Thanks for sharing those thoughts. I think you are right about what needs to happen in order to arrive at a renewed GOP. I do wonder however at your assertion that in the efforts to identify who caused the party’s current precarious position:

so far no one in the party has the courage to look {in the mirror}.

I admit that there is a large contingent of establishment party leadership who have shut their eyes to the fact that they did this to the party (that’s why they continue to try to foist the Dede Scozzafava’s and Charlie Crist’s on the rest of the party members as their candidates of choice) but the whole reason that there is an internal battle for the heart and soul of the party is evidence that there are many in the party who are facing up to the fact that this was an inside job.

Second, the GOP leaders resorted to the most foul hypocrisy known to man: they became the very embodiment of pork-barrel legislation. From Newt Gingrich steering Federal money to his old district, to bridges to nowhere, the GOP became the biggest proponents of Federal projects in history. The U.S. public saw Republicans talking out of both sides of their mouth, inveighing about small government one one side while the other side was a cornucopia of Federal money to well-heeled friends and lobbyists on the other.

Now, out of power and on the run, the scattered and wounded Republican leadership has the bald-faced gall to ask, “Who has done this to us?” The guilty ones reside in a mirror, but so far no one in the party has the courage to look there.

Lacking any clear direction, the party is now reduced to trying to put the country in abeyance; if the GOP can’t rule, then no one can. This behavior is sheer petulance and only makes the party look like a spoiled child in the throes of a bitter tantrum. What is needed is a three-part program of renewal:

A) A conference akin to the original continental congress, where GOP leaders gather to discuss the party’s heart and soul. What does the GOP stand for? Do the old standbys such as limited government, low taxes, and self-reliance have relevance in the 21st century? If not, what can take their place? Indignation and hostility have no place here, for this would be a serious conference about what drives the GOP today.

B) A second factor to be discussed: who are tomorrow’s Republicans, and how can we find them today? More and more pundits are dismissing the GOP as a party of “old white men”. The charge is unfair, but it is true that fewer and fewer people (minorities especially) call themselves Republicans, even though their cultural traits mirror longstanding GOP ideals. The Republican Party needs new blood, and it’s time we admitted that.

C) Finally–and most controversially–the polarity wars need to be toned down. Political commentators like Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and Fox News have been trying to sow discord in the public by talking up the GOP point of view, but this is hurting our image. Scott Roeder’s citing of O’Reilly is a case in point; Glenn Beck’s denouncement of swine flu vaccines as a government invasion of our bodies is another. Rather than casting invective far and wide GOP pundits need to talk up Republican ideals instead of trying to tear down others. Hate-mongering didn’t work in the ‘08 election, so why do the talking heads think it will work now?

Until the party is put through a process of renewal, the GOP will continue to resemble a flaming comet plummeting earthward. Eventually, it will impact, but instead of a crater it will dig its own grave.

I think that if you review the history of the GOP back to its 1854 founding, you will see quite a bit of variation in the central themes that the party has stood for over time.

In the 1850s and 1860s, the party’s central focus was an anti-slavery platform. Major intraparty splits developed by the 1870s, with the two major factions being the Stalwarts and the Half-Breeds. Still, the party had come to generally be supportive of business while accepting various protectionist stances (which are ultimately anti-business). It also became the party most in favor of a stronger national defense.

Theodore Roosevelt caused a divisive debate about the soul of the party, as he espoused an increasingly progressive agenda. He finally formed a progressive party and split with the GOP. Although this split left the GOP in a bad way, some of the Democratic excesses of the Wilson years allowed the party to gain prominence once again.

The party then continued as the pro-business party and kept control (even through scandals) until Hoover’s disastrous handling of the front end of the depression. As the New Deal coalition swept into power, the GOP was largely swept out of power at all levels throughout the nation.

Eventually, however, the party formed an alliance with more conservative Southern Democrats, many of whom espoused socially conservative ideals. It really wasn’t until the Democratic Party’s war on social conservatism in the 1960s-70s that many of these Southern conservatives actually switched to the GOP. Many switched only after the advent of the Reagan presidency.

It is important to note that until the culture wars of the 1960s, the GOP was not generally a socially conservative outfit. And the adoption of the social conservatism agenda has generally proved to be an uneasy fit with some other major factions, including the pro-business, fiscal conservative, and defense hawk elements.

Although many progressive elements that left with TR eventually aligned with the Democrats, the GOP continues to host its share of progressives. In fact, some of them are found among the ranks of social conservatives and big business.

In other words, what the GOP stands for has never really been statically defined. Although there has been some relatively constant themes, the party’s major themes have varied with time. Maybe that’s not so bad. What is a political party for, if not to address the current issues of the day?

The main issue is that almost from the beginning we have had a two-party system (as opposed to a viable system of more parties) with one party being center-right and one being center-left. We have occasionally had third parties (often regional) with some strength, but these have always died out. Of course, the major parties worked to absorb and/or marginalize these movements, but just as often these movements failed to transform from having limited focus to having broader appeal.

When either of the major parties loses its breadth of appeal, the other major party gains power because there’s no viable alternative. Yes, the parties work to make sure that there’s no viable alternative.

Right now, there is a lot of intraparty disagreement on what it means to be a Republican. The party is a huge conglomerate, so it’s a difficult thing to define. Future elections will begin to define the party, as they will show which factions actually have power. Until then, it will continue to be unclear.

I once thought there were actual timeless values attached to being a Republican. When I realized that wasn’t the case I lost my childish enchantment with the party. I now understand that it’s a political tool. And I’m not much happy with how it has managed itself in recent years.

To summarize my comment I would say that there are two different battles that need to be waged to win the war for the heart and soul of conservatism. Jason and others are focused on the second battle while Monte is among those who are focused on first things first.

My full comment can be found at: http://www.pursuit-of-liberty.com/2009/in-search-of-banzai-republicans/comment-page-1/#comment-13937

The Democrats have the same problem where the socialist liberal progressives have absconded their party from the more conservative Democratic, liberty-loving base. We can no longer sit on the sidelines and complain. WE NEED TO GET INVOLVED!

http://www.pursuit-of-liberty.com/2009/in-search-of-banzai-republicans/comment-page-1/#comment-13935