The debates between right and left in this country continue to be both heated and dysfunctional. And even the debates within the spheres we call “left” and “right” are dysfunctional. Generally speaking, we talk past and at each other without much listening. There is a lot of name calling and data slinging but not much understanding.
We see this in the debates over Obamacare and Common Core and Immigration and Gun Control. We see it in the debates over Climate Change and Gay Marriage and Abortion. And in a larger sense we see it in our views of government and society and economics and religion. What I observe is a lot of stereotyping and misunderstanding the motives of the other side.
There are about 309 million people in the US, and they have vastly different opinions on a wide range of things. Some of those 309 million are very smart and others have a simpler point of view. Some are very involved and informed but most are paying very little attention.
What I see happening is a lot of branding. People are trying to sell us; on ideas, on products, and on people and groups. There are a lot of people with a lot of agendas and they are trying hard to get us to buy into a concept, whether it is “George is a family man”, or “health care is a right”, or “climate change is settled science”.
When I write on a subject I have trouble keeping under about 3 pages. In a world of memes and 140 characters, people no longer have the patience to read 3 pages, which is a sad commentary on our society. Of course some people do still read articles, but most of what we say has been distilled down into slogans and one-liners. “No Amnesty!” gets a point across in two words. “Right to work is a RIPOFF!” fits great on a bumper sticker.
Unfortunately we are getting forced into narrow sets of ideas that often do not reflect how we really feel. Other people look at you and want to put you in a category quickly so they judge you by one or two things and then assign a whole host of opinions to you as a member of whatever group they have put you in. They do not have time for nuance or explanations. After all, “you people” are all alike.
Let’s take a look for a moment at those folks that we tend to lump into a group called “the right”. This group of folks is not, of course, of one mind at all. Most observers divide this group into about three subgroups; the Tea Party, the Establishment Republicans, and Libertarians.
The Tea Party is a fascinating and diverse group of people. On the surface, they are simply a group of people who feel they have been Taxed Enough Already. In this respect they are fiscal conservatives, and champions of more limited government. The Tea Party contains a lot of social conservatives as well. These folks are generally Christian and traditionalists. Social conservatives oppose gay marriage and legalizing pot and immigration reform and are represented by Rick Santorum and Sarah Palin.
But make no mistake, not all Tea Partiers are social conservatives. Many are simply fiscal conservatives, who are worried about our $17 trillion in debt and our massive deficits and ever expanding government. They seek an end to massive government waste and bureaucracy.
Libertarians, or libertarian Republicans, are generally a more philosophical group. They speak of Locke and Bastiat and Hayek and von Mises. They like Ron and Rand Paul. They are concerned about NSA spying and the second amendment and want to end the Fed. On the other hand, they support gay marriage and legalization of pot and other rights under the banner of personal liberty. They do not favor getting entangled in an endless series of conflicts on foreign soil.
Establishment Republicans are generally those Republicans already in power. They tend to support more authoritarian programs like the NSA and defense spending. They concerned with politics and getting Republicans elected and making deals with the other side to move their agenda forward. Establishment Republicans are pro-business and although they talk about smaller government they realize they need to use government to get votes and so they will support using government to “help people”.
The establishment Republicans can be represented by John Boehner and Mitch McConnell and John McCain and Peter King. They cringe at the other two groups, as they fear the radical Tea Party and libertarian parts of the party will cost them elections. They shy away from controversial positions and fear getting backed into a no-win position that will cost them in the polls.
These three groups do not reflect all of the variations of thought on the right, but they do point out that lumping them all together as one big group ignores their obvious differences in core philosophies.
I have had a lot of discussions online this week with folks who are not comfortable with the labels or brands on the right. Republican and Tea Party and Libertarian have been given such negative connotations that ordinary people do not wish to apply those labels to themselves.
Last night a young lady from “the left” told me that libertarian just means “selfish”. Another let me know that “Tea Party” means racist. And Republican just means that you support big business instead of big labor. Even my friends on “the right” tend to shy away from association with those labels, because of what they mean to others, right or wrong.
Democrats have a vested interest in smearing the Republican brand, and they do a pretty good job of it. But as I shift the debate to ideas and philosophies instead of slogans and labels I realize what an uphill battle it is to change people’s minds.
The Republican Party needs to focus on a core philosophy, and then do a better job of branding itself in terms of ideas, rather than simply letting us know what they are opposed to. And then they need to follow through with actions that match their philosophy rather than the most calculated political position. In short, stick with clearly stated principles.
Also, the Republican Party needs to project a positive image of what the party stands for. As I speak to Republicans and Tea Partiers and libertarians I see average people who simply care about their country and are concerned about the direction we are headed in. They see government ever-expanding and spending out of control and power being concentrated in the federal and executive branches and a constant erosion of our liberties. These are regular people living in regular homes with children and dogs who cut their grass on weekends.
The challenge is in coming up with a list of principles that everyone can agree on. Or more to the point, they need a list of coherent philosophies that they can stick to while governing. They need a mission statement. I am quite certain Reince Priebus has one somewhere, but if nobody has seen it, what good is it? The re-branding needs to start with core principles.
I would like to help by of course offering my two cents worth
· Be the party of limited government. The purpose of government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens, nothing more. All powers not specifically assigned to the federal government in the constitution belong to the states. Government needs to obey its own Constitution. That includes the first, second, fourth, and tenth amendments.
· Be the party of fiscal responsibility. Government must live within its means. Spending needs to be cut and the size and scope of government needs to be reduced. Deficits need to go to zero and the debt needs to be paid down. Reform and simplify the tax code.
· Be the party of individuals, not groups or special interests. All men are created equal and justice wears a blindfold. Stop considering factors that make people part of groups such as genders or skin colors and just see people as citizens. We need to end all subsidies, loopholes, grants, exemptions, bailouts, incentives and deductions and just have a neutral system that does not play favorites.
· Be the party of liberty. We cannot legislate morality. Government needs to get out of people’s lives and let them be free. We do not wish to trade our liberty for security. We want both, but given a choice liberty is not negotiable.
· Be the party of free markets and competition and capitalism. Do not be “pro-business” or the party of corporatism and cronyism.
· Speak softly and carry a big stick. We are not the policemen of the world. We need to honor our treaties and defend our allies but we cannot afford to mold the world in our image and we do not have the moral authority to do so.
At the same time, we should help clarify what it means to be a Democrat. They are the authoritarian party. Democrats are ok with using force to make you do what they think is good for you, whether it is Obamacare or gun control or the size of soft drink you are allowed to sell. They are fine with NSA spying and IRS targeting and they think it is important to consider the color of a person’s skin. They represent larger government and redistribution of income and they think things are best handled at the federal level.
And so as we work on this branding and party identity we are going to find that we disagree on core principles. I do not agree with Ann Coulter very much. Chris Christie is afraid of libertarianism. John Boehner has had it with the Tea Party. But I suspect there are still some basic ideas we all may have in common, and we should emphasize those areas where we agree.
In the end, the labels do not matter. It comes down to ideas, and then to people. First, we have primaries. We need to get out and learn who the candidates are and make our voices heard in the primary. Get beyond the slogans and campaign sound bites and listen to what each person really represents. And then vote for the person that best represents your ideas, regardless of their electability or any other factors. We need candidates that represent the people that elect them.
And then, in the fall, we must take an honest look at the ballot and vote. Voting means choosing, and like it or not that usually means either a Democrat or a Republican. You will likely not have a choice that represents 100% of your values. But between the two choices will be the one that best represents you, and in my view you have an obligation to vote for that person, even if you must hold your nose to do so. Staying home is not only giving up it is abdicating your responsibility.
No comments:
Post a Comment