Although I'm a Democrat and proudly so, I was once a Republican. This at the start of the Reagan years, when I was in my early 20s and still largely believing what I had heard in my childhood. A whole cluster of experiences changed that for me, and I was a Democrat by 1984 and have been ever since.
That said, though, I've spent much of my adult life working and talking with Republicans. It was a Republican who encouraged me to run for student government in law school, and who after I won a seat, assigned me the task of drafting an equal protection amendment to our constitution, to bring us into compliance with ABA standards. Though we disagreed on many issues, he stood by me in the very difficult, very ugly fight to get it ratified.
So I don't hate Republicans. I don't hate, period. But I do wonder ...
... where does your party go now?
More after the fold....
I will assume - perhaps in error - that if you're a Republican and you're reading here, you decided to support President-Elect Obama in this recent election. Thank you, sincerely. And perhaps some of you are considering switching your party affiliation to Democrat. If so, I offer you a most sincere "Welcome!"
But some of you, probably, are not switching to Democrat. You're choosing either to be independent, or to remain in the GOP. And this is directed primarily to that audience: Republican Kossaks who are remaining in the GOP.
Where does your party go now?
More specifically, what ideas and policies should the GOP promote which, you feel, are different enough from those of the Democratic Party so that the GOP can function as a responsible "loyal opposition," and eventually perhaps win back the confidence of voters?
And that is really what happened since Hurricane Katrina. The Republican Party lost the confidence of voters, in their inability to bring closure in Iraq and Afghanistan, in their inability to bring rescue and recovery after Katrina, in their inability to bring responsibility to Wall Street before (and to some extent since) its financial meltdown. The GOP of 2008 is a party devoid of ideas and policies that actually work in the real world.
Strong defense? Sure, but how, against what, and at what cost? Yes, of course the United States must be able to ensure her sovereignty and take reasonable steps to protect us from foreseeable dangers. But how much protection is reasonable? How many of those foreseeable dangers are real? How much of what else we could do for one another - health care, infrastructure, education, developing green industries - must we forego to pay for "the most powerful military in the history of the world?" Might the GOP take up that question, in the spirit of Dwight Eisenhower's Humanity on a Cross of Iron speech?
Lower Taxes? Small government? Perhaps, but how low and how small is too low and too small? Obviously Grover Norquist's idea of government starved such that it can be drowned in a bathtub does not work for ordinary Americans. The government has not drowned, but New Orleans did, and Wall Street and Americans are drowning in debt. Don't Americans need government with the resources and mandate to protect them in time of disaster, natural or man made? Might the Republican Party now step forward, with Democrats, and demand that government be staffed with the most capable, most competent, most trustworthy people, committed to the serving the American people's real needs, and not to any ideology?
Free markets? Certainly these encourage innovation and individual enterprise. We need pools of capital to fund good ideas, and that capital must be mobile enough to identify and fund a good idea as quickly as possible. And yes, government tends to be too cumbersome to manage that well (ask the Russian people). But one look at our current financial mess - and the echoes of the late 1920s - ought to prove that turning the wealthy loose to increase their wealth however they can is, to quote Franklin Roosevelt, "neither good morals nor good economics." The "excesses of greed" on which many Wall Street pundits blame the current crisis are not an accident. The "excesses" are required by law. (See Dodge v. Ford Motor Company.) Government must serve as the conscience of corporations, because they are not allowed a conscience of their own. Might the GOP not become the champion of principled, prudent, conscientious business practices, serving the public good as mandated by transparent regulation, so shareholders can know whom to trust?
Fidelity to the Constitution? While there is no single "original intent," as the Constitution documents the unresolved disputes of delegates to the Constitutional Convention, it remains our founding document. Yes there is room for dispute, as in most practical cases, the Constitution serves to frame the questions, rather than to mandate the answers. But can we not agree that the Constitution does not establish an elected monarch? Now that a Democrat is in the White House and the GOP is a minority party, might it not take a strong, principled stand for restoring the checks and balances written into our founding document, so that no one man - Republican or Democrat - can rule by personal whim?
Moral and Civic Values? Yes, government should reflect and encourage moral and civic values. But must that begin and end with people's sex lives? Do our common moral and civic values not compel us to care for those in need, to protect our environment, and to treat one another with courtesy, dignity, and compassion? Can the Republican Party become a champion of a wider range moral and civic virtues: helping to build stronger and more hopeful communities where all peoples can work together with dignity and respect, sharing each others' burdens, caring for "the least of these," and valuing our common good more highly than we value our personal interests?
Do these reflect your (Republican readers') hopes for your party? If not, what are your hopes for your party?