Yeah, I know that I’m not the sort of person whose
ideas are typically associated with a group that would nominate former Massachusetts
Gov. Mitt Romney for president. But, hey, I’m an American. I want to see a
revitalized Republican Party because it’s good for the country to have at least
two strong political forces battling in the marketplace of policy.
By all appearances, the GOP is careening out of
control. I fear that the party’s center won’t—or can’t—hold its extremist wing
from sending the entire enterprise into the abyss. How can it remain relevant
by seeking guidance from the likes of Donald “You’re Fired” Trump, Sarah “Big
Gulp” Palin, and Clint “I’m Talking to a Chair” Eastwood? Much more of this,
and there won’t be a party of Lincoln in the near future.
That’s the part that nudges me into civil duty, to
warn Republican leaders that they’re teetering perilously on the same precipice
as their forbearers, the Whigs. History buffs will recall that the Whig Party
disintegrated over issues of diversity of its day. Back in the 1820s and 1830s,
slaves were the other Americans, unspoken as such but a fearful contradiction
to the American ideal. The Whigs fought among themselves over slavery, failing to
recognize or accommodate the social and demographic forces at play in the
decades leading up to the Civil War. There’s nothing good about the Republican
Party going the way of the Whigs, a party that died because it refused to shift
in the winds of change blowing across the nation.
To be sure, signs of the impending GOP apocalypse
appeared at last week’s Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC. I’ll
have more to say about that in a minute, but for the moment, suffice it to know
that I feel it is my patriotic duty to offer some advice to those Republicans
who sincerely seek to improve their standing among the diverse groups of
Americans. Whether they embrace it—well, let the record show that I warned them
about the Whigs.
So without further ado, here are three quick ideas
to help chart a new course for the Republican Party.
It’s not about messages, it’s about policy
Almost immediately after Gov. Romney lost to
President Barack Obama, GOP strategists claimed that their woes were a failure
of communication, not ideas. Wrong! A mistaken message is like, well, to steal
a once-popular GOP talking point, “putting lipstick on a pig.”
Yet this foolish notion persists, even as a recent
NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll suggests that just 26 percent of the public
approves of Republicans and their policies, compared to 44 percent who approve
of Democrats and their policies. A recent Washington Post/ABC poll also showed
a 20-point net negative rating for Speaker of the House John Boehner’s (R-OH)
handling of the fiscal cliff negotiations with the White House. That poll
showed 31 percent approving and 51 percent disapproving of his approach.
Meanwhile, a majority of the respondents—52 percent—approved of President
Obama’s efforts, while 37 percent disapproved.
But those facts and numbers didn’t stop Speaker
Boehner from defending the party’s political stances last weekend on ABC’s
“This Week,” saying that whatever is wrong can be fixed with a clearer public
relations campaign. “There’s nothing wrong with the principles of our party,”
he said. “But Republicans have not done as an effective job as we should in
terms of talking about our principles in terms that average people can
appreciate.”
If Republicans are to regain their footing with the
broadest segments of the electorate, moderation in policies affecting women,
immigrants, gays, and racial minorities must be demonstratively shown—not just
expressed in talking points.
But messengers do matter, so avoid the crazy
A panel discussion at last week’s CPAC gathering in
suburban Maryland, just outside of the Washington Beltway, seemed tailor made
for softening racial concerns about the GOP’s adherence to racism. But it went
awry, badly awry—so awry that it confirmed some of the party’s worst fears.
K. Carl Smith, an author and conservative activist
with the Frederick Douglass Republicans, led the ill-fated discussion that was
self-evidently titled “The Race Card: Are You Sick And Tired Of Being Called A
Racist When You’re Not One?”
As first reported by ThinkProgress’s Scott Keyes andZack Beauchamp, Scott Terry, a 30-year-old audience member from North Carolina,
challenged Smith during his presentation, defending slavery as good for
African-Americans because it provided food and shelter for them. Keyes and
Beauchamp’s blog post went viral, spreading like crazy through the political
blogosphere. Ultimately, a reported description in The Washington Post called
it “the most awkward CPAC panel ever.”
No matter what the message is or how well it’s
crafted, when crazy talk disrupts serious political gatherings, only chaos can
follow. For outsiders such as me, looking in on such a ridiculous display
proves why the party must get a grip on the fringe element that ruins its name
and reputation.
Latino voters understand that votes speak louder
than English promises
It’s great that Republican leaders are coming around
to embrace comprehensive immigration reform. Better late than never.
At Monday’s release of the “Growth and Opportunity
Project” report, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said,
“When Republicans lost in November, it was a wakeup call” that the party must
do more to reach out to minority voters, especially in fast-growing Latino
communities. More bluntly, the report itself states: “We must embrace and champion
comprehensive immigration reform. If we do not, our party’s appeal will
continue to shrink.”
To that goal, the RNC report announced plans to
spend $10 million to send hundreds of paid activists into Latino, black, and
Asian American communities by the end of the coming summer. It’s an ambitious
endeavor, and one that is destined to fail if it isn’t backed up with
substance.
If Republicans expect to win over Latino voters,
they must demonstrate a commitment that’s greater than a one-time vote or paying
millions of dollars to ambassadors carrying shop-worn messages into barrios or
the ’hood.
If you’ve read this far, then I’m taking it as sign
that you’re open to radical and fundamental changes. Oh, there’s no need to pay
me. My thanks will come with a changed GOP and a competitive two-party system.
About the author: Sam Fulwood III is a Senior Fellow
at the Center for American Progress and Director of the CAP LeadershipInstitute. His work with the Center’s Progress 2050 project examines the impact
of policies on the nation when there will be no clear racial or ethnic majority
by the year 2050.
This article was published by the Center for
American Progress.
Another approach wd be to advocate for something similar to the 3-seat quasi-PR state assembly elections in IL from 1870-1980 that made it so there was a Republican and a Democrat from every state-district in the state.
ReplyDeleteThis helped diversify the parties and ensure that neither could dominate the state's politics and there was more common ground...