What we need is a policy arm independent of the existing policy infrastructure on the Hill that incorporates the best of what’s happening in the states, on the Hill, and in the think tanks. A Republican National Policy Committee would be tasked with crafting a larger message that’s bigger than just House Republicans or Senate Republicans, but that includes both and Governors as well. An RNPC would have de-facto last word on the elusive question of what the Republican Party is for, would appoint “shadow cabinet” spokespeople to directly respond to what’s happening at the departments and agencies, and have point on crafting a Contract-like Republican platform for the midterm elections. Part think tank, part messaging engine, a Republican policy committee would keep the ideas flame alive until a Presidential nominee emerged.
This is the first time I’ve ever read anything by Patrick Ruffini that I’ve disagreed with. While I think the GOP definitely needs to get its act together on 21st century policy proposals, a central clearing house for a Republican agenda is a bad idea.
There is a difference between the GOP being a national party and a nationalized party. It must be a national party in that it has to be able to compete in every part of America - from rural Maine to the suburbs of Los Angeles to the exurbs of Florida. A nationalized party, however, is based around specific policies and proposals like the Tories or Labor in the UK.
To win in New England and California, the GOP must field candidates responsive to those states. That means moderate Republicans. My concern is that an RNPC, as Ruffini proposes, would put forward a potentially divisive tax reform or social measure or whatever that would alienate certain Republicans (mostly moderates) from the rest of the party. Additionally, our federal system allows for fifty laboratories of democracy. What happens when the RNPC puts forth an agenda that is contrary to what some Republican Governors are trying in their states? Some of the most innovative policies of the 90’s, namely welfare reform, were created by chief executives like Tommy Thompson. Let the Governors, Representatives and Senators create their own policies and ideas. Let them experiment, fail, re-try and then maybe succeed without fear of being compared to some sort of umbrella-GOP organization.
Finally, the ramifications could be harmful for the 2012 GOP primary. Presumably the RNPC wouldn’t disband immediately after the midterms. Are Republican presidential candidates supposed to endorse the RNPC platform? What happens if the GOP nominee has real differences with the platform? The party benefits from a diverse set of candidates, with a wide array of views, contending for the nomination. I’d be concerned that we’d start measuring candidates, not on the merit of their ideas, but on their adherence to or divergence from whatever the RNPC came up with.
Republicans shouldn’t shackle themselves to any central authority. Let as many different views as possible come forward. What emerges, through the democratic process, will form the foundation for the future of the GOP.
One Response
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.
I didn’t realize this was a full post - thought it was just a link, so I didn’t see it until now.
“Republicans shouldn’t shackle themselves to any central authority. Let as many different views as possible come forward. What emerges, through the democratic process, will form the foundation for the future of the GOP.”
I agree completely. One of the best parts of the primary was seeing how the candidates interpreted conservatism and how their view shaped their plans for the future. Mike Huckabee is much different than Fred Thompson, who is much different than Rudy Giuliani. There is something to be said for unity, but equally something to be said for uniqueness.