It’s the hot topic on political talk shows and it’s discussed ad nauseum in Republican circles: where is the GOP headed? Recent public setbacks, including the loss of Congressional majority, have many Republicans questioning the direction the party should take in order to rebuild.
Monday evening I had the pleasure of participating in a panel discussion at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco. The topic of the evening was—you guessed it—“The Future of the Republican Party.” Fellow panelists Congressman Devin Nunes (R-21) and Nicholas Romero, California Young Americans for Freedom communications director, and I discussed our opinions on the subject. Many insights were shared, mostly regarding Republicans’ need to articulate conservative principles and then execute once in power. This is the crux of the problem for current Republicans, but when it comes to the party’s future, the focus should be recruiting young people—future voters.
Fox News Channel recently aired a special called “The Y Factor” that reported on the potential impact the Millennial generation could have on the November election. Millennials, age 14-28, are approximately 80 million strong and they’ve taken an active interest in this year’s presidential race. My age falls within the Millennial generation definition, and what concerns me about my peers’ political involvement is how so many have flocked, blindly, to a politician like Barack Obama.
Millennials are inherently relational, seeking a much more connected community, and they value honesty and authenticity. But having grown up in a digital age, they can also fall prey to the media’s slick packaging—especially of a charismatic candidate like Obama. So far, it seems that young people are drawn to the idealistic but frustratingly vague platitudes proffered by Obama. “Change we can believe in.” “Hope for the future.” Although these bromides sound fresh and exhilarating, they are all style and no substance.
And as Nicholas pointed out during our panel discussion on Monday, Obama is setting himself up for failure with such lofty promises of a utopian America. His bright-eyed, youthful followers are bound to be disappointed when their ethereal hero encounters “the real world” of governing a nation with mundane problems.
This is where Republicans—and conservatives—have their opportunity to contrast our beliefs and solutions with Democrats and liberals. Ronald Reagan is known as the Great Communicator for his stylish presentation of conservatism—but the core of his message was substantive conservative philosophy. As soon as Republicans embrace the Reagan legacy by once again articulating conservatism’s time-tested solutions, we can start winning young voters. Instead of shunning our heritage of brilliant intellectual and political leaders, Republicans need to “go back to the future.”
This will require making some “uncool” decisions—the antithesis of the pop culture enamored of Obama. Reigning in deficit spending and entitlement programs isn’t popular, but it’s necessary. We need to explain the importance of sound fiscal policy in language young voters will understand. A strong national defense isn’t warm and fuzzy, but it’s crucial to our nation’s safety. We need to explain how America can remain a beacon of hope in the world only so long as we walk softly and carry a big stick. Defending traditional values in an increasingly hedonistic society is definitely unhip. We need to explain that the traditional family and personal morality are the cornerstone of a healthy, prosperous civilization.
Conservatives know that our political philosophy, when implemented, works. It’s now up to Republicans to promote conservative leaders who can express our beliefs. And once such leaders are elected, the party should wholeheartedly support them as they choose long-term solutions over political expediency.
Young voters respond to an inspiring and practical political message—Reagan proved that when he inspired a whole generation of new young conservatives. The key to the Republican Party’s future lies in reaching out to young people and unashamedly proclaiming conservative beliefs.
“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children what it was once like in the United States when men were free.” –Ronald Reagan
Care to read comments, or make your own about today’s Daily Commentary?
Just click here to go to the FR Weblog, where this Commentary has its own blog post, and where you can read and make comments.
**There is more – click the link**
July 31st, 2008 at 12:00 am
Interesting. Depends on what Ms Turney means by “traditional values.” If the meaning of that phrase is the same rhetoric we’ve been hearing since Pat Robertson came to California in 1988 in his quest to gain the Republican nomination for President, then following that prescription will continue to lead to failure and the complete irrelevancy of the Republican Party. Since 1988, the Republican Party has been spouting the same rhetoric and fielding the same stripe of candidate, always expecting a different outcome. But isn’t doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result the classic definition of insanity?
July 31st, 2008 at 12:00 am
“Since 1988, the Republican Party has been spouting the same rhetoric and fielding the same stripe of candidate”
Are Matt Fong, Dan Lungren, Steve Poizner, Tom McClintock, Mary Bono, Barbara Alby, among many others, the “same stripe of candidate”?
July 31st, 2008 at 12:00 am
Lets speak about statewide offices, the majority of them are the same stripe of candidate. Democrats are going to pummel most of our state wide nominees because they are outside the mainstream.
Maybe if we remove Poizner and Bono, we could consider rest the same stripe of candidate.
Counties are turning blue, and playing with the same old playbook will not do much for us.
We need to remake the party like how David Cameron reinvented the British Conservative party.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:00 am
Interesting question, Mark. McClintock, Lungren, Alby – Yes. Fong, Poizner, Bono – very much in the minority of the vast numbers of Republican candidates – No. The CRA type of candidate – rigid on the far right – Yes. The moderate candidate in the mainstream of California voters – No. The problem is, the CRA runs straw candidates against the moderate Republican and knocks them off in the primary and the far right wing Republican Party as a religious party candidate then goes on to lose to the Democrat. This will, in my opinion, result in the Republican Party being completely destroyed when a Democrat legislature draws district boundaries in 2011 and a Democrat (most likely Jerry Brown) signs the reapportionment plan; this plan will, most likely, pit Republican moderate against Republican far right wing and result in the Democrats taking veto proof control of California.
August 1st, 2008 at 12:00 am
Can’tcontrol demographics and our problesm in California, in particular, are mostly about that.
August 1st, 2008 at 12:00 am
Bob Evans, as usual, makes a fine point above.
Calif Republican problems are wholly different from that of the national party. The national party may go thru some tough times but it will recover.
Californians are scared of voting for a state party with a religious taint – that’s why mid/upper income educated homeowning professionals don’t vote for Repubs – in droves.
This was a demographic CA Rs used to own until they drifted from Reaganism to “Christian conservatism” (the two have little to do with each other except for current alliance).
Until CA Repubs stop talking about choice/abortion, and stop idiocies like Proposition 8, they’re gonna continue to paint themselves in the corner. These issues are red meat to a certain corner of the party who do not care if the party wins, or who are so borderline autistic that they can’t see how these policies scare middle-road voters that otherwise want small gov’t and low taxes yet are so scared of what the CA R’s offer that they’re willing to pay higher taxes to avoid supporting them. Talk about bad marketing…
The reduction of gun rights and increase in spending (and thus inevitable tax increase) in CA is directly attributable to the continued compounded irrelevancy of CA Republicans due to their chasing irrelevant causes they can never ‘fix’.
If they keep their bible thumping to themselves, they just might get into a position where the Reagan goals of min. gov’t and low taxes could take hold.
Bill Wiese
San Jose CA
August 1st, 2008 at 12:00 am
Meredith,
Thank you for bringing this topic up for conversation.
In essance, my job (political consultant) is a sales job, and I come at this from that background and with the inherant bias of a marketer.
My personal beliefs aside, I don’t believe a party can function (ie win elections and set an agenda) as a backward looking entity. There is certainly a place at the table for remembering President Reagan, but these are not the 1980’s and the concerns of voters are not those of the 1980’s. Remarketing th Republican Party as ‘back to the future’ would be sort of like bringing back “Flock of Seagulls” and expecting them to go to #1 again in the charts… unlikely. Tastes do and have changed. Politics, like music and culture generally, changes – and standing in place or looking over your shoulder generally lowers not increases your market share.
What I suggest instead is perhaps more unpleasant: political parties go through transformations every few decades. These transformations bring in new blood, while losing some old blood, and mix the parties up again a bit (witness the Reagan Democrats who are now largely Republican, or the ‘coastal Republicans’ who are now largely Democrat).
Witness this occuring with the Democrat Party now, nationally. They are recuiting conservative candidates in the midwest and south who are winning congressional elections. The impact? For 30 years political parties moved away from being geographic and became ideological. Since their are more conservatives in the country than liberals this did not work to Democrat advantage. This stroke may, and probably has balanced the playing field a bit. BUT they have and will have to temper some of their more liberal agenda in order to make it work as their conservative delegation grows larger.
I suggest that it is time for the Republican Party, nationally and here in California, to re-examine itself in the way we typically do – a “no holds barred” war of ideas fought out at conventions, in small groups, on the internet and in newspapers, and, of course, in elections. Instead of limiting ourselves to the agenda we set some 30 years ago let’s open it up and talk about the day to day issues which Americans and Californians are concerned about today (some of which, but not all of which, of course, would overlap the concerns of 30 years ago). At the end of the day I suspect we’ll have a stronger, larger party, even if we lose some blood in the process.
August 3rd, 2008 at 12:00 am
Bob,
since you acknowledge that the candidates I named are not all of the “same stripe” then that makes your assertion flatly wrong, and therefore I can disregard the rest of what you said.
August 10th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Oh my, Lungren’s name is mentioned.
I don’t think Dan Lungren will get much “real Conservative” support (despite his “anti choice” background) – given that he’s had a terrible track record of supporting gun control with his atrocious actions as AG.
Dannyboy has done more to destroy gun rights in CA than many Dems.
I don’t think any NRA member will ever vote for Lungren. NRA organizers I meet had gut- wrenching reactions when we talked about Lungren. In fact, if I were in Lungren’s district and a pro-gun Demo were running against him I’d vote/for support the Dem.
Bill Wiese
San Jose CA