Republicans have a serious problem. Actually, they have several, but one that stands out more than most. That is their lack of a clear identity, or, to be more precise, their inability to decide whether or not they have a clear identity.  Worse still, a rather schizophrenic approach to party identity coupled with an "all or nothing" mindset, which simply sets them up for failure. Perhaps that is a bit of a puzzling description, but all shall be clear shortly. Just let me explain a little more.

The problem with the party struck me today when I realized how close we are to the primary season. Normally, I would have been avidly following candidates, dissecting their positions,  writing about which I support and so on, but this election I find myself oddly apathetic. Not because I believe Obama will win, in fact he stands a pretty good chance of losing, as I see things. Nor is it because there are no worthwhile candidates. Granted, most are moderate Republicans I find rather distasteful, but there are a few with whom I agree on several issues, so there are better and worse choices. No, my apathy arrives from the recall of the past several elections, in which Republicans managed to nominate the worst possible choices (Bush and McCain) and then throw a fit over how bad their own nominee was and threaten to ruin their own chances at victory. (It was not because of Gore's strength that 2000 was such a close thing, after all.)

And it is that behavior which is what I tried to describe above. The Republicans cannot decide if they are a hardline conservative party, or if they are a "big tent" conservative party, welcoming moderates and even centrists to gain votes. The party platform tends toward the big tent (with a few hints of true conservatism), as do the usual primary victors, but as soon as the primaries end, many in the party behave as if they had been a hard line conservative party, surprised at the moderates they nominated.

Republicans need to make up their collective mind. Are the conservatives? (And if they say "Yes", they also better decide what "conservative" means tot he party, as that leads to enough confusion as it is --  "Reticent To Adopt a Title", "A Possible Designation", "The Right Identity", "Three Approaches to Social Conservatism", "The Political Spectrum", "Many Types of Conservatives", "The Need to Correct Ourselves", "What We Deserve", "Conservatives and the "Big Picture"", "The Party of 'No'?", "Activism As The Only Acceptable Position? ", "Winning By Losing? Not A Chance!", "Why We Lose", "The State and Morality", "A Bit More Explanation", "Misplaced Blame and A Power Play", "Remember I Predicted It")If they are, then they need to accept that they will lose some supporters, and part of the electorate. In the long run parties with strong identities tend to do better and have stronger support, but in the short run, changing from a big tent centrist catch-all group to a clearly identifiable ideology will offend any number of former supporters.

On the other hand, if they want to retain all those centrist votes and be the voice of the moderate conservatives as well, then the Republicans need to accept that their nominees will rarely be conservative hardliners and recognize that they need to show party loyalty regardless of whether they love the candidate or not. (As I argued elsewhere -- "Cigarettes, Sudan and Abortion" -- dedicated conservatives can work within a moderately conservative party to bring about change gradually, bu they need to be willing to compromise, though compromise on issues without denying their principles -- "Inescapable Logic", "The Endless Cycle of Intervention", "Giving Away the Game", "You Lose When You Think You Win", "Why We Lose", "How Conservatives Defeat Themselves", "Defending Freedom?", "Damn the Torpedoes!", "Don't Blame the Politicians", "What We Deserve", "Who Is To Blame?", "What is Wrong with Us".)

At this point I am certain if I could hear the thoughts of my readers, someone would be mentioning the Democrats and their similar lack of a clear identity, and that is true,a s far as it goes. But there is a significant difference there, or several. First, the popular culture and academic world, for better or worse, is largely liberal in outlook, and so, by default, our society has a tendency to drift left when there is no other clear societal momentum. (Of course, it helps that government also wants to grow, making liberalism agreeable to the state as well -- "Grow or Die, The Inevitable Expansion of Everything".) So, even if they did nothing, society would move in the left's favor without anyone doing anything. ("The Single Greatest Weakness") In addition, the Democrats may not have a single identity but they all share a single belief, that being that the state can solve problems. And so, while they may differ on specifics, they are all pulling in the same direction.

On the other hand, even conservatives can't seem to agree on what government is supposed to do. We range from libertarians who want government to supply only police and army, to more state-accepting conservatives who allow for building roads and schools, to social conservatives, some of whom would embrace more significant government intrusions, such as censorship, to "paleo-cons" whose protectionism puts them in the same economic camp as some liberals to moderate conservatives who are hard to distinguish from moderate liberals. And if we look at "Republicans" rather than "conservatives" the range of positions is even greater. And, as should be clear from that list above, there is also a large amount of conflict between the groups, with some pushing for a removal of government from this area or that, while others are content to grant government control. And so, where the Democrats have a uniform faith in the state, differing only over how much power to give, we have internal discord, unable to decide even where the state should or should not act.

And that is why we must be more clear in defining ourselves, in deciding what approach we are taking and to whom we are appealing. I can see arguments on both sides, so I won't argue for or against the big tent, or the more hard line position. All I ask is that we decide upon one, make clear what that position is, draft a platform in agreement with that position, and stop acting surprised when our politicians conform pretty closely to the narrowness or breadth of our platform. We must accept, for better or worse, we can't be all things. We must either be a more narrowly defined, strongly ideological party, or else a more broad coalition including those with much less strict views on many issues, and whichever we choose, we must behave in accordance with that choice, and not act surprised when the nominees reflect the way we have defined ourselves.