Friday's Rant: "Republicans"

"Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out." - William F. Buckley Jr.

I try and not make a habit of reading the Des Moines Register. It's pretty much worthless. But I did on Thursday. As usual, I immediately gravitated towards the opinion section. That's usually a sure bet to get me worked up about something.

This particular column, by a "Republican" (I guess), named Ronald Langston described what's wrong with the Republican party -

I see a different, more alarming situation reminiscent of what I observed 16 years ago. We are not winning because the present core of the party is represented by a consortium of ideologues who insist on rigid litmus tests. Specifically, the Republican Party has become the domain of evangelical denominations and the far right. Their views do not reflect Republican or conservative principles. Even George W. Bush's compassionate conservatism would appear "too lukewarm" for their primary core values: opposing abortion and xenophobia.

He continued...

The Republican Party I observe has failed to embrace Hispanics, the only population segment of any measurable increase in the state, who came to Iowa to work, are family-oriented, church-centered and desire freedom. What is not Republican or American about those characteristics? Instead, the Republican Party greets them with English-only laws and the politics of fear and ignorance. Not surprising, 67 percent of Hispanics nationally voted for the Democratic presidential nominee.

Vander Plaats' admonishment to let those seeking to move to the middle "go their way" begs the question: Why are so many from the traditional Republican base abandoning the party? The answer: We have lost the vital center of the party.

With friends like these, who needs enemies, huh? Maybe it's tough love. But this is simply the latest example of what some Republicans see as the GOP's only alternative. Apparently, the best option for the Republicans is to move more to the political center with the obvious result being...to become more like Democrats. This, from a Republican, is the path to victory.

Mr. Langston ignores completely the fact that John McCain represented nearly everything he is proposing - a moderate Republican, angling towards the center along with the coveted "independents," and ignoring the very base that is responsible for the victory of every Republican president in the last generation. Why didn't McCain win? Evangelicals and the "far right wing" stayed home or voted for somebody else.

Let's look at Ohio, for example. McCain didn't lose Ohio because of some Obama jugernaut - Obama received fewer votes than John Kerry did in 2004. However, something like 300,000 voters who voted for Bush didn't vote for McCain. What explains this change?

Let me be clear - the problem for the GOP is not that it isn't moderate enough. It's not that its ideas are old-fashioned or out of style. It's not that the GOP doesn't appeal to enough of the universe of identity groups defined and pandered to by the Democratic party. It's not that evangelicals or those on "the far right" don't represent conservative principles. And it's certainly not that the Republicans haven't embraced those who have come to our country illegally.

The problem with Republicans is that they have no prominent leaders who are able to articulate conservatism in a passionate, genuine and, quite frankly, believable way.

Conservatism is the story of freedom. A belief that most individuals are more capable of determining their future than any government bureaucracy. A belief that government should run its finances like most taxpaying Americans have to - balanced budgets, living within their means and spending that makes common sense. A belief that the judiciary shouldn't be legislating, striking down constitutional amendments or dictating to a rational electorate what they should believe.

Conservatism is the idea that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. Among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In other words, unborn babies have the right to live, people have the right to be free and individuals have the right to live their lives as they see fit. This isn't authority granted to us by government, but the rights we have simply because we are human. And conservatism believes that a strong national defense is one of the few things the federal government should be doing.

Friends and neighbors, I'm not trying to preach, but I don't care if you're African-American, Latino-American, Asian-American, Native American or even, "just" an American. Conservatism, well articulated, appeals to any one of these groups. Unlike liberalism, Conservatism cannot for long be successfully used as just an ideology that politicians use to get elected (ask any one of the dozens of Republicans who were kicked out of office earlier this month). It must be genuine. It requires intellectual honesty. It's a way of life that really does bring change - much of which doesn't require government at all. And that's the beauty of it - and why liberals hate it.

Breathe in, breathe out...this week's rant is over.