VA GOP GOBs & the Future – Part II
A couple of days ago, I posted on the state of the GOP. Yesterday, Shaun Kenney did a much more masterful job on the subject than I.
Nonetheless, in an effort to complete my thoughts, I shall continue:
So what IS the problem?
Business leaders have figured out a few of the key things that destroy organizations. It’s all very predictable, apparently.
Internal Issues
• Focusing on the past, not the future
• Focusing on activities that do not leverage core competencies and / or losing sight of primary objectives
• Promotion based on personal relationship or seniority alone – without regard to merit
External Issue
• Compromise or dilution of brand / product identity
What do you think? Do Republicans struggle with any of these issues?
Focusing on the past?
While memories of past successes are inspirational, an obsession with the past may serve as a barrier to future success. This is particularly instructive for the temperamentally conservative among us, who may enjoy reminiscing about the glory days more than investing in immediate victory. The key is to implement the lessons of the past while continually improving and adapting our methods to current conditions.
Failure to leverage core competencies / losing sight of primary objectives?
What is our primary objective as Republicans? To promote a certain set of “Republican” principles or to elect “Republican” candidates? YES! For too long, Republican leaders have taken one side or the other in a ridiculous debate between our primary objectives. You can’t promote party principles without strong candidates and if your candidates cease to represent the principles of the party, they will lose grassroots support and seriously damage the GOP’s long term electoral prospects. While meeting these goals will look slightly different across the diverse landscape of the commonwealth, neither can be successfully compromised. Moderates and conservatives must realize that both commitment to principle and nomination of viable candidates are necessary for the health of the GOP. The people who object to being called “RINOs” should stop throwing labels like “puritan” at conservative Republicans – and visa versa. While there may be a few instances where both labels could apply to some people, surely we can agree that the hard feelings they engender are unhealthy for the GOP – and inaccurate in most cases.
Our parties’ internal discussion must include identifying and leveraging our core competencies. Core competencies are those things which we, as an organization, ARE ALREADY good at or are perceived as being good at by the general electorate. Then, we must make those strengths work for us without being overly distracted by peripheral issues.
Finally, we must employ our core competencies to accomplish both our primary objectives.
Good Ole’ Boy Behaviors?
The Grand Old Party has solidified its identity (in far too many minds) as a Good Old Boy network. In some units it is very difficult to join the GOP. Many units don’t have a website or a simple way to contact the local party about membership or volunteering. Unless you “know the right people” you can’t even get involved in these committees.
Unfortunately, this sort of ingrown behavior doesn’t stop at the local level. The good old boy network is made up of some really great people – good Republicans who do the right thing most of the time. But the institutional norm for the good old boy network is self-protection. They tend to manipulate the rules of party nomination processes to suit their own ends – and sometimes to avoid the will of Republican voters. They avoid accountability and squash anything new or different. They try to stop intra-party competition and in so doing, they put the brakes on the growth of the party.
In the good old boy network (which certainly includes women), the people in power endorse each other in order to foreclose meaningful challenges. It’s a mutual protection society that often places personal relationships and electoral / career prospects over the good of the Republican Party or even the will of its volunteers and voters.
While we have seen plenty of good old boy behavior in the past year, perhaps the clearest recent example is from 2006. You might recall Sen. Cuccinelli telling this story in the Compass. After far left wing GOP Senator Russ Potts left the party to run against its nominee, Jerry Kilgore, for Governor, his Republican colleagues couldn’t summon the courage to officially kick him out of their caucus. Russ Potts had a habit of not voting with the GOP on anything important and now he’d done his bit to make sure we lost the Governorship. As a “thank you very much” the good old boy club (including newly elected Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling) let him keep the chairmanship of the powerful Education and Health Committee through. Mind you, the Republicans were in the majority then and they devised this scenario to protect Potts chairmanship from a challenge by Sen. Cuccinelli. They didn’t need his vote and he rarely gave it to them anyway – so this isn’t exactly analogous to what the Democrats just did in delivering a slap on the wrist to Joe Lieberman (at least Lieberman’s party gave him a token punishment). From Bacon’s Rebellion, here’s what happened:
Sen. Tom Norment, R-Williamsburg, introduced an amendment to the Senate’s operating resolution, requiring a two-thirds majority of the 40 senators to strip a senator of his party affiliation and the appointments and privileges it affords, such as committee chairmanships. The vote on this resolution was 35-4—proving once again that there are only four true Republicans in the state Senate.
It is only natural that incumbents work for their own protection. Challengers, if they perceive a vulnerability in the incumbent, work to defeat them. In a healthy party, the party works as a fair and neutral arbiter of process through which the people of the party express how they wish to be represented. In an ingrown party, process becomes the means through which those currently in power and their favored representatives arrange a system to work their own will. Such a process inevitably breeds resentments and stymies the growth of the party.
Whether it means opening up our party to more people – voters, activists and candidates who generally share our principles but haven’t “come up through the ranks” or “waited their turn” to run for office, or making sure we are accessible to potential volunteers, or running party nomination processes that are fair beyond suspicion, the GOP must stop being a club for the initiated if we are going to win elections.
Brand Identity
In business, a brand is diluted when it is so frequently or effectively mimicked that consumers lose the ability to differentiate between your product and the competition. So sad, won’t you pass the Kleenex?
Similarly, a brand can be compromised when the company makes changes – usually to the quality of the product – that lead to the loss of standing in the marketplace. Starbucked, anyone?
I won’t overdiscuss the GOPs brand identity issues here. Countless drops of virtual (and real) ink have been spilled on the subject already.
What we all know is that Mark Warner won the Governorship by sounding like a Republican (on fiscal issues, gun rights & more). He won the Senate by running on his record of accomplishment as Governor — made possible by pro-tax Republicans.
Our “brand identity” as the less government people has been effectively mimicked by Democrat candidates at their leisure. They can get away with it because the quality of our own product — faithfulness to the principles that built the brand — has been compromised from within. After all, if you want a Democrat anyway, why vote for a Republican? And, if you want limited government and conservative social policy and economic freedom, why vote for a Republican party that is utterly ineffective at reducing the growth of Government, protecting the free market and enacting family-friendly social policies – even when it is in the majority?
Losing Republican principles – the heart of the Republican brand – ultimately leads to losing rather than gaining market share (votes).
If we don’t clean up the business model, we won’t start winning again.
Category: Campaigns and Elections
Loading ...
On the subject of brand identity.
Or “After all, if you want a Democrat anyway, why vote for a Republican?”
I do not want a hard core, liberal extremist Democrat. However if the Democrats nominate a moderate I am willing to take a look at him or her.
In the same vein, I do not want a hard core, conservative extremist Republican. In the same manner if the Republicans nominate a moderate I am willing to take a look.
Democrats were successful in regaining the majority, at least in part, by welcoming and actually encouraging moderate to even somewhat conservative candidates to run for office. If the Republican’s counter by recoiling towards stiff, conservative, party plank only, candidates such a candidate is not going to appeal to me.
It is my hope that if the Republicans refuse to “dilute the brand” by nominating someone who has any hint of being a centrist, we moderates continue to punish them with defeat after defeat. If we moderates do not like the candidates the Dems are nominating we can fight it out in the primaries. There are fewer hard core liberals then there are hard core conservatives and it will be easier to achieve influence in the Democratic Party if it comes down to a slug fest. Here in Virginia we independents are allowed to participate in the party primary of our choosing.
All this analysis is really worthless. You educate the voters as to why your positions are better and you run candidates that are smarter than everyone else. That is it. Anything else is beyond stupid in that it is dictatorial. Screw the partisanship, everyone should know by now working with democrats loses elections so we need to get past that. We need to worry only about solving problems, winning elections is completely secondary. Do you want this country to collapse or not? If you do not then we need to get of this two party system as it stands and change it to a system whereby competing intellectuals debate each other to find the best course of action. Anyone who says otherwise has no idea what they are talking about.
Further, we are marketing politics just like any other product. This is beyond corrupt. None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely think they are free.
97% of our money supply is created out of debt by banks, the money to pay the interest on those debts does not exist. Therefore bankruptcy and foreclosure are built into the system. External debt is eternal slavery.
Max, if you haven’t noticed, if you don’t win elections, you can’t do anything.
That is completely wrong. If you cannot convince someone that your course of action is right than you cannot do anything. You can convince someone your right without winning an election, you can convince your opponent you are right if you lose an election. The method is named after Socrates, if you cannot employ it then you should not be publicly employed.
This is the part I really don’t understand
“And, if you want limited government and conservative social policy and economic freedom, why vote for a Republican party that is utterly ineffective at reducing the growth of Government, protecting the free market and enacting family-friendly social policies – even when it is in the majority?”
Many people keep saying this. So basically you are fine with Democrats winning because the Republican isn’t pure enough for you. I’m sorry but that is completely crazy. Maybe if some of you would have voted and worked there would have been an R instead of a D in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008. Remember we lost by less than 5% points in almost all these races with some of them being very close.
ok, Max. Do it your way. Let’s keep losing elections and try to convince everyone who won that we were right anyway.
And Socrates was executed.
Missing from the debate seems to be the GOP’s insistence on meddling in social issues. In my view we need to become more libertarian and avoid the appearance of being way far right.
As an example, I abhor the idea of abortion and don’t plan to get into issues such as trimesters, partials, etc. But I do feel this is a matter of one’s personal choice and is between him/herself and the Almighty, rather than being the province of a governmental entity.
I feel I can be fiercely fiscally conservative and intensely patriotic without treading on others’ personal liberties.
Surely this will probably be a most heretical view so fire away!
Nova, the fringe right wing would complain about Ivory soap because it’s only 99 and 44/100ths % pure.
John, what about the baby’s choice?
Every pro-choicer had a pro-life mom.
For goodness sake get this whole R & D concept out of your heads. There are problems and there are solutions. This two party system is a problem. Intellectual debate is the solution. Our politicians have the intelligence of a 5 year old when it comes to solving problems. They put forward there view and if someone presents a better one they cannot agree because it costs them political points in many cases. Republican, democrat, both systems are perfectly fine so long as they are implemented properly because the desired end result is the same on both sides. The problem is our leaders will not implement change because it weakens their positions in power.
If you think I am just bitching I am not, I could give a more comprehensive plan than most any politician out there to solve most any problem and I could write it in less time and in clearer language. Why is this? It is because I know my history and philosophy and I care far less about being liked then I do about being right.
Great Max. We’ll get rid of the two-party system and make sure that whoever loses elections gets to set policy.
Let me know when you’ve put it in place.
Brian, Socrates voluntarily killed himself by drinking hemlock, even when the Athenians attempted to let him go. He was convicted of corrupting the youth through spreading wisdom. Your pointing this out proves my point. Do you know the Socratic method? You ask your opponent question after question until they have no choice but to answer you are correct. Why do you not come by Byler’s one day, I will use it on you and show you why I am right…
You win the election by making voters smarter than they were before they election started. It is not hard, it is just intellectually challenging, which is always a good thing.
Why do we not do things your way and keep sending this country down the drain? You seem to enjoy the though of wage enslavement and a huge gap between the rich and the poor. If you did not maybe you would have acknowledged my point that we are enslaved and do not even know it. I could write a discourse explaining mathematically exactly why this is so, but I doubt anyone would have the balls to read it.
If you lose you go talk to the victor and make him understand why you are right and if you cannot do that then either the victor is illogical or you are illogical. If the victor was illogical then you are screwed in general, but if you are illogical as well than everyone is screwed. This is the problem with the two party system. We should be working together, not against each other. Why is that so hard to understand? It is not the 2 party system per se, it is the two party system as it exists today.
Elect Max – He’ll make you smarter
yawn
Does Gary Byler know you consider working for him “wage enslavement”?
I turned down getting paid by him several times before i actually started getting paid. I did not feel as if I was doing enough work to deserve getting paid. I hate money and I hate material objects almost as much as I hate people who dismiss arguments without ever addressing them.
Max — outstanding!!!
110% correct!
The kicker? I’m not sure DCH would disagree with you…
Max Shapiro,
I will note that you have some advocates for something other then the two party system amongst the extreme left. During Republican victories in the recent past they argued for proportional representation as exists in Parliamentary systems of government.
Of course such systems of government are fairly unstable. Small elements of ruling coalitions can cause the collapse of the government by withdrawing their support when they do not get their way. Italy is probably the best example of this.
There ya go, Max. All you have to do is overthrow the US Government and remake it in the style of Italy’s.
I’ll check on ya Monday to see how you’re doing.
Brian,
The GOP has won elections in Virginia – lots of them – they squandered their victory due to their failure to deliver sound governance in accordance with the GOP party principles.
They also fell prey to the “must pander to moderates” mantra.
The GOP leadership drank their own koolaid and then blamed the “right” for all the dead bodies left in the wake of their failure to lead.
I was thinking more along the lines of getting rid of the fractional reserve system, replacing it with CH Douglas’s National Credit system, fundamentally restructuring schools towards primary source education, and eliminating all traces of SOL’s. I would follow that up with eliminating enforcement of simple possession laws except in cases where the individual commits another crime and focusing solely on people with upwards of 1 kilo of cocaine or 1 pound of weed. Next I would eliminate the IMF and the World Bank because all they do is force countries to take loans for say a new water system, then give that contract to a foreign country, cause the price for the water to skyrocket thereby making it impossible for the country to repay the loan. The country is then in debt, we refinance their loan and make the do what we want through structural “agreements.”
I could literally go on for days and weeks and months.
“I could literally go on for days and weeks and months.”
no kidding
^ Proof we live in an anti-intellectual society
^ Reason we are on the decline while Indian and Chinese students are blowing ours away…
By the way, Max, is this you on the left?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3kcoJSMd7w
DCH, that was a very good editorial. Too bad the comments went off topic so quickly.
Darrell,
I do not think the comments are off topic. Petty? Perhaps. Maybe you can lead the discussion back on topic? Speak your mind.