Reformists or Traditionalists?

The Republican Party's conservative base is going through a muscle-straining tug of war between so-called Traditionalists and Reformers, panelists concluded at a recent Hillsdale College discussion about the future of conservatism. 

Conservative David Brooks' wrote in a recent NYTimes' column "Darkness at Dusk" that as long as Republicans continue to stick to lower taxes, smaller government principles, they will continue to lose elections.  He said only with the evolution of conservatism towards using government to assist the middle class and backing reformers such as Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain will Republicans ever re-emerge as victors.

Here in Illinois, Republicans point back to the days when the GOP ruled as the glory days of Jim Thompson, Jim Edgar and Judy Baar Topinka -- all who would fall under the description of Brooks' "Reformers."  The last "Traditionalist" Republican to win statewide was US Senator Peter Fitzgerald.

Traditionalists include folks who are religiously committed to social issues, tax fighters who resist larger government for any reason -- good or bad -- and those who fight for individual rights.

Reformers say all those things are nice, served their purpose in the 70s and 80s, but which should adapt to our changing society with the hopes of winning back the country's majority.

Your thoughts for us in Illinois -- should we return to the Edgar/Thompson way or is there a chance that if we adhere strongly to Traditional conservative principles, a majority of Illinoisans will see the light and begin voting for Republicans?

Your thoughts...

Comments

[TheReallyRightGuy]

The Traditionalists mumble about "social issues," taxes, and individual liberty, but many of them have only one issue -- being anti-abortion. This is a losing cause in Illinois as the Salvi and Keyes campaigns and every opinion poll proved.
If the Republicans ever hope to win another election, these guys need to be thrown under the bus and their bodies buried deep in the forest preserve -- figuratively speaking of course.

[Sam Pierce]

I suggest that the notion of "reformers" as mentioned in Brooks piece and referred to in what I believe was my first post on IR (RINOs Rebranded as Reformers)is equivalent to "indistinguishable!" Victory is all that matters and principle be damned would seem to make victory unlikely and any rare victory would be hollow and certainly not worthy of support.

[Frank Goudy]

I am not certain that TheReallyRightGuy and Sam Pierce agree with each other, but interestingly I do agree with each of their points.

But regardless, I am not certain what issues the Republicans can use in this state.  Increasingly Illinois resembles more of a New Jersey ( a former swing state).
The political base is much more minority/immigrant oriented.  The suburbs are increasingly reflecting this demographic trend. The Dems promise more affirmative action, more welfare benefits, more immigration of minority groups (both legal and illegal). And as Sam Pierce points out, pandering to these groups will mean a Republican Party that will also fail at elections. The groups pandered to will still vote Democratic and the Republicans will leave in huge numbers.

While this does not constitute a majority of voters, when combined with traditional Democratic bases, has made Illinois no longer a swing state but a Blue state.In addition, more and more female voters are unmarried.  This also constitutes a greater base for Democratic voters- a slightly lower income group and much more interested in a socially liberal, nanny -state orientation.  Obama carried this group 71%-29%.

Democrats can get by with most anything in this state.  The only reason Blago will go is because the Dems want it. Republicans can not even count on the corruption theme anymore. Many voters don't care as long as they get their "rights" and benefits.

Maybe someone has he courage and vision to ressurect the Republican Party but I do not see who it is. It will probably take someone who is conservative enough to mobilize the base and provide the "Charisma" that will attract other voters. It will not be done on real issues, particularly conservative issues. Individual reponsibility is a thing of the past whether at the corporate or individual level.

Sorry for the pessimism, but the above is the way I see it.

[TheReallyRightGuy]

All is not hopeless: look at Louisiana. They elected as governor a man of second generation Indian ancestry with a Congressional voting record that would scare the pants off any Illinois Democrat and a Vietnamese boat person who came to the U.S. at the age of 9 to Congress, beating the incumbent in a solid black district.
First-generation l-e-g-a-l immigrants should be a prime target for Republicans.

[Stevan]

Supporting the right to life was the ONLY thing that cost Al Salvi and Alan Keyes their respective elections? Peter Fitzgerald believes in the right to life - how did he win? Jim Durkin is pro-choice, why did he receive less votes than Alan Keyes? Why did Durkin run behind pro-life Jim Ryan?

[Pete Speer]

When you are an author and editor, you get to frame the issue by defining things on an either/or basis and to respond there may be no good choice.

Go back to my list of principles. The core one was that the functioning family was the basis for the principles which which define the Republic. Problem is, everybody wants to define what they think is best for the functioning family unit and not let that essential unit define its own enlightened self interest.

If you want to force the family unit to open its craw and piyr down your personal beliefs, you are going to have the same old problem.

A family functions because it can have within it a variety of personal opinions, but at the base its members hold to the necessity for the family to function and disagreements to be ameliorated..

So too within a political party (except for the Fascists, the Nazis and the Communist. No disagreement is brooked. Agree with me or die or the gulag.)

TRRG is correct. But you have to be able to speak of your principles in a language which is clearly understood.

[Rev. Jeremiah Wrong]

Term Limits

[TheReallyRightGuy]

Stevan:
Peter Fitzgerald's strongest issue was being against political corruption not abortion. It also helped that he was running against a incumbent with no record of accomplishment and a record of cronyism.
On the other hand, Salvi and Keyes made being anti-abortion a centerpiece of their campaigns.
Keyes also suffered from having gotten the nomination via what many people saw as an illegitimate process. Imagine, in a state the size of Illinois, the GOP Central Committee could not find a single suitable candidate after looking for 7 weeks!

[David P. Graf]

The GOP has little to look forward to in statewide elections because the votes in Chicago and surrounding counties pretty much overwhelm the remainder of the state. We're continuing to pay the price for abandoning Chicago.

[Hmmmm]

I'd say Edgar/Thompson/Topinka do not fall into either category.

They are neither reformers or traditionalists.

They are Illinois Politicians. Maybe call them "Appropriators".

Fitzgerald was conservative on social issues - but I'd almost consider him more of a reformer (he veered off on some conservative issues.)

I know what Brooks is talking about - and I think he's wrong.

McCain the "Reformer" didn't do too well, did he?

The problem is - we have a new breed of Republican. Let's call them "Huckabee Republicans" or "New Deal Republicans." They are socially conservative - but support big government and even higher taxes.

Bush falls into this category. Mike Huckabee. Many Illinois Republicans.

Limited government to them sounds okay in theory - unless they can use government to get something they like.

That's not Reaganism. It's certainly not Goldwaterism.

[Jerome]

There isn't a shred of electoral evidence to support the suggestions of Brooks and the RINOs. Brooks is a twit who supported a socialist for President because he claims that the socialist was well-versed in the philosophy of Reinhold Neibuhr - what possible credibility does he retain as a conservative?

I am sick of reciting the numbers, and you all know them. Citing Keyes vote counts is a red herring - he was a desperation candidate and effectively a fraud, not a legitimate Illinois conservative. The corrupt combine has sunk the ILGOP, rather than a rejection of conservative politics.

Get a well-spoken, organized, and properly funded conservative to run for any of the offices now held by our retarded Democrat caucus, and they can win. Governor, Lt. Governor, and Treasurer are all wide open, and Lisa Madigan's idiotic move against a fatally wounded Blagojevich has highlighted an intellectual and professional weakness that she had done a great job of hiding during campaigns.

Our state, and especially Chicago and Crook County are run by corrup imbeciles, and the GOP should be gearing up to reassert conservative thought into our government.

Becoming liberals is obviously not the answer.

[Henry Meers]

The real issue we face as a party is offering voters a choice, and Demcorat-lite is not it. An American conservative is the opposite of his European counterpart, because he is an advocate of individual rights and small government. This has been the essential ingredient of the nation's success since its founding.

Keep in mind the federal structure of the Founding Fathers was not the result of some consultant's focus-group desire to feel good, quite the opposite. The primary motivation of the New England migrations was religious freedom, a diverse evangelical movement. Of course, that created factions unable to get along with each other. Since no one group could dictate to another, they formed political groupings to become our states. This was extremely healthy, because it forced everybody to respect the others' freedom to have any for themselves.

After these developments, it should become apparent that the discussion amongst "reformers" on the right, described at Hillsdale, ignores our history and sounds more like a debate between socialists or communists with their fascist brethern about how much the government should intrude into everybody's life.

As Mr. Graf observed, we have a huge problem in Illinois with the power of Chicago and Cook county. That place is really sad, where voters have sold their political soul in return for welfare and a city job (no-show, if they're lucky). Ironically, the Democratic apparatus is beginning to look more like an hereditary monarchy every day. Unfortunately, that means positions of power are granted in return for supporting the machine, not the good job for the citizens you are supposed to do.

We can overcome this by offering the voters of Illinois a better life through freedom. To accomplish that, we have to believe it. This should be obvious, where do you more of what you want, the Post Office or the local supermarket? Has anyone read the Secretary of States website and tried for figure out what it is trying to tell us? It is far too easy to spend other people's money on lousy state services to attract votes than make this point (taxes are obviously excessive at every level with that kind of money to waste). The people get it, every time they go shopping.

Does anyone remember "supply-side economics?" Reagan understood the idea of a growing economy creating jobs, which allows people to consume. The Obama administration, with its strong roots in Chicago politics, only understands taking money from other people and giving to friends to spend. That is the zero-sum mentality they attribute to everyone else. The strength of Illinois, and the nation, is its free people (competeting for your business), not big government programs. If we waited for those to work, we wouldn't have cars or medicine etc. Reagan respected the American people and gave us the longest period of prosperity in our history. It was so strong that it even made Bill Clinton look good. Let's hope his people can't mess it up in their second incarnation as the Obama administration.

[spintreebob]

In using the word "reformer" Brooks misuses language to advance his agenda.

The Ogilvie-Thompson movement was reformer because it had the anti-corruption IMGAGE. Edgar inherited that image. Fitz won on that image. The voters bought that image. George Ryan destroyed that image.

That Fitz was pro-life or that Thompson was liberal had ZERO to do with their winning.

But in 2009 we should question the cliches and programs of the New Deal, 1960s reformers, or Reagan.
- Are they the best policy for this new global information age?
- Are they the path to wining in this new global information age?
- Is there a convergence between the best policy and best cliches to win? Or do they work against each other?

Maybe we need to build a new winning vocabulary around concepts like transparency and optimism.

In listening to people since the election what strikes me the most is that Obama, like Reagan, won on optimism. Most wings of the GOP and conservatives seemed to feed on pessimism. Just as with Reagan, the voters bought optimism. (This coming from a spintreebob who tends to be negative.)