I was somewhat encouraged when I saw the headline in today's Washington Post: "In Wake of Defeats, House GOP Moves to Right the Campaign Ship." When the Post capitalized "Right" I thought they meant the House GOP leadership was going to make a policy adjustment and unveil some real differences with the Democrats. In reading the story, however, I was chagrined to learn that the actual plan is for audits and new consultants. Great, audits and consultants.
The House GOP leadership, and back benchers, are rightly disturbed by 3 recent special election losses. Two of those losses came in solid GOP areas. One, in fact, was the seat formerly held by the Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert. The solution, I'm afraid, is not in the land of audits, name calling, and consultants. That is, unless the audits and consultants show that the problem the GOP has is not tied to deploying the proper political resources to the right location.
Instead, the leadership needs to sail the ship in a different policy direction, and effectively communicate this change of course. Presently, the House GOP is seen as the group that brought you: 1) the Iraq War; 2) increased domestic spending, with a Republican President; 3) earmarks and pork barreling; and 4) Mark Foley and Duke Cunningham--with a side dish of Abramoff. The Democrats bring--and will bring after this year's election--you: 1) belly aching about Bush & Iraq--with no actual change in course, but effective complaining and righteous indignation nevertheless; 2) increased domestic spending, with anyone as President; 3) earmarks and pork barreling done by true pros of federal spending; 4) no Foley-Cunningham-Abramoff; and 5) tax increases in the name of 'fiscal responsibility' as a means of paying for all the Republican's years of lavish spending!
Essentially then, the GOP gets you the same size--and consequent cost--of federal government, plus an unpopular war. They are able to do all this with an aura of possible scandal and corruption. The problem is that after years in power, the leadership got comfortable with the perks of power and ways of Washington, D.C. They were popular back home if they brought home the goodies. Thus, the debate became "where should we spend federal dollars on projects that have NOTHING to do with the federal government's role?" rather than "where can we limit and reduce the reach of the federal government, so that our citizens have more freedom individually?"
The first question was answered: "In Republican districts." There has been no answer to the second question--from the GOP leadership, who gets the media time--for years now. It is, however, long past time to re-engage that issue. Simply put, the GOP will not change its image unless it relaunches--with a message suited for the present times--the timeless ideas that brought Lincoln and Reagan to power: Lincoln looked at the proposition: "all men are created equal." With that equality comes the idea that the government must be limited in order to not sap you and I of our individual rights to choose what we ought to do--with our time, family, and money. The larger the government grows--the more it interferes with your daily life--the less freedom you have. When a government bureaucrat gets to decide your life for you, you are no longer equal to him. This is made worse when the government official helps one citizen--maybe a prominent figure in a powerful Congressman's district--and harms you, all by government fiat. Where is the equality of man there?
Reagan's rise came, domestically, from the realization that government is, generally, not the solution, and thus ought to be boxed in--a similar realization as the Founders had, which is why federal power was limited by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Yes, it is necessary in some places: national defense, interstate commerce, securing our borders, etc. But it is not needed, and is in fact harmful, in most other places. Thus, contrary to Progressives' assumptions, reducing--not simply limiting growth, but actually reducing--the size and reach of government helps the nation and its people.
But equality of man and reducing government are not the themes I hear emanating from the halls of Congress. Instead, it seems the message is "spend on this (GOP idea or district) not on that (Dem idea or district.)" The GOP will lose that type of debate. It cannot be the party of "spend here not there" it must be the party of "stop spending." If America wants tried and true federal tax-and-spenders, they will vote Democratic. They must be given a party to vote for if they actually want the opposite.
I hope the audits and consultants reveal this to our Congressional GOP leaders. If they don't, we are in for a tough November. Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana put it best: "The Republican Party as a whole has a credibility problem." Not taking bold stands on government spending and control reduces the credibility of the party of "limited government."
For a bold, new direction,
Thomas More
Comments