The Barking Rino Essay 7
The Value of Internal
Criticism
In her highly cited text, ‘Who
Counts as an American,’ noted political scientist Elizabeth Theiss-Morse,
writes that the most dangerous member of a group is the member which is
critical of the group.[1]
The natural inclination of group members is to defend the group; thereby
assuring one’s own membership. Group membership should be earned rather than
rewarded and this creates value because membership is exclusive. However,
Theiss-Morse warns the reader that when the group defends its borders from
marginalized members or outsiders, there is a threat that the group fails to
embrace new ideas, evolve and remain vibrant in its mission…eventually becoming
irrelevant.
The modern Republican Party is not beyond
criticism. You only have to attend one Central Committee meeting and listen to
the conversations among board members to know that. While the sycophantic media[2]
encourages us to demonize those across the aisle, one wonders what is the value
of further dividing America. Does division win elections? Abraham Lincoln
quoted the Bible[3] when he said that, “a
house divided cannot stand.” I want to suggest that members of the GOP consider
greater tolerance for constructive criticism of our own party; both from
outside and from within.
An ageless question of political
activists and partisans is, ‘What is the
role of government?’ While the answer should be unique to each individual,
as the Conservative party, generally, we agree with Henry David Thoreau when he
wrote, “The government is best which governs least.” [4]
But how do we come to these conclusions? When was this agreement cast?
Among the fundamental freedoms
granted is the Constitutional right to dissent; as discussed in the latter
portion of the first amendment.[5]
Why? Because, as Thomas Jefferson alludes to in the Declaration of
Independence, we agree to lend our government, “just power”[6]
Ergo, logic tells us, when government operates with ‘unjust’ power, we need to
exercise the right of dissent to lend our voice towards steering the nation in
a direction we, as a party or as individuals, feel is best. But how do we know?
We don’t really. We can believe with great conviction but if Prohibition or
legal slavery taught us anything, it is that the masses have the ability to be
terribly wrong. But aren’t we smarter today? “Only a fool would say that.”[7]
What is the method by which we can
direct national government? Can your single vote determine the direction of a
nation of 330,000,000 citizens? Probably not. But as a member of a major party,
we have the ability to influence the conversations among activists and
partisans and thereby lend direction to the party…provided we speak up.
Think about it this way; is it
better to vet ideas among friends or among foes? By tolerating constructive
criticism from within, we can improve proposals and ideas so that when these
ideas are thrust into the public square, these ideas better withstand the
inevitable criticisms that alien partisans will provide. Vibrant contemporary
examples of poorly vetted political ideas include the disaster that is the
Affordable Care Act and our party’s own Voter ID proposals. Both would have
benefitted from better internal criticism and, eventually, the blast furnace
that a “loyal opposition” will provide. We cannot expect leadership from
elected officials or those seeking election since theirs is a precarious
position already. We, the party members, need to lead in this endeavor.
As a party, to some, we seem hell
bent on ridding the structure of Rinos. While ideas that are brief and can be
easily digested sell well on the campaign trail, one wonders if such a stance
is politically expedient. What is the role of a political party? I suggest it
has one function and one function only: electing party members to office. Winning
elections require votes. If nearly half of the base is forced to walk the
gang-plank, simple mathematics indicate that winning the elections becomes very
difficult. [8] [9] We
know that so called moderate Republicans are more willing to cross party lines
when voting than are right-leaning Independents. [10]
Ideas need to be framed in language that appeals to moderates and independents
– to argue otherwise is to be intentionally mathematically naïve.[11]
So here’s where we tie this altogether;
can the GOP win elections using parlor tricks and tactics? We’ll soon see. But
what we seem to know from the Reagan years, is that a party with better ideas,
ideas that appeal to a wider audience, will win elections. As Reagan
demonstrated, Americans want to feel good about themselves, their country and,
most especially, their fellow countrymen. We want to believe that tomorrow will
be, “a new day in America.” Where is that vision today?
When we, as a party, stop selling the hope of a new
“inclusive”[12] future: selling it with
better ideas that actually solve real problems, then one might wonder why the
party exists. The rise of Independents demonstrates that, perhaps, this is the
reason why both parties have declining membership. As Theiss-Morse suggested,
if the in-group becomes so entrenched in not engaging the constructive comments
from its own; by tolerating debate and dissent, then the group becomes a
dysfunctional echo-chamber incapable of winning elections. As Thomas Jefferson
told the members of the Danbury Baptist Church, ‘I could not disagree with you
more about what you say but I will defend your right to say it.’ (ED: The rise
of the Independents and the declining membership in both major parties is all
the proof that is needed that internal criticism must be
tolerated and, in fact, encouraged or the party becomes stale, ineffective and
(carried to the extreme) will eventually implode.)
Works Cited
Bible - New International Version. (1991). Grand Rapids: Zondervan .
(2012). Growth and Opportunity Project.
Washington D.C. : Republican National Committee.
Iyengar, S., &
Hahn, K. S. (2009). Red Media, Blue
Media: Evidence of Ideological Selectivity in Media Use. Journal of
Communication, 19 - 39.
Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012).
Affect, Not Ideology A social identity perspective on polarization. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 405 - 431.
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling Alone . New York:
Simon and Schuster.
Theiss-Morse, E. (2009). Who Counts as an
American? New York: Cambridge University Press.
Thoreau, H. D. (1849). (Resistance to Civil
Government) Civil Disobediance. Walden: Walden.
[2]
(Iyengar & Hahn, Red Media, Blue Media: Evidence
of Ideological Selectivity in Media Use, 2009)
[3]
Matthew 12:22 – 28
[5]
“or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances”
[6]
“That to secure these rights,
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed,” http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
[7]
Steely Dan song and lyric from the album Aja.
[11]
See Barking RINO essay #6 regarding the use of language in the political arena.
[12]
(Growth and Opportunity Project, 2012)
No comments:
Post a Comment