INTRODUCTION

It is becoming obvious that the current Republican Party platform is not working. Or, to be more exact, the way that platform is being enacted by the party is not winning congressional races. The platform itself may not be to blame so much as the way the party's candidates choose to interpret it.

Basically, there are three groups within the current party, the social conservatives, the libertarian conservatives, and the moderates. The protectionists have by and large either been absorbed into the social conservatives or fled the party. The so-called neo-cons either fall into the libertarian wing or the moderates, depending on how broadly one defines "neo-con".  Similarly, the defense conservatives, as much a some can distinguish them from "neo-cons" fall mostly in the libertarian camp, though a few are closer to social conservatives or moderates.

Within each group there are obvious gradations. The libertarians vary in the amount of government they will accept, bleeding over at the edges into the social conservatives and moderates. Likewise, there is overlap between social conservatives and libertarians at many points. However, these groups make it easier to examine the party, so for all their oversimplifications, we shall use them.

As I see it there are four approaches I can see the party taking.

THE CENTER

Some centrist pundits have pushed for the Republican party to move to the center, and that suggestion forms the first possible approach to reforming the party. Presumably, after shifting their stand to the left, the centrist Republicans could then form a coalition with defector centrist Democrats, eject the hardline hold out conservatives of either stripe, and redesign the Republicans as the centrist party. Much as I dislike this strategy for personal reasons, I think it may actually win elections for a while. Admittedly it relies on the Democrats moving far enough left to cause a defection of their more centrist members, but judging from this election that is not a bad assumption. In fact, if we do nothing to change the course of the Republican party, we may see the party taking this course by default, as the central committee and major figures all seem to be a bit to the left of the majority of the party.

There are a few down sides to this approach. The first is that it opens up the possibility of a third party emerging tot he right and siphoning off support. Even should that not occur, should the centrist approach yield results, it is quite likely the Democrats would check their leftward drift, move back to the center, reclaiming their defectors and, as a reconstituted moderate Democrat party, far outnumber the rump Republican party which remains. Finally, there is the practical political issue of the eviction of the hold out conservatives. As this would mean that several sitting members of congress would really have no place in the party, there is a very real possibility of several current Republicans becoming independents, farther weakening the Republican presence in congress.

THE SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES

A second alternative would be to refocus the party on the social conservative agenda, while reducing the influence of the economic/ libertarian conservatives. While this is not my first choice either, I admit that it would be a strong choice. By providing a strong focus for the Republican party it would clearly fire up the base, and lead to a much stronger grass roots movement than the vague and unfocused position the party takes today. And as many libertarian/economic conservatives also share an interest in social conservative issues, it would likely keep much, though not all, of the conservative base together.

There are some downsides. As with any change to the present, relatively unfocused "big tent" approach, this change will lose some supporters. As focusing on social conservative issues will probably require making allowances for those who support a more activist government, it will doubtless lose the support of the more doctrinaire libertarians. Likewise, some of the moderates of a more libertarian bent will probably leave. The only other downside is selling the image among the independents. While most independents are open to a party supporting traditional values, it will be easy for the Democrats to caricature the party if they adopt this position, so it will take some careful PR to make sure the message is received by the independents.

THE LIBERTARIAN / ECONOMIC CONSERVATIVES

This is the mirror image of the policy above. Rather than focusing on the social conservative agenda, the party could focus on the economic conservative / libertarian agenda. As with the earlier approach, this too would probably preserve most of the base, as most social conservatives have some economic conservative beliefs. It would probably cost some support, mostly among those social conservatives who also hold protectionist beliefs, as well as among the moderates who are interested primarily in the social conservative message. Overall, the description of the previous policy applies to this as well.

I will not bother to deny that this approach has appeal to me, as it fits well with my personal beliefs. On the other hand, I also realize there are real problems as well. The main problem being that it runs the risk of the party being pushed into a too doctrinaire libertarian position. As a one time holder of doctrinaire libertarian beliefs, and one who still holds beliefs which make me unelectable, I know that strictly doctrinaire libertarianism will quickly turn off voters. In addition, if the view adopted is far too stringent, it cuts off important social conservative issues entirely, leaving the entire realm of social mores for a third party to pick up.

Beyond that, the economic conservative position, like that of the social conservatives, is open to caricature by the Democrats. It would be easy to tar the economic conservatives as the tools of big business or as uncaring fat cats. So, as with the previous approach, careful PR and a well chosen message are essential.

FUSION

The remaining option sounds a bit like "more of the same", but it isn't. This option is to attempt to retain the coalition of economic and social conservatives, while emphasizing both arguments more strongly. Now, this sounds like what we have now, but I have some differences in mind. We need to make sure that not only do we have a real platform, but also ensure that our candidates represent that message.

And how do we make sure the message is heard and seen as a strong alternative to the Democrats? We need to make sure all our candidates ascribe to both the economic and social conservative parts of the agenda. That would mean elimination of the libertarians who cannot sign on to the social conservative agenda as well as the protectionists and the social conservatives who cannot accept the economic agenda. We would also need to rid the party of the so-called RINO's, who vote an almost Democrat line while claiming membership int he Republican party, but as they are unlikely to sign on to either the economic or social agendas, I doubt that will be a problem.

Some will think it a bad idea to shrink the big tent while we are losing seats, but I argue the opposite. We did best when we had a strong, clear message. What we have now is a jumbled mess, without a clear agenda and with a coalition including groups who are in actual opposition to one another. The public can see this and can tell that, given the confusion within the party, we will not be able to deliver on any promised platform. Should we close ranks, develop a clear agenda onto which every candidate must sign, that will send a message to the public that we mean what we say and that we a re a real alternative, not just a stingy version of the Democrats.

It is a risky proposition in some ways, as the closing ranks will necessarily exclude some, just as each change would. However, I think this approach, a tighter fusion of the two wings, would probably cause the fewest defections. Other than that, the only remaining problem is the possible conflicts between the social and economic conservative wings. However, if we can commit ourselves to a set of broad general beliefs in both areas, we can likely work out any details. And, even if some conflicts should arise, we will still be more unified than we are today.

CONCLUSION

I have, until recently, thought of myself as a libertarian*, though with age I have come to see ever more value in parts of the social conservative agenda. It would be easy, given my history to argue that the Republican party should adopt a strong economic conservative position and ignore the possible consequences.

However, I truly think there is a lot to be said for finding a way to retain the coalition between the social and economic conservatives. Yes, it will mean surrendering some of the more extreme positions on either side, and also losing the support of a few small factions who cannot stomach one group or the other, but, in the long run, I think a strong, clearly stated, well defined fusion of social and economic conservative positions is the only way to remain a viable party.

And, more than that, I think that fusion is the only way to provide a candidate and a platform that Republicans, independents, even some Democrats could support.

-------------------------------------------------------

* For the record,  my days as a doctrinaire libertarian are over. Not only did my increasing social conservatism overcome many of those beliefs, but as I thought more and more about the benefits of simple federalism, even without the imposition of libertarianism, the more I came to realize I would much rather fight for state's rights than dogmatic libertarianism. The former is a very realistic means to a better government, while the latter is a top down imposed system which will be very unlikely to ever come to pass. But I covered all of this long ago.

---------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

I am also aware that my proposal would entail creating a party which would of necessity reject some of the very policies I have suggested on this blog. For example, I cannot see a party formed on unified social and economic conservative wings following my suggestions for reforming marriage. However, though the party would doubtless have to adopt some policies I think less than ideal, I still think such a union is the best answer to creating a party which could gain broad support.

And in any case, I never really expected that some of my proposals could be implemented any time in the foreseeable future. Though I think they are good ideas, I have never claimed that they could find any political support.