In his recent post, I was a little surprised to see Steve say this: ‘By its very nature, the Republican brand eschews a policy of protecting people from themselves.’
So the War on Drugs — which is about protecting people from themselves — is part of the Democrat brand?
And in his follow-up post, I was a little surprised to see Skip pose this as an essential Republican question: ‘ Who should make your choices: you or Government?’
So all those laws against various vices (like gambling, or prostitution) and sins (like polygamy) — which are laws against making your own choices — are things the Democrats have given us?
Color me surprised.
While I hope they actually believe what they’re saying in those posts, I’m not entirely sure they do. (To be clear, I’d be very happy to be wrong about this!)
That is, I think that when push comes to shove, Steve and Skip and I disagree on the proper use of the GOP. I think they believe that it should be used to promote conservative values, to the point of enforcing them with laws designed to protect people from themselves by making certain choices for them; whereas I believe the original and enduring function of the party is to preserve the republic.
That is, where they see the GOP as a conservative party, I see it as a preservative party. And those are two very, very different things.
Here is what I take to be the mission statement, if you will, of the Republican party platform in 1856:
Resolved: That the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence, and embodied in the Federal Constitution are essential to the preservation of our Republican institutions, and that the Federal Constitution, the rights of the States, and the union of the States, must and shall be preserved.
Here it was in 2016:
We believe our constitutional system — limited government, separation of powers, federalism, and the rights of the people — must be preserved uncompromised for future generations.
I think it should be the same in 2020… although we might want to change the language a little, to make it a little more accessible without changing the underlying idea.
Note that the preservative view, if implemented, would make life easier for conservatives and progressives, by allowing them to get out of each other’s way.
And that’s the message Steve is looking for, I think: The GOP wants to get everyone out of your way.
That means different things to different people, but it’s what everyone seems to be asking for, isn’t it? Stop making me do what I don’t want to do, and stop preventing me from doing what I want to do.
There are two sticking points here.
The easier of the two is money. That is, some things that some people want to do, they can’t afford without help. So the message is: If what you want to do is to pool resources, the GOP will be happy to do everything it can to make it easy for you to do so privately, without the friction created by having to drag along people who don’t want to participate.
(What’s keeping you from doing that right now? Are there statutes, or regulations, or red tape, getting in your way? The GOP wants to get rid of those obstacles.)
The second is tougher, because it would require the GOP to get behind the idea of actually letting people make their own choices, instead of just paying lip service to that. That is, the problem is not so much coming up with a message, as living up to it.
(Afraid of getting punished for breaking laws against making personal choices that other people don’t approve of? The GOP wants to get rid of those laws.)
So that’s the message: If you want to make your own decisions, for better or worse, the GOP wants to get everyone out of your way. Or, if you want other people to make your decisions for you, the GOP wants to get everyone out of your way. If you want single-payer health care, or schools, or anything else, the GOP wants to get everyone out of your way. Who wouldn’t be on board with that?
And how would the GOP do that? By working to preserve a republic whose limited government is dedicated to the protection of your rights — keeping everyone else out of your way, even when others think that what you want to do is stupid, or offensive — and the rights of all those who will inherit that republic from us.
And what would the party platform look like? It would start with that mission statement, to be followed by a list of statutes and regulations to be repealed as soon as the GOP controls both houses of the legislature, and the executive branch. Statutes and regulations that seek to protect people from themselves; or that seek to limit the range of choices they can make in their personal lives; or that place obstacles in the way of their working collectively but privately towards the goals they share with others.
Which would be, oh, about what… 90% of the statutes and regulations now on the books?
