Republican Unity: Myth or Reality?

By: Matthew Hayward
edited 7/4/2013

I decided to write up a little response to a recent post I saw about Republican unity. For better context, I am going to repost the original message and than my response.

"I have been a Republican my entire life. I first went out and campaigned door-to-door at the age of ten...for Richard Nixon in 1960. Having been doing this now for somewhat over 50 years, I would like to take a moment of your time and talk about RINO's. Not the African beast, but the so-called Republicans In Name Only. The debate within the GOP is about issues, ideas, the heart and soul of the party. Being a real Republican, however, entails more than merely claiming the name for your own. It also entails working for the party year in and year out, working for and voting for the party nominees even if you don't agree with them on every issue, realizing, as Ronald Reagan said, "A person who agrees with you 80% of the time is a friend and ally - not a 20% traitor." Let me also give you my ideas about what being a real Republican does NOT entail: being a real Republican does not entail using the party name and design...ation to promote an ideological agenda; it does not entail going off in a sulk just because your candidate didn't win the nomination; it does not entail reading people out of the party just because you and they have differing views on issues. Being a real Republican does not entail demonizing your opponents within the party by questioning their patriotism, their religious orthodoxy, or their overall commitment to Republican principles, nor does it entail backing foredoomed third-party candidacies just because the GOP candidate isn't ideologically pure. If anyone who claims to be a Republican can't do all these things, or refrain from doing them, then, perhaps, THEY are the true Republican's In Name Only."
By: Marc Hennemann reposted by Tom Watson

I too have been a Republican my entire life, mostly in name only. This is one of the points I disagree with Mark. Up until 2006 (age 24) I had not really looked at the Republican platform, but more importantly I had not done much introspection nor had I studied philosophy. Instead I had just been a sheep working from time to time for the Party without any real knowledge of what it stood for or what the people I helped believed in.

 (As for “working for the party year in and year out,” that sounds good but we all know that has less to do with ideology and more to do with people being busy and not having positions on the board etc. )

But what is the purpose of the Party if not to get Republicans elected? Contrary to what Mark thinks; “being a real Republican does not entail using the party name and designation to promote an ideological agenda.” It is my understanding the purpose of the Party is to increase political influence of our ideals. What better way to increase influence than electing like minded people to a position of public office where they have a platform and the ability to directly effect policy?

However, what could be more undermining than electing a RINO whose ideals are not the same? Clearly you cannot make such a broad statement as “voting for the Party nominees even if you don’t agree with them on every issue…” and expect to be allowed to continue with your point. What if we don’t agree with them on most points? And what if it just so happens that we disagree with them on every issue they happen to chose to run on?

If my wife agreed with you on 99.99% of the issues but the 0.01% she disagreed on is both ideologically deplorable and a politically viable possibility, she would NEVER consider voting for you. If you support the concept of a national ID card (viable), also support RFID chipping in first responders (already doing), RFIDchipping in military (I am filing a FOIA to find out more about possible current limited use), RFID chipping in any humans (being done), she would not vote for you period. It makes 0 difference who is running against you or if she disagrees with them 100% of time.

I’m sure I could have come up with a better examples but I hope at least my point is illustrated; some issues matter to people enough to cancel out all of the rest. Now I would like to go a step further by stating that I would not support you even if I agreed with you 100% of the time, but disagreed with the means you believed in to achieve the ends we agree on. Integrity in the process means more to me than the outcome. If you are one to achieve your ends through deception, subversion of rules, fraud and any number of loop poles to avoid the clear intent and spirit of your oath of office, I not only would not vote for you but I would support your impeachment and prosecution.

Let’s say we agree on 80% of the issues and disagree with 20%. Then let’s look at the reality of many of the new people who are getting involved who roughly fit into that ratio and see why they are getting involved. It turns out that many of the new people getting involved are not getting involved because of the 80% we agree on but portions of the 20% we disagree on. It’s those parts of the 20% we disagree on, the bipartisanship to undermine the Constitution that both parties justify when they are in power that is triggering an increasing number of never previously involved citizens to join the process. We believe the 80% is wholly connected to the % we clearly disagree.

In many of these instances I tend to believe the folks falling into the 20% are traitors. Whenever someone holds views consistent with undermining our liberties and the Constitutional process, they are traitors. I don’t care if it is while Bush is in office or when Obama comes into office, I will never back someone based solely on the Party they claim. I am more interested in a person’s integrity to their oath office and the Constitution, if they truly believe in the process they will always be in the minority.

Now you have the other divides in the Party that are more traditional, general those who call themselves social conservancies and those who do not. Usually these make up the pro-life, anti drug, keep God in the schools, the pledge and on our money. Social Conservatives also tend to be a little more moderate when it comes to intervention with economics and foreign policy, if they see a moral justification and believe good may come from it they are more likely to support government intervention. But this brings me to my next point.

We have a two Party system and most people don’t like it, they don’t think either Party represents them. That said most of us understand that if we want to have an influence in the game, we have to pick a side to try and have our voice heard. Because of this political reality we end up with an assorted melting pot of differing views. In these two major Parties there are a wide range of different matrixes of people.

How is someone who is staunchly anti aggression and limited government going to be able to support a neoconservative war hawk whose main platform is based on building more aircraft carries and getting more involved in entangling alliances and foreign affairs than we already are? How is a civil Libertarian or Constitutionalist going to be able to work together with radicals who under Bush had no respect for the Constitution and believed the ends justified the means, much like those who now continue to support Obama after all that he did in his first term to continue the tragedies against our freedoms that the Bush administration started?

Then there is always viability and future strategy to consider. I’m not going to go too far into this as there are many good books on the topic, but let’s take into consideration a simple example. Let’s assume there is a Republican we agree with about 65% of the time and a Democrat we agree with 40% of time, both moderates.  On the one hand if we elect Mr. 65% and he/she is elected, we are now likely stuck backing them again the next time around. However if we instead focus on other races, and if the Democrat wins, while we may lose in the short run we may be long term winners if we are able to field a better candidate that more closely aligns with our values in the next election. (Yes it is possible and occasional happens that a Republican challenges another Republican and wins, but this usually only happens in strong Red districts.)

Real example, Obama winning re-election is terrible and we agree with him nowhere near 40%, but if Romney who we agreed with somewhere around the 65% depending on your ability to believe what he said and on what day he was talking, would have won then we would have been stuck with him in 2016 and likely lost to Hillary who would then have likely had 8 years. Instead we are in a position now where a random name out of a hat has a better chance of beating Hillary, we are looking much better with an open filed than if we had to try and defend Mitt.

Viability is a factor, can we win without going for the middle? Or do we have to have a McCain or a Romney? All of these issues matter and should be on the table, we should not blindly insist on a strategy of backing everyone who calls themselves a Republican regardless of environmental, geographic and to some degree ideological factors. If the Party, for strategical reasons supports moderates, you cannot expect hardcore Conservatives to get behind them. To a hardcore Conservative a moderate is a Democrat with an R behind their name.

I do agree with Mark that we need to work to capture the people whose candidate loses, we should help them find another candidate or cause and keep pushing them to be getting a positive message out, though that does not mean they need to jump on board with the Republican who defeated their candidate, or “support the whole Republican ticket.” Like I have said before, if a person holds a view of another person to be a traitor, or at least views them with much more than just a little distain, it doesn’t make sense to suggest they should support the person they think is a traitor.

Questioning someone’s patriotism is exactly what the Bush administration did  when shoving their agenda down the throat of Americans, but that was not just about Party politics, that was wholesale demonization of anyone who dared to disagree with the administration or the Patriot Act. That said I agree, both non interventionalists and neoconservatives both believe in their theories of government and therefore could both be seen as having patriotism.  The same is also true with socialists, though misguided they also believe they are patriots that wish to do what is best for our country.

Ideological purism is vital to all Republican principles, and Democratic principles. Regardless of Party or political ideology, if you believe the Constitution and the rule of law comes second to achieving your ends, than you are not worthy of calling yourself a Republican, a Democrat, or even an American. Clearly the first debate that is necessary to have is in regards to candidates understanding and interpretation of their oath of office and their ability to act upon their principles and beliefs.

Our beliefs do not need to all be in perfect line, but our agreement in the process does have to be 100% in line, or least much closer than 80/20. I’m not going to support a principled voice in the minority that when given power turns into a tyrannical majority belligerent to the principals espoused to get they there.

 

Being a Republican in name only is exactly what Mark is calling for. Mark wants everyone to support the Party, aka Republican candidates, regardless of their values and principles. Mark obviously has little concern for the platform or integrity of the potential candidates in question. I believe a Real Republican is more than what the majority say the platform is, but like the Constitution, until it is amended it is what it is.

 

This is why it was so important to have the 2014 State Convention. I thought conventions were supposed to be a place where we talked about what it means to be a Republican and find out where the will of the activists in the Party who will be working on candidates campaigns are. If you want the majority of your Party enthusiastically working for candidates, know  they are going to be backing candidates that most closely align to their beliefs. We should be pushing to have people find a candidate they like and support them.

We should not cast the minority views of the platform necessarily out of the Party, but we should encourage them to support Republican candidates and issues that fit their Republican values. Most people don’t get involved anyway, it does not make sense to argue with someone to superficially support a slew of candidates when, at best they might get out and door knock or donate to 1 or 2 candidates, JUST ENCOURGAE THEM TO DO THAT.

The Parties job is to help all factions of Republicans, but it is also to pay attention to the will of the constituency and the platform. If the chair and board are elected by a faction to represent that faction, the platform committee will usually reflect those values and it would logically follow that candidates that fell out of line with those values would receive less support.

Integrity, viability, and strategy, nothing is black or white and people are complicated. We will likely never have perfect unity, but we should always be pushing people toward being productive and building the Party, but that cannot be done by trying to put everyone in a box and leaving morals and values aside.