Sometimes, what the parties send out that might look like a desire to know where their supporters stand is actually a push-poll designed to raise revenue. Here’s a recent example from the GOP:
Anyone who understands even the most basic parts of demographics knows that this country is shifting. Shortly, within the next 20 years, the Latino vote will be amongst the most important demographic to appeal to if you want to remain in office, especially in states in the Southwest and in populous cities nationwide.
What will be interesting to watch will be how ideologies and practical politics collide. We already see it at times, such as with the Sotomayor nomination. Republicans have generally been very careful to avoid doing things that could be construed as racist. For some, this is no doubt because they aren’t racist, and for some, it’s a matter of keeping their record clean. Those Republicans who tried to pin the racism on Sotomayor herself have either reversed their position (Gingrich) or have moved on (Limbaugh).
More interesting will be how the 2012 Republican platform takes shape. Will hot-button issues for the Latino vote be downplayed? What will be the fate of the Republican stance on amnesty for immigration, tighter border crossings, denial of access to services like health care, and English as the national language?
English as a national language might still be fair game, as long as its implemented with sanity. Making people learn the common language of the nation for citizenship can be presented in a light that makes it not different than having to learn our history. But you can’t just leave people to die in hospitals or go without legal representation in court because they don’t speak English. Those things probably wouldn’t happen anyway, but that seems to be the fear raised when English as a national language crops up. A more robust explanation of the party stance would be in order. “English as a national language to facilitate communication, while acknowledging that emergency services must be granted despite language barriers” would be a start.
Denial of services like health care, education, and driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants will be a trickier one. The question will be where the line is drawn. No one seems to think much of denying driver’s licenses to people, but on the flip side, no one wants to see people at a hospital denied treatment because they aren’t an American (the common argument being they are still human). Education is a hot-button middle ground. Both parties will have to choose where they stand on this, but it is the Republicans who would tend to the more restrictive policies in the past, and will need to decide if these policies still represent their views in the future. Similarly, amnesty for immigration will need to be examined. The current view is that amnesties encourage illegal crossings, but if these amnesties would please potential voters by reuniting families, it may be worth it to abandon this plank.
Tight border crossing controls have a good backup in place. The discussion will need to be turned, in the Republican point of view, from one of immigration to one of national security. If the Republicans can convince Latinos that tight border controls are in place to keep terrorists out, not to keep their families out, then they might have a chance. Of course, that will require the groups along the border who have taken it upon themselves to stop illegal immigrants from crossing the border to not seem quite so stereotypically white, racist, and Republican. Unity will be the watchword here.
What it boils down to is principle versus practicality. I think there are many conservatives who honestly have a problem with amnesties, with tax money paying for services for people who don’t pay taxes, and with a porous border. I even sympathize with some (but not all) of their arguments. But the Latino vote is a rapidly growing segment of our population and unlike, say, the African-American vote, it isn’t inherently attached to either party, and probably won’t be, unless one party or the other makes a mistake. So the question is, is sticking to those principles that will most likely drive a vote away from your party a mistake?
That’s an old political question – do what’s your heart says is right or your head says gets the most votes?
I am not an expert in Republican politics. Well, to be fair, I’m not an expert on anything, just some guy mouthing off about stuff. But I’m particularly not an expert on Republican politics. So perhaps there are historical or insider reasons why the party does some of the things it does that I don’t know, being outside the party.
For example, the rebranding effort, which takes all of the same party leaders that were there before, and has them saying pretty much the same things. I’m not a marketing expert either, but I’m pretty sure that rebranding requires some sort of change, even if it’s a minor one. Golden Crisp is the same cereal as Sugar Crisp, but they changed the name because Sugar is unhealthy these days. KFC is still Kentucky Fried Chicken, just without the connotations of being fried (or is the connotations of being chicken?). But saying “Sugar Crisp is rebranding to… Sugar Crisp!” sounds kind of crazy. A new spokesperson, a new symbol, a new name. Any of that would be better than what they are doing. Drop the elephant for a lion or something. (I said I’m not a marketing expert) Take a lesson from the Democrats, who realized that the word liberal had been fairly effectively poisoned to mean “weak” and started touting the word Progressive instead. 
(All of that ignores the fact that some of the old guard who isn’t signed on to the rebranding effort… the Dick Cheneys and the Rush Limbaughs… need to be muzzled)
But at least the rebranding effort is a try. I can give the party points for making the effort on that one. But the news that the Republican National Committee is seeking to pass a resolution encouraging the Democratic Party to change its name to the Democratic Socialist Party… I don’t even get it. I don’t. It isn’t clever. It isn’t funny. It isn’t important. It isn’t accurate. It isn’t even effective, given that more and more people are looking towards things like some sort of national health care to be put in the mix. In other words, socialism isn’t much liked, but it isn’t the poisonous well it used to be. The are only two things such a resolution is: desperate, and news. Desperate because they are hoping to get votes from people who will probably see through it, and news because, well, the news organizations have a lot of time to fill these days.
I’m not Michael Steele’s biggest fan, but he’s made the right call by pointing out that it is sorta pointless and ridiculous. In fact, I’m pretty sure Steele doesn’t go far enough; this is the kind of thing that gets people so fed up with their party. (Either party. I’d be fed up with the Democrats passing a resolution to call Republicans names, too.) Name calling doesn’t accomplish anything, and it isn’t what people are looking for. People are looking for ways to move the nation forward to where they want the nation to be. Economic recovery and the economic prosperity; safety in every sense of that word, and the rights guaranteed to us by our governing documents are just part of what every American is looking for ideas on how to implement in our modern, crazy world. There is so much fertile soil for ideas. Where are they?
Yes, I’m going to blatantly steal from Sorkin here; in “The American President”, it is said Americans are so thirsty for leadership we’ll walk through a desert seeking a drink of it, we’ll go to a mirage and then drink the sand. But Americans are done drinking sand. We drank the sand because we didn’t know any better. We’ve learned.
So, the talk around the beltway is still the defection of Arlen Specter from the Republicans to the Democrats.
It’s nothing new with moderates; it’s happened in both directions. Something that he said rang true for me, however:
As the Republican Party has moved farther and farther to the right, I have found myself increasingly at odds with the Republican philosophy and more in line with the philosophy of the Democratic Party.
So, I’ve had conversations with myself along these lines as well. Indeed, since I turned 18, I’ve been registered as a Democrat, Republican, and an Independent. Since I live in a closed-primary state, I don’t like to be registered as a independent, since that takes me out of the primary process.
I, too, have seen the GOP be dragged to the right. And while I often see the Democrats taking positions on the issues that resonate more with me than the Republicans do, there are oh-so-many areas where the Democrats are just plain wrong.
So, what to do? I could leave the GOP completely behind, but for what? There’s little point in doing that unless I can find a viable alternative. And, unfortunately, in the centrist area, there aren’t any viable alternatives,
Eventually, I keep telling myself that the GOP needs all the moderates it can get. I would absolutely love the creation of a far-right party. Many people think that it would forever split the Republican votes — but I think that there are a large number of moderates who just don’t feel there’s room for them in the Big Tent of the Republican Party.
Because while that tent is big, it’s awfully narrow.
In the end, that’s what I will try to do — make it a bit wider. Sen. Specter doesn’t have that luxury — he admitted in his speech that his defection was as much about his inability to get re-elected as a Republican as it is about political ideology.
Fortunately, my career doesn’t depend on my political affiliation.
Tony Campbell over at TMV wrote a great article today called BumRUSHed – The Dismantling of Michael Steele. Great insights on a fued between the head of the RNC and the the right wing’s most popular voice.
Rush barely broke a sweat yesterday when he demolished Steele, and the RNC chair has wisely backed off today. It’s no surprise — to most Republicans, Steele is the new guy on the national stage, and Rush has been the voice of conservative talk radio for 20 years.
Steele called himself the de facto head of the Republican Party. Rush took issue with that characterization, saying that Steele heads the RNC, and not the party.
The point is well taken. The GOP will need to redefine itself if it’s to have a future. Rush thinks the party needs to move to the right; it’s no surprise that I’d prefer moves to the center.
But Obama has a real potential to be for the Democrats what Reagan was and is to the Republicans, and you can’t fight that in 2012 with your father’s GOP. You can’t even fight the legacy of that in 2016. The Republicans need to speak to issues that most Americans can get behind, and their cornerstone social issues of abortion and gay marriage are held by a population that is dying off.
In the meantime, if the GOP can remember that they used to be the party of fiscal conservatism, that’s the one angle they have left that America wants to hear.
