The KS GOP & Its "Moderate" Leadership
Rethinking the "Big Tent ..."
By Martin A. Knight Posted in Republicans — Comments (27) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Erick's story about the Kansas GOP and their "moderate" National Committee representative Steve Cloud is just another piece of evidence leading me to believe that it is time we Republicans re-evaluated our commitment to the "Big Tent." I still believe that it should be "Big", but we need to define bright and clear boundaries that define precisely where one crosses the line.
Clearly there should be a limit to our tolerance of Republicans elected to public office going "moderate" wandering off the reservation on so many issues that they are by and large indistinguishable from Democrats on the things that matter. Allowing the "Big Tent" concept to be the final word on what it means to be a Republican simply makes us a party without anything to stand for - and that's enough to guarantee the GOP going the way of the Whigs.
"Moderate" and/or Rockefeller Republicans (I exclude proper Republicans like Rudy Guiliani and William Weld) may win elections here and there, but at the end of the day, they are basically slow acting poison. Note that we spent years as the minority party led by Rockefeller Republicans of the United States until the very moment Gingrich excised them out of our Congressional leadership.
It is extremely rare to find a Rockefeller Republican as either an elected or party official who leaves office with the party in his district or state stronger than when he/she met it. It is far more common to find the exact opposite, e.g. Bob Taft in OH, George Pataki in NY, Christie Whitman in NJ. I have looked for instances where it is proven otherwise but those instances are very few and far between. In fact, in recent times, the immediate after-effect of electing a "moderate" Republican into any public office is an increase in Democratic strength in the area affected.
Read on ...
Witness Kansas - a state which has long had a traditional strong preference to the Republican Party; the state GOP long ago decided to cater to "moderates", in the process essentially violating post-Watergate Reagan's admonition that a party must have certain principles and beliefs that must remain inviolate. Worse is that after having crippled the GOP by basically cutting it free of its philosophical moorings and rendering it without purpose or direction, these "moderates" are switching over to the Democrats i.e. the Kansas Republican Party State Chairman from 1999 to 2003 switched parties (to Democrat) last year.
Let's be honest; how often do "moderate" Republicans have coat-tails? How many actually hand over to another Republican after their terms are over? Usually they hand over to a Democrat (often they do so more gladly than they would have to another Republican) because during their terms they would have conceded so much of the basic premises that define what it means to be a Republican that they basically render the average Republican unelectable for being "extreme." i.e. does anybody honestly believe that any Republican would be able to win a statewide race in CA for a long while after Arnold steps down?
This is one of the reasons why I have become convinced that allowing Republican "moderates" to achieve high positions in the GOP is basically slitting our own throats, trading in short-term gain (if any) for very long-term pain. To be blunt, I personally consider Christie Todd Whitman's (who ironically won her first Governor's race in New Jersey by running as a strong fiscal, law and order conservative) particular off-shoot of Republicanism to be akin to streptococcus on the body of the GOP. It's basically guaranteeing sabotage from within until the Jeffords' moment when they switch.
So while I still believe that the Big Tent philosophy has a great deal of value, I think we need to establish clear limits as to how wide the tent should be. Clearly, someone like Rudy Guiliani belongs well inside it, but I am not so certain that Christie Whitman still does. Linc Chafee certainly never did. This would probably enrage the proprietress of this site (who I admit is apparently quite a party loyalist despite her obvious distaste for social conservatives) ... but then again, this is someone who thought Lincoln Chafee was an asset to the GOP.
To be clear, I'm not in favor of a "purge" as some would call this. We just need to draw a few lines ... and be prepared to tell those we find outside it to either come stand with us behind those lines, or, in Reagan's words "let them go their way ..."
« Burn the Witch — Comments (18) | Open Thread - Morning in America? — Comments (82) »
The KS GOP & Its "Moderate" Leadership 27 Comments (0 topical, 27 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I sure hope so. Schumer-lite
Let's call it a "'moderate' hiring freeze." The best way is for the GOP grassroots to explicitly reject "electability" (as defined by some newspaper or calcified conventional wisdom) as a criterion for picking a nominee.
Basically we should concentrate on seeing to it that the so-called "Republican Main Street Partnership", its other "moderate" sister organizations, and their affiliates lose more and more members as the cycles wear on. They should face Primary challengers in every cycle until they learn to recognize their own team members.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
I think that the Republican moderates, though not unwanted should be made to compete in the arena of ideas like everyone else. If, within the Republican party, they win the day against a conservative primary challenger, I am good with them winning.
However, I think they should be made to articulate their ideas and compete against a conservative to see which has the better ideas and solutions to problems.
That is not kicking them out of the party, that is nothing more than political Darwinism. May the best candidate win.
Note: I am trademarking "Political DarwinismTM" I like that term in the debate about moderate Republicans.
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }
It came to mind while I was typing and I liked it.
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }
but we need to encourage quite a few retirements rather than engage in an all-out purge. Many party apparatchiks also need to be included in the gold watch affairs.
basis.
It makes no sense to have moderate republicans coming out of Kansas, which is essentially a conservative state.
It makes a great deal of sense to have moderate republicans out of Pennsylvania, Maine, Oregon, etc because they help provide majorities in the house, state houses and Senate.
No, they don't. Specter won on Reagan's coattails and ever was an obstacle to conservative objectives. I don't think Bush's support of him over Toomey helped any, and he sure as heck didn't help Santorum stay in office.
PA isn't a moderate leaning state, its a half Red state and a half Blue state by population only. Look at it on a county by county basis and its a solid Red state with two large lakes of blue surrounding Philadelphia and Pittsburg with a smatter of blue at Harrisburg and a few other largish cities.
of straying from conservative principles. The Republican party should be, at its core, and in its leadership, a conservative party. The KS scenario is a prime example of what happens when conservative principles are jettisoned in favor of "electability". And it'll happen again in 2008 with the POTUS race if we are not careful.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
I consider myself a moderate republican but only because of two items. I am ever so slightly pro choice only for a woman during an early pregnance to get good medical care and then as a last resort.
I firmly believe in parental notification and believe that Roe was bad law and we should return this decision to the states.
I don't believe that we should have Gay marriage but don't think the states should be involved with marriage to begin with. Domestic partnerships across the board and leave marriage to your churches and temples. Whether a couple is tay or straight it should be up to the states to determine what is legal in their state.
Other than those two areas I would say I am a strong conservative and will always vote for a conservative over the political "moderates" or a democrate. Your post was right on target and the political moderates are really just democrats who found a way to get elected when there was not an opportunity to run as a democrat due to incumbency or the local political leanings.
I completely agree with you Martin, but have some real reservations on whether the GOP is ready, willing and able to take on the task.
For the task is quite simply articulating the core principles of the Republican Party. As UrbanRepublican's reply shows, there's quite a bit of confusion between policy (which can afford disagreement) and principle (which cannot) within the GOP and indeed within the general electorate as well.
The downfall of the Democratic Party, in my view, as a serious and legitimate contender for power came when it abandoned all of its principles and made Power for the Sake of Power its all-consuming goal.
How are Republicans any different?
I still have certain principles which makes me a Republican; but I'm no longer convinced that the majority of the GOP shares those principles. And I know for a fact that too many in the GOP leadership do not share those principles.
So first things first. I'm all for drawing boundaries and setting where the tent lies, however large it be. But first, what are those core principles? Who should articulate them? What are the mechanisms for articulating such principles?
-TS
"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt
We need to first of all determine where we can and where we can't compromise.
The thing is, I am more than willing to allow a significant measure of daylight between Republicans on social issues. I am pro-life but I am happy enough to share a Party with people who differ on this, though I cannot for the life of me understand Republicans (or anybody, really) who are opposed to Parental Notification or a Partial Birth Abortion Ban.
However, on other issues; i.e. civic, military, national security, fiscal and economic issues, I confess to being far less prepared to accept deviations from principle.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
we both have different Ideas of what is comprimisable. I consider matters of life to be less comprimisable than matters of money. It seems to me that the life of 1 million children a year would be more important than a lot of money so I don't understand why people can call themthelves pro life, but still consider tax-cuts to be the more important issue.
The fact is we have different ideologies in the republican party, and we allready have a system for how to settle the conflict. It is called the primary. So I don't really know what you think we should change. Moderates will continue to vote for moderates, So Cons will continue to vote for So Cons and Fi cons for Fi Cons. If you think that moderates only win because conservatives vote for them, than I guess I see you point. However, considering the fact there are different Ideological factions within the republican party, I would say that often it is becasue one person's idea of moderate is another person's idea of the right philosophy.
this is precisely the problem I am seeing, PopCon.
You think there are different ideological factions within the GOP; I think there are different policy factions, but no ideological factions. In some part, it is because we don't have a clear ideology of the GOP anymore, but in some part it's because we actually have a lot of vague shared assumptions about what the principles are.
For example, as far as I'm concerned, I know of no such thing as a Big Government Conservative. That is why the actions of our current (and recent) leadership dismayed and demoralized so many of us. We stand (I thought) for the proposition that government is a necessary evil, to be minimized, contained, restrained, and limited as much as possible; the liberals and Democrats are the ones who claim the State is the Center for For All That Is Good And Progress In The World.
What are our principles, and what are our policies? We can differ on policies, even stridently differ, while still agreeing that the principles must be upheld. And, having actual principles means that the policy prescriptions must be shown to advance the principle at hand.
For example, how a Medicare Prescription Drug boondoggle advances the idea of smaller, limited government is completely beyond me. The idea of "compassionate conservatism" is a nice soundbite, but it isn't an idea per se. For an argument to be coherent, it must at least pay some sort of lip service to the principles of the GOP. That few of our elected officials do so is a sign that the principles are entirely too vague, or much erased, or weakened in other ways.
Strong National Defense
Limited Government
Respect for Federalism
Support for the Free Market
Individual Liberty & Responsibility
Judiciary of Judges, Not Legislators
These six appear to me to be principles on which most GOP'ers can agree.
Sanctity of Life
Robust Foreign Policy
These two are contentious, I believe, and need to be reconciled one way or the other.
Just a start, but this is work that is desperately needed.
-TS
"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt
I think you have to have more to your philosophy than government should be limited. Obviously we believe that there should be some form of government or we would be anarchists. Therefore, the important question is what do you think the role of government is. A philosophy that just says you are for limited goverment is way to vague in my mind. Allmost everybody would be happy to say they are for limited govermnent because none of us think that government should have no end. The question is, how specifically do you think government should be limited.
There are some areas where I think government should be less limited. For example in fighting against abortion.
You say:
"We stand (I thought) for the proposition that government is a necessary evil, to be minimized, contained, restrained, and limited as much as possible;" This is very vague if you have no idea what as much as possible means. Thus I don't find it as a very usefull political principle to judge whether someone should be in the party or not. Everyone can say that they agree with that principle and claim that their are ideas are consistent with it.
I believe that there are various ideological factions within the republican party. Just because you don't think compassionate conservatives belong in the party does not mean that they are not in the party. Just like I don't like social liberals being in the party, but this does not mean that there are not social liberals in the party. The fact that we had congress and the white house, and still made decisions in which government grew should show that not all in the party agree with the always shrink government principle. Thus we opperate on different principles. I tend to think that there are Bush conservatives out there or he would not have got elected. Just because you don't want there to be such a thing as a compassionate conservatives does not mean that we do not exist.
... but then again, this may sound contradictory because while I am calling for a lot more idealism and discipline within the ranks, I am also very much aware that pragmatism has a part to play.
The fact of the matter is that the GOP's major fault lines are on social issues. We need to have a rededication to first principles that takes note of that. That does not mean we drop being pro-life from the platform ... but it does mean that we should not make it uncomfortable for people who stand with us on every other issue except abortion to be well with the mainstream of the GOP.
If you remember, Reagan and Gingrich ran on agendas that unified all wings of the GOP and they did not include social issues. Yet both moved social conservative goals forward. So if I can get a four-square strong fiscal, law and order and civic conservative who just happens to be pro-choice to take out John Hall up in New York, I'll take him, happily because he'll move all wings of the GOP forward, and perhaps when he retires, he would be able to handover to a fellow Republican who is just as fiscally conservative, but pro-life.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
want to make the tent smaller and allow less moderates. But it seems that you only want to make the party less moderate in the fiscal direction as you are willing to comprimise on the social issues. You don't just want to make the party less moderate, you want it to fit your form of conservatism. This okay, I would the party to fit my ideology too, but don't frame it as you just wanting to make the party less moderate.
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
Alright, I'll take the bait. As fiscally conservative, socially center-right Republican (ie probably not the type of person you're talking about defining out of the party, at least for now), I think this is a bad idea. I think there are at least a few flawed premises:
It is extremely rare to find a Rockefeller Republican as either an elected or party official who leaves office with the party in his district or state stronger than when he/she met it. It is far more common to find the exact opposite, e.g. Bob Taft in OH, George Pataki in NY, Christie Whitman in NJ.
That is because Rockefeller Republicans tend to win in states where conservatives/Republicans are already in decline. Let me flip the question for you: Where has a sharply conservative candidate actually strengthened the party in a liberal state? Not when one ran to succeed Whitman in New Jersey, or Taft in Ohio. I don't really know who ran in New York, but the point is that in a center to center-left to left states you describe, but I don't think they were exactly fertile territory for a conservative Republican to win in the first place.
Quite frankly, I think the insistence of those who favor a "pup tent" theory of the party (RAWs, or Republicans Against Winning, as I like to call them) on nominating "one of their own" has helped prevent any resurgence in these states. We could have won the governorships in Illinois, Maine, and probably Oregon if the party had nominated a candidate who was a little more in line with those states, or not abandoned the party when it nominated someone who was out of step with the party.
Witness Kansas - a state which has long had a traditional strong preference to the Republican Party; the state GOP long ago decided to cater to "moderates", in the process essentially violating post-Watergate Reagan's admonition that a party must have certain principles and beliefs that must remain inviolate.
I think the history here is a bit confused. The state has always been a home to moderately conservative Republicans like Pearson, Kassenbaum and Dole. People forget how progressive Alf Landon was. The state party has moved to the right, while the state has pretty much stayed put. And it has had a negative effect on the party's health in the state, quite frankly, losing the third district and the governorship to candidates who fit the state reasonably well, and who would have been Republicans a generation ago. We can pat ourselves on the back and cheer that Vince Snowbarger succeeded a "RINO" like Jan Meyer in the 3rd district for a term, but I don't think five terms of Dennis Moore has been worth it.
does anybody honestly believe that any Republican would be able to win a statewide race in CA for a long while after Arnold steps down?
We weren't doing too hot in the state before he was elected, if I recall correctly. And once elected, Arnold tried to govern as a moderately conservative candidate. It didn't work out so well. Quite frankly, if he hadn't changed course, we'd have Governor Angelides right now, as well as the rest of the branches of the legislature in Republican hands.
Linc Chafee certainly never did. This would probably enrage the proprietress of this site (who I admit is apparently quite a party loyalist despite her obvious distaste for social conservatives) ... but then again, this is someone who thought Lincoln Chafee was an asset to the GOP.
Well, quite frankly I agree with her. Would I like it if Rhode Island elected a movement conservative? Absolutely. But absent some strange electoral circumstances (like the three-way elections where the liberal vote was split that gave us Senators D'Amato and Buckley in NY), it ain't gonna happen. Failing that, would I prefer Chafee to Shelden Whitehouse? Absolutely. And would I be a lot happier with that extra vote to organize the Senate right about now? 100%. Do I prefer Chafee's votes to end filibusters of judges to Whitehouse's votes to continue them? Yes. I could go on, but Chafee is certainly no worse than Whitehouse, and in some ways that are important to me, a lot better.
For all their failings, the netroots seem to understand that their Southern conservative Democrats are essential to their coalition. There's no push for primary challengers to Gene Taylor or Dan Boren. For once, I think there's something to learn from them there.
Bottom line: This is not a 50-50 nation, and never has been. It is a 40-40-20 nation, with conservatives and moderates having 40% of the vote, and liberals with 20%. But if we insist on defining the party as not including moderates, we're going to find ourselves on the wrong end of a 60-40 split that we don't like.
... when it's membership prevents it from achieving anything useful?
The GOP is not a sports team that at the end of the day is all about the won-lost record. After we win we have to govern. After voting for McConnell (if he actually would have done so), Lincoln Chafee would go along with Democrats torpedoing everything Republicans are trying to achieve.
So what would be the point of having him in the caucus or in executive office? How many times do we need to get burned by these "moderates" before we realize that they may win but it does a lot of harm in the long term.
Either way, if you read my responses, you know I'm not saying we should kick out moderates - just "moderates". The former are Rudy Guiliani, William Weld and maybe Gordon Smith. The latter are James Jeffords, Lincoln Chafee and former Kansas GOP Chairman Lt. Governor Mike Parkinson (D-KS).
Surely there's a middle ground allowing that there is a place for pro-choice Republicans who are otherwise strong on every other issue and being incubators for the next breed of Democratic politicians?
PS: Guiliani's victories in very liberal New York lead me to believe that the major way forward is to stand fast and make yourself heard. This may sound naive ... but my belief is that the GOP's problem, in the North-East especially, is marketing, not (barring social issues4) our positions.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
We need to be less afraid of being called names in the press, and just say what we mean.
(I also think it's shameful that Republicans have been joining in in discreding Sen. Brownback because he dares to stand up for traditional views, just dismissing him as unelectable wtihout even TRYING).
"What's the point of having a Majority"
Conservatives don't have a majority. On a good day we have 40% of the population. Less in a lot of those states. It is an unfortunate fact of life for now.
I know that we're not a sports team, but there's a zero sum game involved here. Either Republicans set the congressional agenda, or Democrats do. The point of having a Republican majority, formed from a coalition of conservatives and moderates, is that we spend our time fussing over what type and how big of tax cuts we're going to have, rather than how the government is going to take over the health care system. A majority at least allows you to set the agenda, even if you don't have perfect control of how it comes out. That first vote for McConnell is awfully important (and there are plenty of other matters where Chafee voted a lot better than Whitehouse ever did).
But maybe I just need a better idea of what this moderate vs. moderate distinction means. As I recall, Weld was not exactly a favorite of movement conservatives, or even tolerated by them. Jesse Helms, as I recall, tried to block his appointment as an ambassador. I'm not sure his voting record would have been that far to the right of Chafee's. And his moderate Republicanism didn't exactly swell the ranks of the GOP in the statehouse, though his successor was re-elected after Weld left early.
As for Giuliani, he is another one who had a zero future in the party post 9-11. And again, he left little Republican legacy in the city: He begat a Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-Independent who won because of Giuliani's post-911 coattails and a $500M campaign kitty. Again, I'm not sure that running Chandler Woodcocks all over the Northeast is really the prescription for the party's ills in the region.
The point of having a Republican majority, formed from a coalition of conservatives and moderates, is that we spend our time fussing over what type and how big of tax cuts we're going to have, rather than how the government is going to take over the health care system.
That's a pretty substantial line to draw. That implies anyone who favors tax HIKES is wide open to being kicked out, the way I'm reading you.
Is that the simple fact of being in the congressional majority has its advantages. With a party that is dependent on a pretty substantial contingent of center-right Democrats from southern districts, Pelosi has managed to push through a substantial number of bills that would never see the light of day in a Republican house. The Senate is a different matter, because no one controls the Senate without 60 votes, but on the other hand, we sure aren't setting the agenda there, either, so much as playing very good defense.
I'm not saying that anyone who favors tax hikes should be kicked out. What I'm saying is that tax hikes probably wouldn't be on the table with a Chafee-for-Whitehouse substitution.
IIRC, 4 MA GOVS in a row were "moderate" GOPers, ending after Romney. That's a lot of handing off in a liberal state.
And I'm not sure this hypothesis is sound. What conservative GOV in OH, PA, NY, or NJ handed off to a stronger party?
I think your best evidence is Jeb Bush. He was conservative and strengthened the party (as did George Bush in TX). But GOV Crist is quite popular as a "moderate" so far and could leave the GOP even stronger (or not).
In a state like KS, I don't know the history. But have moderate GOP Governors hurt the GOP? Have conservative GOP Governors increased the GOP standing in the state?
And the biggest question is when it comes down to moderate GOP or lose. That's what happened to Romney as GOV and Giuliani as Mayor.
I think your issue is more with the candidates GOP pride than their positions. Giuliani and Weld were both "moderates" or "liberals" but they did not trash the GOP. They did not win over voters by attacking allies. If that is your thesis, then I could agree.
But if it is candidate's views on the issues, then I don't see why Giuliani or Weld get an exemption.
______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana
or find something else to do. Rockefeller Republicans are useless in the apparatus.