As previously advertised – we will post our analysis of the April 10 Scott County Republican Central Committee meeting under the searchable title beginning with Raw Deal 3.0. However, with the Second District Republican Convention looming this Saturday, some comments in anticipation of that are first in order. Here we comment on platform matters. Later today or tomorrow we will post on the delegate and alternate situation.
The proposed Second District platform is for the most part a strong conservative document with much to recommend it in each topical section. There are some items that are arguably somewhat in conflict but perhaps it is more a situation where they would benefit from some reconciliation language. It is not a libertarian document although there is a strong less government and more personal responsibility streak throughout. It implicitly recognizes the government regulatory environment as it exists and calls for numerous changes “in the mean time” while also calling for broader all encompassing change or deregulation in a number of areas.
We do not find all incremental adjustments, or relative improvements, philosophically in conflict with the need for more fundamental change where it exists. To proceed otherwise is to have nothing to say about the exigencies of the day, which we can improve in the short term, pending more wholesale reforms.
Our friends with a more doctrinaire libertarian streak will find that objectionable. We ask them to consider the direction of most of the provisions of the platform in light of political realities. We find that in many areas it is prudent to improve on matters for now as an effective political process toward convincing the larger body politic that the sky will not fall with less regulation, and more economic freedom. It is a process that produces less sand-bagging by malcontents and big government proponents. And as conservatives we are not against a proper role for government regulations consistent with the Constitution.
For just one topical example, it is not inconsistent to call for less taxes or changes in the tax code to reduce the burden on tax payers, business and the economy AND a general reform such as a flat tax, or better yet in our opinion, a consumption based tax system and no income tax. It is a logical error to insist that supporting an improvement or a diminution to a problem somehow legitimizes the bigger associated problem. Indeed it may be the only way to get at the bigger problem.
Congressional redistricting has resulted in our association with other counties, understandably the political nuances the newer kids on the block bring to the table need to work themselves out. We appreciate that the proposed Second District Platform has attempted to make support for the platform something concrete. Item 15.05 which is similar to a provision in the 2010 State Platform calls for state funding for general election candidates only to those candidates who agree with 80% of the planks of the state platform, The Second District platform also calls for no “single issue litmus test” (item 15.09).
Both the proposed Second District Platform and the 2010 State Platform call for candidates “to complete and return to the Republican Party of Iowa a signed questionnaire indicating whether the candidate agrees, disagrees or is undecided about each plank of the current party platform.”
As regards the “80% rule” we think other formulations should be analyzed as the flip side of 80% agreement is 20% disagreement. That could be argued to encompass very important matters subverting key legislative goals. The “old” 2010 First District had provisions commending office holders who have stood by provisions of the Republican Platform and an arguably potentially toothy provision calling for the Republican Party to “refuse to endorse for election and/ or financially support the campaign of any candidate whose votes on legislation are not in substantial alignment with party principles.” Not a definable mathematical construct but in some ways we see it as superior. Perhaps they can be blended. We heartily support the resolution calling for a signed questionnaire from candidates regarding the platform. The problem with all of these is that they are not enforced. THAT is an important issue for candidates for state central committee positions to speak to and support.
With an occasional reservation about wording, and our wishes that a few timely matters might be added, we are content with the Second District Platform as a whole.
