What is the Big Tent Philosophy that many in politics are espousing today?
With the looming 2010 elections and the recent outcomes of races such as the New York, District 23 congressional race, many are considering what our big tent philosophy should be.
It seem that the “Big Tent” philosophy is a notion that is usually advanced by Democrats and other John McCain types, that Republicans must forsake their conservative and foundational principles, to embrace moderates views, because after all, the moderate can win elections. It seems these types think that this is the only way to be a viable party.
And of course establishment Republicans like Michael Steele, Charlie Crist and others, buy into this argument hook, line and sinker. Steele, for example, constantly feels the need to play down conservative values whenever they begin to define the direction of the party. Often assuring the liberal media that Republicans embrace diversity. In so doing, he allows his opponents to set the terms of the debate.
What does it mean to be a diverse party? Does it mean that in the interest of “diversity” Republicans should nominate candidates who would go to Washington and join the opposition on important legislation? What is the sense of even existing as a political party if you have such lax requirements regarding first principles?
How would you ever differentiate yourself from the opposition? No one expects to agree with any particular candidate on everything.
The question we must answer is where is the line? What issues do conservatives say are their ‘deal breakers’ when it comes to supporting a candidate or staying behind the “party line”?
Reagan had once famously articulated an inclusive philosophy that welcomed all to his party and he was fond of saying things like “somebody who agrees with you 80% of the time is an 80% friend not a 20% enemy.” But, even in this case, his inclusiveness had its limitations. Reagan’s contempt for the Rockefeller wing (what would today be called moderate or liberal Republicans) of the GOP was legendary.
So what should the GOP learn from Reagan’s big tent philosophy?
First, he did indeed have a big tent, especially in 1984, which allowed 59% of the electorate to vote for him, but it was a tent of Reagan’s design in which those who disagreed with him had little say about how the tent was constructed, but were welcome to stay anyway.
In Reagan’s big tent, the likes of Arlen Specter would always have been welcomed, so long as they were willing to go along with Reagan, but the moment they stood in the way, and sought to assert their policies on his vision for the party, they were quickly reminded of the underlying philosophy upon which the Reagan Revolution was born. “In politics it is always wise to construct the largest tent possible so long as the foundation of the tent is not compromised”.
Today, the big tent that Reagan stitched together is in disarray, but if its leaders are to return from political oblivion, they’d do well to remember how Reagan went about constructing the tent and the philosophy that swept him, and two weak Republican successors who rode his political coattails into the White House, and built a tent which stands for key principles, yet never fails to welcome those who disagree, as honored guests.
If Republicans want to hold themselves up as a truly viable party then they must not be afraid to heartily embrace some basic principles, as Reagan did. Namely a return to Constitutional values, individual liberties, property rights, low taxation, sound money, sound borders, equal opportunity through hard work and self determination and of course free market principles.
These are not just conservative principles, they are America’s founding principles and there is no bigger tent! When properly articulated these principles are a proven strategy for electoral victory. Those who would try to reinvent the wheel or seek to embrace progressive policies have given up, and accepted the idea of diminishing liberty and the ever expanding administrative state.
The American people have awoken to the fact that there can be no choice between liberty and the incremental destruction of that liberty as offered by so-called moderates who would compromise first principles for political expediency.
Sources:
www. Salon.com
http://www.liberallyconservative.com
Loading ...
Mon, Nov 23, 2009
Homepage Featured Story, RLCNEF Blog