Note before we begin: It's quite likely that all of this is moot; the GOP could well thrive because of what I call Backup Quarterback Syndrome--the American people tend to go for the party who's not in power, especially if the economy continues to suck. Their ratings in public approval ratings are steadily increasing, in spite of what you might hear.
Now, with that out of the way, let's address the issue at hand. The Republican Party, as it stands, is a mess. The slanders thrown out like party favors from the left and the media are partly to blame for this, certainly, but the biggest problem is that the most visible Republicans in Washington since the departure of Tom DeLay (maybe since Newt Gingrich) are unwilling to confront Democrats when they go on their hate-filled screeds with counterpoints or ideas because they don't have any guts or ideas. The idea guys, the only ones with some semblance of ideology, are folks like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, who are easily painted into a corner because you can't get everyone in the party to sit there and say, "Hey, like their approach or not, they may have a point." Instead, like weaklings, they pander to the likes of John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Colin Powell and (until recently) Arlen Specter. All four of these men have something in common: they're not interested in the advancement of a political viewpoint or party; they're interested in advancing themselves (for you Powell fans, who do you think told Richard Armitage, the assistant secretary of state, about Valerie Plame? One wonders...). Since Republicans have no semblance of leadership, a plan or a vision, they're willing to bend over backwards to keep these individuals in the "big tent" to prevent a slide into irrelevance.
So what to do? For one thing, Republicans must stand for something. That thing should be as basic as it gets: individual freedom. It doesn't get simpler than that, and it's a pretty effective base for any positions the party decides to take.
Republicans have done a lousy job branding the conservative movement, to the point it's become synoymous with intolerance, pigheadedness and boorishness. It is none of those things--in fact, it's not even close. Leftists have made conservativism an equation for a hateful resistance to change; a conservative's response to such slanderous (or libelous) allegations should be to respond with a discussion of the word's origin (if you can have a discussion with a liberal without being shreiked at--and it can be done). To conserve is to protect, to maintain something. In this case, American conservatism (and, by extension, the Republican Party), should be the protection of individual freedom.
Everything else flows from there. Eventually, this will look like a tree or a flow chart, minus the "you poor bastard" or "you're screwed" in the middle.
The major issues that the Republican Party should emphasize in their protection of individual freedom should be:
- National defense
- The right to succeed
- Minimizing government intervention in your life
It's difficult for a liberal to oppose these stances. What are they going to say, that nobody would want to hurt us, that we'll just get along or bow to everyone else's demands? Actually, scratch that, they already do. But anyone who is willing to rely on the government for their well-being at the expense of individual liberties is lazy or a fool. It's hard to think most Americans fit into that category.
An expansion of these thoughts later. Now back to something less mind-numbing.
