SCRCC — 2013 — The Content-Free Election

The circus continues

Six weeks ago we indicated that a commentary would be forthcoming about the March 12 Scott County Republican Central Committee (SCRCC)  leadership election.  A recent communication from the newly re-elected Chairwoman to the SCRCC about an upcoming “Task Force” initiative aimed at certain “demographics” prodded us that our postponement had gone on long enough.

For purposes of timeliness and because we have been encouraged (admonished) * to break up the length of this report, we will limit this one to background information and commentary about events that evening that have some relationship to the Task Force initiative, identity politics, and the demonstrated authenticity of  the leadership that controls the effort.

A later post will identify the  appalling pettiness demonstrated by members of SCRCC leadership regarding the election, a triumph of superficiality, clubishness, hand wringing, fear mongering, prejudice and rubber stamping over the need for substantive reforms.  Still more will be forthcoming expanding on our view of the Growth and Opportunity Project (GOP project) which the SCRCC “demographics Task Force” relates to, SCRCC affairs and Republican leadership matters.

Task Force of Empty Vessels?

SCRCC Charwoman Davidson some months ago announced a “demographic outreach” to “Catholics,” racial minorities, “single woman,”  and “young voters.” The category of “business community leaders” was added very recently.  Our concern boils down to the anticipation that the project is the result of superficial analysis (including the GOP project)  likely to be carried out either by people not prepared for the task, or so orchestrated from above that the whole project could be phoned in, with as much effectiveness as a robo call, or worse yet seeks to denigrate Party principles.

As is so often the case such projects obtain a life of their own,  too often spinning peoples wheels, fooling others that something worthwhile is being done, disgusting others with the waste. But hope springs eternal and to the extent that forthright unapologetic advocacy of Republican principles will occur, however tweaked (not in substance) for delivery to certain audiences, we welcome success. But given the behavior and demeanor of members of the SCRCC leadership prior to the  election and statements that night, we have our doubts.

Moreover, we struggle with the very concept and presumptions regarding select “demographics. ” Do serious observers think that Republican Party solidarity with the “demographics” not targeted is unassailable, that their support should be presumed, that even a perception of denigrating the brand might countervail any outreach effort? It is not like the reputation of the Republican CLEC does not precede them.

It is a truism that slightly better performance with “Evangelicals,” “Caucasians,” “married women,” “blue collar workers,” and “middle aged and older” could just as well have turned the 2012 election.  Elements of those “demographics” were dissatisfied with the authenticity of Republican efforts. Where is the outreach to them?

Our view is that authentic presentation on “cross demographic” concerns which are reflected in our platform, forms a tide that raises all boats. To think and operate otherwise is identity politics and encourages the balkanization of the body politic.

Political philosophy made substantive by a platform is the raison d’être of a political party.  The Constitution of the Republican Party of Iowa (RPI) states immediately after giving itself a name:

PURPOSE  1. The purpose of the organization shall be to conduct the activities of the Republican Party of Iowa, to promote Republican principles and policies, and to cooperate and assist in the conduct of national, state and local elections.

A brief exegesis is in order: by logic, placement, context and grammar,  the words “to promote Republican principles and policies” has stronger emphasis, while electioneering receives the less imperative treatment “cooperate and assist.”

The focus of the state party is supposed to be on principle and policies.  County organizations are creatures of the state party. Furthermore the Constitution of the Scott County Republican Central Committee mirrors the wording of the RPI with similar emphasis on principles and policies in its stated purpose.  That was probably necessary in order to obtain its charter.

Has the SCRCC done anything to specifically advance platform policies?  Incredibly, particularly given recent good examples from RPI leadership including Matt Strawn and   A J Spiker and Rance Preibus of the RNC, who have all officially spoken out on specific issues consistent with Republican platforms at timely moments, the SCRCC leadership thinks it is not its job to speak out on or defend Republican policy.

Being Mute, Absent or Unable to Defend the Platform Is Not A Formula For Building The Party

Where has the official voice of  SCRCC leadership been in assertive public statements regarding marriage, judges, right to life, second amendment rights, immigration, budget and more? Have they ever used their official capacity to contact Republican legislators to uphold the platform, encouraging them when they have, and counseling them when they have grossly strayed?

Our platform has winning positions on each and everyone one of the named issues, all of them very important to our base and much of the “demographics” they say they want to convince to vote  “Republican.”  Failure and sometimes perfidy on issues hurts the Republican brand and hurts electoral efforts. Believability, electability requires a degree of demonstrated authenticity across the brand. There has been miniscule or no effort from SCRCC leadership on issues and this is the group that is going to lead on issues to certain “demographics?”  **

There have been extremely opportune times just in recent months on each of the named issues, each of which are of  key concern to Republican voters and potential Republican voters. Where has the SCRCC leadership been in public statements to the extent of a mere occasional press release, or privately encouraging or calling individual legislators to task on platform matters of timely importance?  Answer — they have been invisible when not absent.

Silence can speak volumes.   What statement is SCRCC leadership  making by silence when they have the tools and a division of labor to rely on?   What “demographic” are they trying to suck up to by silence?   If that is not the demotivating force then it is still a wonderment as to what confidence can there be that they will find their tongue now in speaking to certain “demographics” enlightening those voters on the benefits and necessity of our position on issues?

It was jaw-droppingly incredible to me as a participant observer to hear on the night of the election the uniform responses from the slate of candidates proposed by the nominating committee (surprise! the nominating committee was tightly limited by the chairwoman)   to a very basic question regarding Agenda 21.  Serious issue driven people know that county, state and national Republican platforms in 2012 either specifically opposed Agenda 21 or its species or components under its guise of “sustainability plans.”

Indeed Terry Branstad the Republican Governor of Iowa saw to the wide distribution of his proclamation in opposition to Agenda 21 at the 2012 Republican State Convention.  It listed the huge power grab and assault on property rights that it represents. But the SCRCC candidate slate  response to the matter — in essence they indicated they are not concerned with issues under the refrain “not my role.”  Hmmmm . . . and how is it again that they are going to be effective at convincing the targeted demographics to vote Republican . . .  with an outreach based on articulation of  issues?  They might as well use club membership .

R Mall

*   what . .  . me be ponderous!?      **  Chairman Davidson, the wife of a successful physician,  was observed privately taking a stand at several small Roman Catholic meetings related to health care, strangely taking pains to emphasize that she was there to complain about the one-sidedness of the presentations in her personal and co-religionist capacity.  Why? Republicans oppose Obamacare as policy. The meetings were about promoting implementation of a bad policy. There was nothing untoward about speaking out then in an official capacity as, or if not then, in a truly public outreach all these many months as Republican Chairwoman.  The later has rarely if ever happened to our awareness.

0

0