Some Republicans just want conservatives to hold up the tent, while they party
Republican Party of Iowa Chairman A.J. Spiker’s recent communication, which we referred to yesterday, was addressed in today’s The Iowa Republican (TIR). The author Kevin Hall is not shy about interpreting the letter as a misdirection regarding more prevalent criticisms about Spiker and the RPI’s performance during his tenure. We would make three points with reference to the article and ensuing comments posted therein.
1) TIR maintains that “Now, there might be a few Republicans out there who don’t want the state party doing things like publicly supporting the ouster of Supreme Court justices,” That would seem to be a recognition that the vast majority of Republicans support party leadership at least occasionally speaking out on timely key issues. Certainly I have never read anything editorially in TIR to the contrary.
2) According to Hall: “The main problems with the current leadership of RPI are their failure to communicate, poor decision-making, stubbornness, arrogance and their blatant attempts to seize and consolidate power for Big Liberty” Those words provide an appropriate summary of our criticism of Scott County Republican leadership in regard to their treatment of Ron Paul supporters and those who support fair play and integrity in the Republican party, in order to protect their hegemony. Certain establishment figures here and around the state have no moral basis, other than an exercise in hypocrisy, to complain about “Big Liberty” tactics or personas.
3) In his communication Spiker invoked the RPI constitution and bylaws to justify if not obligate him to speak out on issues in furtherance of the platform. Without a provision to the contrary it is our view that such an obligation exists even if not specifically provided for. It is inherent in the obligations of chief executives when the policies of the organization they lead are under attack, to speak out, to promote and defend the organization’s policies. It is a dereliction not to. But what we found alarming was the tone of some of the comments to Hall’s post denigrating platforms. We responded with the following basic comments, edited here:
This is is a list of points intended as a more general defense of the importance of issuing platforms with an appropriate degree of specificity . . . and having it mean something to be a Republican.
Vague statements of principles are the devils playground for politicians. It takes no imagination only memory to come up with examples: “Hey dude, I’m a good Republican, I support individual liberties AND for me that means abortion rights.” Of course we would argue that the individual liberty of the vulnerable unborn child needs to be protected, but that requires specificity. Or . . . “gee wiz I think I am a fiscal conservative” … and for me that means taxing ( in order to pay for) promises (rather than cutting spending). Or . . . “I think government should only be about providing basic infrastructure spending and we need to improve our roads and bridges.” Sounds good, except that, for so and so, who is in the pocket of road builders or some other constituency, it means something different to the local or state Party activists who may know better. This exercise could go on and on.
Most issues addressed in platforms have risen to a level of broad based concern and have been vetted to a considerable degree as they emit from the county conventions (if the platform committee does its job). They are further refined through the district and state process. When they have not, we amend them or vote against them.
I would cut out some of the speeches before I would diminish the platform process at conventions. Let the politicians sit down and listen to what grass roots Republicans want.
Sure, platforms can be improved for internal consistency and occasional actual redundancy and the process can be streamlined and disciplined. But planks that some would say are inconsistent are not. Platforms are properly read with an understanding that a more encompassing plank is preferable and well structured platforms are ordered that way. For example it is not necessarily inconsistent to call for a new tax deduction and a flat tax. One provides for an exigency “in the mean time” and the other for a broader scope of government. Nor is it inconsistent to call for peace or pick and choose which war to fight AND support a formidable armed forces.
It should also be understood that some redundancy is an effort by the body at emphasis and can be appreciated as such.
Insisting on some specificity is the voice of experience. The grassroots activists do not trust all Republicans implicitly.
Not having a platform of substance will enhance issue groups and / or the formation of a party that does have a platform of substance and a degree of specificity.
I cannot think of a surer way other than continuing indifference to a platform to cause issue driven conservatives to bolt the Republican Party and form a traditional values three-legged stool TEA oriented party.
Stating platitudes will make the party irrelevant.
Platforms I have seen in Iowa (a few county and district, and the state platforms) are actually fairly stable convention to convention.
Not having a platform raises far more problems for Party loyalty than having one or having a policy of adherence to the platform.
Having a Party policy of some comparative award for adherence to the platform means we can with a straight face encourage people to vote straight ticket, that voting Republican is all they need to know when in doubt.
Much more could be said sociologically in support of platforms that have a reasonable degree of specificity as they help to insure the Party is relevant, and as the primary mechanism to generate loyalty and grassroots involvement.
R Mall
R. Mall has said all that needs to be said. A great critic! Timely!