, I’m thinking “probably not”. *shrug*
Here is a blog post that has been making the rounds today:
http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2009/04/kooks-blue-state-republicans-rick-moran.html
A little too capital-L Libertarian for my tastes but the author is at least making an arguable point about the direction the GOP should take.
1. Norm Coleman lost the election the moment he let Franken within 5 points of him. The second people started taking Franken seriously (which, considering his absurdly unfunny comedy, is pretty easy), Coleman was done.
2. Horner, go back and read the congressional voting tallies for the civil rights bills. It was the Democrats who stood in the way of civil rights. What you’re spouting is called a meme, by the way. Another meme is that Hispanics can be counted on to support Democratic causes. But look at Prop 8 in California. Hispanics and Blacks voted for it. Are they out of step, too?
3. I hate the word “message.” It makes it sound scripted and cleansed, laundered and softened into the pablum the so-called lumpen masses can understand. The GOP doesn’t need a “message.” They need spines. And the people who call themselves Republicans and conservatives have to start acting like grown-ups. The candidates are not your buddies; you can’t choose not to vote for them because they don’t agree with you on your one issue. I personally think we should be shipping earth-moving equipment to ANWR and machine-gunning caribou if necessary, but I voted for Coleman, who inexplicably doesn’t agree with me.
4. As for “organization,” that’s another weasel-word. Give us conservative candidates who don’t sugar-coat their conservatism and are smart enough to illustrate it, and we the people will vote for them. Saves a lot of knocking on doors and printing up signs.
5. One more thing: all you people who voted for Dean Barkley because you didn’t approve of the “dirty campaigning,” this is on you. Congratulations; your hands are clean and once again this state is a laughingstock. Next time, cowboy up and vote for your man. They use real ammo in Senate races, and they’ve never heard of the Marquis of Queensbury.
I’m done.
Let me try to sum up my thoughts: 1) Anybody willing to call themselves a Republican, and suffer the outrages the left will heap upon them thereby, is good enough. If the left hates you, you’re OK. 2) If you stand on principle and lose, you’ve gained less than nothing. 3) If you stand on principle and win, some in the Party are still going to take pot-shots at you. 4) If you don’t like the Republican you’ve got, find a better one before dumping the current one. 5) If the majority of Republicans agree with you, and endorses that RINO anyway, maybe it’s YOU that’s wrong. 6) Any Republican is better than any Democrat. Or at least that’s the way to vote, and 7) If it’s not close, they can’t cheat (H/T Hugh Hewitt).
IF I thought the Party had my core principles at its heart and not merely on its lips, and IF I thought the Republican “brand” meant something, then I’d be more inclined to overlook a nettlesome plank or two in the platform, or a couple of less than ideal votes by a candidate, and still support the cause with money, time and votes. Whether the election is won or lost, i’m still accountable to my conscience and to God for my vote and “not as bad as…” is not nearly “good enough.” The Republicans in Congress are demonstrating apparent unity and principal now, but maybe because it’s the only card they’ve got left. Demonstrate that anything’s really changed and I’ll reconsider. Til then, so long and thanks for all the fish.
I think all the issues brought up in this series are valid issues, but there is one that is unaddressed. Until it is changed from top to bottom within the GOP the party will continue eat itself from within.
That problem is the mentality stuck in the idea that any bloc’s duty or obligation is to hand over one’s vote to any candidate based only on the fact that the letter after the name is an “R”.
Candidates must EARN my vote by being, among other things, in line with my beliefs on the issues that I feel strongly about and on the rest of the issues be on my side for more than half.
If none of the candidates earn my vote then I have no problem writing “None of the above are worthy” and have done that often.
Why not hold my nose and vote for the “R” since ‘any Republican is better than any Democrat’?
I think Night Writer wrote it best with ““not as bad as…” is not nearly “good enough.””
My wife, me and at 2 others in my family did not vote for Coleman and Franken was not an option at all either. Two of us went Barclay and two of us went Constitution.
But rather than respect that reverance for one’s vote, the large scale culture is to demean the non-conformists.
And it is so deeply embeded as a culture in the GOP that the party and most of the membership cannot see how regularly they rationialize why it is acceptable, expected and obligatory for all who are right-of-center to put their principles on the back burner for the sake of the party.
The number of examples are numerous, but they would all be met with hostile explanation. Read just some of the comments here alone and see how the various authors practically dictate how others must fall in line by giving their votes regardless of the voters’ beliefs.
Until that culture is erraddicated from the GOP then being a majority party and solving the other issues presented will be mutually exclusive.