If I were to tell you that I opposed the imperial invasion of Iraq since Day One, have voiced opposition to our government's indiscriminate electronic surveillance and use of torture, and have been calling for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney for years, no one here would blink. If I were to tell you that I was also pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, but opposed profligate spending and irresponsible tax cuts for the super-wealthy, you'd probably yawn. But if I were to tell you that I am a Republican, and that my positions are logically derived from long-accepted Republican principles, you might be taken aback.
The legendary military strategist Sun-Tzu wrote, "[if you know your enemy and yourself], in a hundred battles you will never be in peril." It does you a disservice to remain ignorant of Republican political theory, as it deprives you of a powerful weapon. For my part, recognizing as I do that my Party has (in the words of Ronald Reagan) for the most part "left me" and is wandering in the wilderness, I merely seek to properly arm you, for there is much we can agree on. "There is only the fight to recover what has been lost and found and lost again and again" -- what is good and decent about America.
Can light have fellowship with darkness?
This diary entry is in response to a poster who told me in no uncertain terms that Republicans are not welcome at dKos. (I hadn't the heart to point out that Hillary Rodham Clinton was president of the Young Republicans at Wellesley College.) Never mind that the dKosopedia says that thoughtful and polite
commentary from those with differing views was invited. The poster wanted to be The Decider. I wanted to see whether his or her views were widely held.
The Apostle Paul asked whether light can have fellowship with darkness, 2Cor. 6:14; it has become a fair question. It's not like in the past twenty years or so, the Republican Party hasn't become on some level the party of Belial. (Indeed, the mere thought of Dick Cheney and Ann Coulter spawning a brood freezes the blood.) So much evil has been wrought in recent times that even wandering through its sewers can be a daunting task, but with a certain Ms. Rodham, I am not convinced that it is impossible to change the system from the inside. And thus, I remain.
Republicans: The Party of Human Rights
The defining Republican value is individual liberty -- the radical notion that we, and not our 'betters' in the government, are best-equipped to decide what is best for us. The only legitimate role of rational government is to secure that liberty, by providing an environment wherein it can be enjoyed by all.
On the steps outside Independence Hall at the close of the Constitutional Convention, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin if we had a republic or a monarchy. Dr. Franklin replied, "A republic ... if you can keep it." The sum of history is an indelicate dance between those who seek to dominate others, and those who wish to be free of others' domination. The Republican stands proudly on the side of freedom, as a free society is invariably more productive, efficient, and mutually beneficial. But as will always be the case, our liberty remains under constant threat -- often from within! -- demanding our eternal vigilance.
President Reagan understood on a visceral level the indefeasible connection between human rights and freedom, that all human rights are individual in character, and the typically vast gulf between a politician’s words and his deeds. As he observed, our Founding Fathers held that each individual has certain rights so basic and fundamental to his dignity as a human being that no government may violate them, and that we as citizens have a right to expect our courts to enforce them. "They proclaim the belief -- and represent a specific means of enforcing the belief -- that the individual comes first, [and] that the Government is the servant of the people, and not the other way around." But he rightly notes that in the real world, many do not enjoy these rights: Some governments "make elaborate claims that citizens under their rule enjoy human rights," ... but "[e]ven if words look good on paper, the absence of structural safeguards against abuse of power means they can be taken away as easily as they are allowed."
This fundamental belief in the importance of the individual (as opposed to the notion that groups have rights, which seems to be championed by Dems), and the dependent view that governments exist to protect those rights, informs the entire Republican political worldview. In a 1975 interview, President Reagan explained what we as a Party stand for:
I think the Republican Party should take the lead and, as I say, raise that banner and say this is what we stand for. And what we stand for would be fiscal responsibility. .... I think that it should be a government, or a party, that has a position that makes it plain that even though there are social faults that may lead to people turning to crime the individual must be held accountable for his misdeeds. That on the world scene we’re going to do whatever is necessary to insure that we can retain this free system of ours; in other words, we will maintain a defensive posture that is sufficient to deter aggression.
In short, we stand for fiscal responsibility, personal accountability, and peace through economic might and defensive strength. Any deviation from that is a violation of our first principles. Reagan was fond of referring to himself as "a well-armed dove"; Teddy Roosevelt famously counseled that we ought to "[s]peak softly and carry a big stick."
Given this foundation, it is easy to see how the uncontrolled rampages of the Bush junta has become anathema to traditional Republicans. Bush 43's maxing out of our country's American Express card is hardly the model of fiscal responsibility. The brazen crimes of Duke Cunningham, Tom DeLay, Scooter Libby, and many others cry out for accountability. And one can hardly describe the wholesale invasion of a sovereign country that posed no meaningful strategic threat to us as a "defensive posture."
Republicans: The Party of Conservation
In the wake of shining stars like James Watt and Gale Norton, one can be forgiven for forgetting that the first prominent conservationist was none other than Teddy Roosevelt. He framed the debate in stark terms: "The conservation of natural resources is the fundamental problem. Unless we solve that problem it will avail us little to solve all others." His words have proven prophetic not once but several times during my lifetime, as we have had to face the serial threats of pesticides, ozone depletion, and global warming.
Sustainable development is just good business. It is also sound defense policy, as undue dependence upon foreign energy sources forces us into aggressive and imperialistic use of our military. By way of example, hydrogen fuel cell technology is here, and can be produced by harnessing the wind at what is now a competitive price. Substantial investments in infrastructure are needed and ultimately, would be cheaper than the war in Iraq. But more importantly, this can be sold in terms of enhancing national security.
In the words of Joan Rivers, "Can we talk?"
Bottom line, effecting significant and necessary change in society demands the enthusiastic assent of a broad coalition. Being able to present what should be common goals requires that you learn to speak to adversaries in a language they will understand.
The denizens of dKos have the raw power to silence my voice by labeling me as a troll, a subversive, or worse (FrontPageRag has already done so, a fact of which I am proud :) ). But is it prudent to do so? I beseech you to consider the wisdom of Abraham Lincoln:
"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."
Our Party has wandered off, thereby offering you an opportunity to attract the multitudes that have lost their tents since the Bush Circus came to town. But to do that, you have to understand what the disaffected masses stand for.