Earlier this week the Republican National Committee published a report from its “Growth and Opportunity Project,” which outlines the current weaknesses of the party and offers detailed recommendations for addressing those weaknesses. Although I agree with many of the observations and recommendations, the report spent about 100 pages to finally admit to the reality that some of us have been trying to get the party to face for some time. However, one observation contained in the report was so poignant (and so obvious) that it caught my attention:
The Republican Party needs to stop talking to itself. We have become expert in how to provide ideological reinforcement to like-minded people, but devastatingly we have lost the ability to be persuasive with, or welcoming to, those who do not agree with us on every issue.
That statement took my mind back to another time—more than a generation ago—when I still had more hair on top of my head than on my chin; and to a Republican leader who challenged young people like me by reminding us that we had a “rendezvous with destiny” … “to make the world over again.” In doing so, he told us to stop talking to ourselves and to start persuading others to join us:
I want the record to show that I do not view the new revitalized Republican Party as one based on a principle of exclusion. After all, you do not get to be a majority party by searching for groups you won’t associate or work with. If we truly believe in our principles, we should sit down and talk. Talk with anyone, anywhere, at any time if it means talking about the principles of the Republican Party. Conservatism is not a narrow ideology nor is it the exclusive property of conservative activists. …Our task now is not to sell a philosophy, but to make the majority of Americans, who already share that philosophy, see that modern conservatism offers them a political home. We are not a cult, we are members of a majority. Let’s act and talk like it. …
Much of what ails the American Conservative Movement and the Republican Party is self-inflicted because we stopped talking to others. It seems as though we foolishly concluded that, when Bill Clinton said that the era of big government was over, we had won the argument with the left. So, we simply turned on each other and fought among ourselves over ideological purity. As we did that, we and our ideas seemed to be less and less relevant to our neighbor’s lives. In fact, I think it is safe to say that had the attacks on 9/11 not occurred, or had George W. Bush not responded to the 9/11 attacks as he did, the trajectory of history would have caused him to be an accidental one-term President because we already had turned inward on ourselves.
And the people we stopped talking to, and who stopped listening to us, primarily inhabit the urban zip codes that we lost so decisively in the last election. People will not listen to someone they don’t trust, they won’t trust someone they don’t feel they know, and they won’t get to know someone who ignores them. Most Republicans have ignored most urban neighborhoods since at least 1960, with the predictable consequences for our party as the vast majority of Americans now live inside metropolitan areas.
But our inaction has created unintended consequences for cities, too. Remember the movie, It’s A Wonderful Life, and the segment of the story in which the Angel (Clarence) shows George Bailey what Bedford Falls would have been like without him and the Bailey Savings and Loan? It became Potterville, with all of its loneliness, indifference, anger, decadence and despair for so many of the people George had known. Now look at present-day Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, and even neighborhoods in Houston, and what you’ll find are a lot of Pottervilles because we haven’t been there for generations. We Republicans need to have a cold, hard look in the mirror and realize that many of the pathologies that have caused so much under-education, under-employment, and over-incarceration in urban neighborhoods sprouted and grew because our party abandoned most cities to the Democrats (and their failed theories of government command and control) more than a generation ago.
Now, if you find what I just wrote a little hard to swallow, compare the cities I just mentioned to today’s New York City, a Democratic stronghold that hasn’t been willing to elect a Democratic Mayor in over two decades (though Bloomberg is no Republican, he’s not really a Democrat either—he’s just an independent narcissist) but has enjoyed a prolonged civic renaissance throughout so many of its neighborhoods since the mid-1990s.
If you think clearly about the challenges America faces, one conclusion should be clear: the country needs a revitalized Republican Party that is engaged in every neighborhood—not just along Main Street, but along the hard streets and alleys of our cities where too many lives are constantly being lost at too early of an age. To do that, though, Republicans have to actually engage in the life of those neighborhoods—their families, civic and religious organizations, their schools, and their local governments—and use Republican principles to address real needs in those neighborhoods.
We are not a debating society, so we need to stop talking to each other about our principles. Instead, we need to mentor the members of a new generation, through our actions and policies, to be part of a movement larger than themselves; to be part of a movement that will enlarge and enrich liberty, while transforming the opportunities for all our neighbors to live fuller and richer lives consistent with best of their dreams. In so doing, we actually can “make the world over again”—not just talk about what should be, or what could have been.
Yes, engage in the lives of these neighborhoods. YES.
Ed: Great piece. Of special importance is your comment that republicans must “engage in the life of neighborhoods — and use Republican principles to address real needs in those neighborhoods. For republicans to be successful and remain relevant in the political process, they must engage the voters down where they live to solve problems, not with lofty discussions of economic theory and personal liberties.
Ultimately there is a limited degree of benefit to be gained from improving the outreach and style of messaging. For a lot of people, problem they have with the republican party is the message itself.
This is especially true of younger voters, the “spiritual but not religious” folks (an increasing demographic) civil libertarians, feminists, and pretty much any target audience who are not as socially conservative as the republican base. This presents quite a conundrum.
Ed Hubbard says…”Republicans have to actually engage in the life of those neighborhoods—their families, civic and religious organizations, their schools, and their local governments—and use Republican principles to address real needs in those neighborhoods.”
Frankly, I think that intensity of engagement is too much to expect of GOP activists. Instead, I can offer a two page strategy paper on Republican outreach to the Hispanic community. I will be happy to send it as a PDF to interested parties. Here is a passage:
“Part of this reform program would include exploiting the research of the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the Institute for Justice on occupational licensing and barriers-to-entry at the local and state levels, often set up to protect existing businesses, and attacking abuses of eminent domain by government officials at behest of political insiders. SIMULTANEOUSLY the GOP can build coalitions to remove the occupational barriers by working through local organizations, such as the smaller chambers of commerce, political clubs and civic associations. Doing so shows a compassionate side of conservatism while weakening crony capitalism at the state and local levels. Hispanic Republicans can be encouraged to take on the role of GOP spokespeople leading these coalitions so minorities can identify with the Republican Party.”
Note that this approach puts Republican principles into action but is much less demanding. I estimate that six Republican activists, each working just three hours a week, can put this strategy into play. People wishing to see the whole document may contact me at 713-224-4144 and [email protected]
Barry, thanks for responding. The policy ideas you are promoting are good and sound, but the problem is getting the Latino voter–or any other urban voter–to listen to the promotion and embrace the idea. They won’t–nor will African Americans, young single women, single mothers, Asian Americans, or any other group who live in urban neighborhoods who voted against us in over 70{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} concentrations–until they trust us enough to listen to us. And trust won’t come from pushing policy papers on conservatives who agree with you, and then using those policy papers to give speeches and write op-eds. Even if polls show these ideas play well to urban voters, including Latino voters, experience shows that these voters won’t embrace these ideas coming from us and vote for our candidates at this point, because they don’t trust us.
Unfortunately, we disengaged from these neighborhoods so long ago that it will take time, and an “intensity of engagement” that does not come naturally to typical conservatives, to re-introduce ourselves and regain the trust of these voters before they will vote for our candidates and ideas. The reason they vote for Democrats even though they disagree with them on so many poll questions is because the Democrats have convinced these voters that they care for them through civic engagement in these neighborhoods. It is time we do the same.
Now some might argue that it isn’t civic engagement that wins votes for Democrats, but rather targeted government programs that conservatives might label as “handouts”. But this assessment is wrong. When people need help, they’ll turn to the person or organization that offers help. In many communities the Democrats’ “handouts” are the only help they are getting, and the “handouts” are coupled with community-based delivery that builds relationships. These neighbors aren’t being offered an alternative “hand-up” from us because we aren’t there to extend our hand. If we want to wean these neighbors off government programs, we can’t do it with a policy paper from afar. We have to be in these neighborhoods with private alternatives that build on our principles and mentor self-reliance. For our policies to work, we have to be there–a policy paper won’t help them.
We can no longer keep putting the cart before the horse and expect movement forward–we will have to do the hard work of earning the trust of these neighbors before they’ll embrace us and our ideas.