Should You Decide to Give Up that Right

I left off yesterday with the suggestion that Republicans should only remain silent if they have nothing productive to add to the debate, but that it is my hope that they can produce productive ideas and contribute to the national dialogue. I truly believe that, it wasn’t just so much claptrap to try to convince the reader that I am fair and balanced. For one thing, I’m not fair and balanced, I have my opinions on matters and a generally liberal bent influences both the issues which I care about and how I interpret those issues. I find it disingenuous when commentators try to pass themselves off as neutral observers, when it is obvious they are nothing of the sort. It’s as annoying, if less dangerous, than the guy who says, “I’m not a racist but…” and then proceeds to come out with some racist statement. So while I won’t claim to be neutral on issues that matter to me, I can lay claim to being able to see multiple sides of an issue, as I tell my students all the time, how can you accurately assess your own opinion and its relative strength and weakness if you don’t know what the opposition opinion is?

I also really do believe that our system is better served when there are a range of legitimate ideas being debated, and on that note I want to suggest what the Republicans should be talking about. Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t necessarily want these guys back in charge because I don’t agree with much of their agenda and I don’t trust them when it comes right down to it. They had their decade and they blew it, and if they are to get back in the game, they need to do some penance and earn it. Donna Brazil had the best line of the campaign season just passed when she suggested that Republicans shouldn’t even put up a candidate for president in ’08, they should just apologize for the last 8 years and go away for awhile.

Knowing that humility and penance aren’t high on the list of any brand of politicians, not even the supposedly Christian Right, I won’t hold my breath waiting. So assuming they will give up their right to remain silent, here’s what they should be talking about.

The Republican Party should go back to its roots of fiscal conservatism, which means restraint on spending and taxing. Back in the good old days of the 90’s, when a hundred billion was considered a noticeable sum of money, $1.50 a gallon was a lot to pay for gas, and the worst thing a president could do was to get a little secret service in the Oval Office, the charge against the Left was that they were tax and spend liberals. It was a pretty effective charge, and for a time even the term liberal took on a negative connotation, which I suppose is when liberals took to calling themselves progressives. But then George W. Bush came into our lives and introduced a new animal, the cut tax and spend conservative. The end result was a busted budget and tax cuts that didn’t have much impact on the average worker or household.

Fiscal restraint is not only a good idea but a necessity given the current economic realities that we face, not only for the short term but likely for the long haul as well. The days of living beyond our means are gone, and they don’t seem likely to return for a generation if ever. Which means that unless money does start growing on trees, we need to learn to make do with much less spending than we’re accustomed to. That means there will need to be hard choices and priorities chosen and there should be serious debate about those priorities. There will be winners and losers, and elections will take on even greater significance as more people fight for a share of a smaller pie. That’s life, and that ‘s politics at its core. The party that presents a reasonable agenda with a realistic plan for financing it will win over voters, Americans are slowly but surely wising up to the economic realities, and I suspect that candidates and parties who promise the sun and moon without explaining how they propose to pay for it will find themselves exposed.

The GOP needs to reject, or at least marginalize the social conservative wing of the party and focus on the libertarian wing. For one thing, the social conservatives have peaked in terms of their influence and number, while the principles of libertarianism, less government interference and more individual freedom and autonomy has appeal to a wide section of Americans. The party that can sell itself as being able to provide effective and efficient government without overstepping will win over enough hearts and minds to sway electorates. Libertarians care less about abortion, gun control, and who marries who than they do about fundamental principles of government control and protection of civil liberties. This segment of society is on the rise, especially among my generation and the younger crowd, and cuts across the red versus blue and urban versus rural divides.

Finally, the Republican Party needs to offer a foreign policy that speaks to the legitimate concerns of citizens of the republic. They should focus on a strong and efficient military that can deal with current and potential future military scenarios. They should revisit the slogan of early 20th century Republican Teddy Roosevelt, who advocated speaking softly while carrying a big stick. We can’t simply bury our heads in the sand and think that if we simply start talking nicer and convince Israel to give up settlements that everything will magically work itself out in the Middle East and around the world. Many liberals believe that if we just change our behavior it will all be fine, and that is a simplistic and dangerous world view. On the other hand, the hard liners, or neo-conservatives as they are called, still hold to the notion that we can just bully people around and get our way through force, also a simplistic and dangerous way to deal with the rest of the world. Whichever party can offer a sensible foreign policy that protects our vital interests while taking into account that we’re not the only kid in the sandbox will speak to the security issues and American role in global affairs that are so important to so many of us.

These are some ideas that the Republicans, and for that matter the Democrats and Independents can utilize to get an important debate going. Will it happen, or will we get more of the same, inane cable news channels running endless and mindless one-sided commentary that solves next to nothing and enlightens even less. Both the Left and the Right are guilty of this, but ultimately we the people will decide what kind of political and social debate we engage in. In political science it is referred to as voting with your feet, if something is useless and unappealing, then don’t support it, instead support that which is useful and relevant. In the marketplace of ideas, we are the consumer that ultimately if not immediately decide what gets debated and what gets decided.

Lest you think change can’t occur or feel like it’s all just a waste of time, talk to one of the tens of thousands of Iranians who have taken to the streets in recent days, risking much even though the short term impact will be minimal. Nonetheless, they are having their voices heard, in hopes that in time reforms will take place, and a people who are the descendants of one of history’s greatest civilizations will see their status in the world restored. Shouldn’t we act now before we have to resort to restoration? Shouldn’t we keep the greatness that is American civilization rolling while we still have a chance? That is a matter on which I for one refuse to remain silent.