Recently, a friend of mine created a note, that defined a "progressive conservative." In it, he gave his view on specific issues and I feel it needs to be pushed to the
conservative base:
As I was flipping through the news channels a few weeks following Barack Obama’s election to the Presidency, I came across a very interesting discussion. The host, a prominent conservative voice, was arguing against the message of an article he read by another conservative. The article suggested that the Republican Party lost because it had moved too far to the right, and needed to move its platform left to the center in order to survive. Lampooning this argument, the host of the program desired the opposite. He said the Republicans lost because they lost their way, giving into the same types of deficit spending and corruption they accused the Democrats of when they came to power. The host advocated that the party should merely adhere to the conservative principles of Ronald Reagan to survive.
Who was wrong? To put it quite bluntly, they both were.
In 2004, the Democrats were desperate. The Republican majority had increased yet again following the reelection of President Bush. What could they do? Some argued that they should move to the right. They knew from experience that moving left would only further alienate them from voters. So what did they do?
Under the leadership of Howard Dean, Chuck Schumer, and Rahm Emmanuel, the Democratic part regrouped in 2006. In an effort to be competitive in all states, they developed a very successful strategy. They branched out and expanded their caucus WHILE staying true to their principles. On the key differences between the parties (like abortion and labor) their platform remained the same. Yet in order to achieve a majority, they recruited candidates that could win. Just look at the so-called Blue Dog Democrats. Many are financially or socially conservative, and were elected in conservative districts.
More than this, the Democrats expanded their platform. For example, in 2008 Obama proposed new community service programs to make sure any person could attend college. He also stated a desire to expand faith-based initiative programs, drawing some evangelicals to the Democrats. On important issues like energy, Democrats put forth new solutions. Regardless of the viability of their programs, they put forth solutions when Republicans simply wanted to “adhere” to the old principles.
So how do Republicans return to power? The actual answer is more complex, but the strategy is simple. While not moving the party’s platform left, recruit moderate or left-leaning Republicans to run in left-leaning states. In 2010, what if Rudy Guiliani ran for the New York Senate seat formerly occupied by Clinton? While he is pro-choice and pro-gun control, he is also a semi-conservative Republican. Where a very conservative Republican would have no chance in New York, candidates like Guiliani might. This can only work if the Republican Party retains its key positions (like income tax-cuts and pro-life stances).
Second, the party MUST, MUST, MUST expand its platform. I wish I had a dollar for every time I head the name “Ronald Reagan” during the Republican Primaries. In one debate, I lost count of the number of times Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani must have each said the name one hundred times. Most of the time it seemed as if the Republicans were just arguing over “who was more like Ronald Reagan.” Republicans have to expand. While not changing the core, they must add to what they are.
I call this new approach “progressive conservatism.” Progressive is the word that Democrats have successfully chosen to replace liberal, so why am I heaping it with conservatism? Webster has the answer. The word “progressive” simply means to promote progress; in other words, advancing the future. Instead of simply being “traditional conservatives” that cling (pardon the use of the word cling, Pennsylvanians) to the status quo, Republicans must use their basic principles to advance their ideas into the future.
This means broadening our platform to take on new issues and new solutions to the problems facing the United States. Issues that still fit logically into the context of the Republican party. This is distinct from the “compassionate conservatism” attempted by Bush; that was only the first step in a new direction. If Republicans think they can simply rely on the same Ronald Reagan politics to succeed, they are wrong. Reagan had successful policies, to be sure, but there are new issues that the party must confront to survive. As we saw in this election, Americans are focused on things besides keeping their guns and maintaining low taxes. These things are important, but if they are the ONLY message (the old message) they will not pull the new faces in that the party so desperately needs.
Progressive conservatism means a healthy debate within the party itself. A few months ago, a friend and I had a vigorous debate over the issue of waterboarding. Our disagreement over one Republican tenant did not mean one of us was not a true conservative, it was just that- a disagreement. While the core issues must remain the same, there must be a dialogue between all factions of the party.
I will use the market as an example. Republicans have been traditionally associated with an almost laissez-faire approach to the market. While we should all agree that a free-market or mixed-market system is necessary, the insistence that the free-market should be unregulated by the far-right is ludicrous. Just as big government can become corrupt and dangerous, so can big business. Regulation, not overregulation, is an appropriate function of government. Being financially conservative should not mean total commitment to the free market, but it should entail some basic common sense. We don’t need to spend our grandchildren into so much debt they will suffer for it.
At the risk of digressing further, I will move on. And I know it is all too easy for me to proclaim these truths from my laptop without laying out complex alternatives in a step-by-step fashion. That is a good argument; it is not fair for me to call for “new” ideas without defining what must be “new.” So in a second, I’ll give it a whirl.
In order to look to the future, we have to analyze what went wrong in the past. Specifically, what went wrong in this year’s election. The primaries served to fracture the already fragile Republican base into three primary constituents. There were the social conservatives, the financial conservatives, and the national security conservatives. One might say, “Kyle, there are many more Republican issues than that!” And that would be correct. But instead of trying to broaden the conservative coalition to include these issues, the candidates focused exclusively on the very issues that divided the party. Issues like immigration, corporate welfare, and the war in Iraq were NOT what the American people were looking for answers to. Healthcare, education, and financial reforms were.
Unfortunately, in an attempt to appease free-market libertarians, many of the Republicans turned a blind eye to the economy. Only Mike Huckabee initially addressed the issue, stating that while the Wall Street was temporarily succeeding, the people on Main Street were not as successful. Instead of agreeing with this sentiment, most of the Republicans ignored the economy until it was far too late.
The environment. Education. Health-care. Alternative energies. Market reform. These are just a few of the major issues Republicans must modernize their platform to address. I have never understood why the right has resisted caring for the environment. Even if some Republicans do not believe in global warming (or even if it did not exist) what harm could come from protecting our earth? Do we not want to leave our lakes and air clean for our posterity?
Here are just a few issues Republicans can and must improve on:
Age:
Consider the youth vote. In 2008, Barack Obama dominated John McCain 66% to 32% in the 18-29 years of age demographic. He went on to carry each age group, save for the 65 and older section of the electorate. Part of this is to be expected, because President Obama was in his forties, whereas McCain’s age of 72 made him look dangerously old by comparison. This is one area in which Republicans could make significant inroads. Although the Constitution states that members of the US House of Representatives only have to be 25 and older, the average age for a representative in the 111th Congress is 57. In the Senate, with a requirement of 30, the average age in the 111th Congress is 63. This is nation’s oldest Congress in history. As signaled by the election of Obama, the youth of America are a growing section of the electorate, one which Republicans must recruit. New, younger Congressmen, might help this happen. Actually, this may already be starting to happen; at 27, Republican Aaron Shock is the youngest member of the House. With many Republican Senators retiring in 2010, primary voters should strongly consider younger proponents to champion their causes.
Diversity:
One of the most needed areas for party development comes in the form of ethnic diversification. When Republicans reach out (rather than putting up walls and borders, making them just as elite as the liberal establishment they rail against) they tend to win. Look at Anh “Joseph” Cao from Louisiana's 2nd Congressional District. Cao is the first U.S. House Representative of Vietnamese descent, and he won in one of the most heavily democratic areas of the country. (True, it was against accused Congressman Jefferson, but it was still a remarkable victory in any event.) Look at Sarah Palin, the much-maligned Governor of Alaska. Whatever one may think of her performance or abilities on the campaign trail, it is unquestionable that she sparked interest and brought more female voters to John McCain.
It is unquestionable that diversity is required if the Republican Party is to survive. With the Democrats having successfully elected the nation’s first African-American president, Republicans cannot sit by on the sidelines with an aging, static constituency. And then there is the Hispanic vote.
Immigration:
In 2004, George W. Bush won 44% of the Hispanic vote (compared to John Kerry’s 53%), a demographic that comprised 8% of the electoral vote. In 2008 however, Barack Obama won 67% percent of Hispanics to 31% for McCain. In four years, the Hispanic vote increased to 8% of the total vote. This massive shift in this important constituent was undoubtedly created by fierce (and oftentimes ugly) Republican opposition to comprehensive immigration reform. During the primaries, while the Democrats were focusing on ways to bring other into America, many Republicans were arguing over who could build the biggest fence.
I understand the importance of the immigration debate. In the age of global terrorism, it is true that terrorists could theoretically slip by the border. Yet when have we heard calls to build fences on (the several) vulnerable positions on our northwestern border? As several Republican contenders used increasingly harsh rhetoric (it is impossible to deport the over 12 million illegal immigrants already here), it is no wonder the Hispanic community turned away.
Was it not a Republican President who once said, “tear down this wall?” We can increase security at our borders without the tyrannical symbol of a fence to bar others from entering America, historically a land of immigrants. Ironically, John McCain was the champion of immigration reform. George Bush did many things to recruit Hispanics, including his guest worker program.
Progressive conservatism. Conservative principles used to advance and shape a better future. As an aside, it was Theodore Roosevelt (a Republican) in 1912 who founded the original version of the Progressive Party. We lost the label, and the mantra of the future. It is time to get it back.
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:nquikEYC86cJ:www.blog.rockthevote.com/2009/01/fun-facts-on-111th-congress.html+average+age+of+representatives+in+the+111th+congress&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us
