DeMint: Focus on freedom for the big tent
posted at 12:55 pm on May 4, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
With all of the talk about big-tent Republicanism among the moderates, a missive from one of the most conservative Senators makes the most sense. Jim DeMint, who has campaigned for conservatives and conservative causes, advises his allies on the Right that the GOP needs to narrow its focus if it expects to win elections again. In fact, the more narrow the focus, the bigger the tent — and DeMint knows exactly where to start:
Despite notable successes at both ends of Pennsylvania Ave., it seems to me that Republicans in Congress and in the Bush administration forgot a simple truth. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis, if you aim for principled reform, you win elections in the bargain; if you just aim for elections, you get neither.
No Child Left Behind didn’t win us “soccer moms,” but it did cost us our credibility on locally controlled education. Medicare prescription drugs didn’t win us a “permanent majority,” but it cost us our credibility on entitlement reform. Every year, another Republican quality was tainted: managerial competence, fiscal discipline and personal ethics.
To win back the trust of the American people, we must be a “big tent” party. But big tents need strong poles, and the strongest pole of our party — the organizing principle and the crucial alternative to the Democrats — must be freedom. The federal government is too big, takes too much of our money, and makes too many of our decisions. If Republicans can’t agree on that, elections are the least of our problems.
If the American people want a European-style social democracy, the Democratic Party will give it to them. We can’t win a bidding war with Democrats.
Freedom will mean different things to different Republicans, but it can tether a diverse coalition to inalienable principles. Republicans can welcome a vigorous debate about legalized abortion or same-sex marriage; but we should be able to agree that social policies should be set through a democratic process, not by unelected judges. Our party benefits from national-security debates; but Republicans can start from the premise that the U.S. is an exceptional nation and force for good in history. We can argue about how to rein in the federal Leviathan; but we should agree that centralized government infringes on individual liberty and that problems are best solved by the people or the government closest to them.
I said the same thing many times over the last couple of years. If the GOP presents voters with a choice between a fake Democrat and a real Democrat, voters will choose the authentic item every time. The Republican Party at some point began being afraid of its own core values of smaller government, greater personal freedom, and federalism. Instead, Republicans went on a lobbyist and spending spree that violated the very values that formed the core of the party.
The surprise isn’t that the GOP began losing elections in 2006. The surprise is that they didn’t start losing them earlier.
Some would have Republicans give up entirely on the principles of fiscal restraint and limitation of government power, arguing that the American people want to get bribed into voting for their representatives. I disagree. Over the last decade, the Republicans haven’t provided much of an option on that front, with Republicans porking up the budget and increasing the reach of DC in every budget they approved. DeMint argues that, given a choice, most Americans don’t want the federal government taking their money for wasteful pork projects and wealth redistribution. And if the Republicans can focus on that argument and not allow themselves to get distracted on other fronts, they can win larger and larger coalitions as they build their credibility on these issues — as long as they don’t turn back into fake Democrats once they get elected.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
So let’s require certification of mental competence by a State medical board before you can buy or sell anything–we don’t want a clerk at 7/11 fraudulently selling candy bars to a down syndrome child, do we? It sure would be a problem if you were to lose the certification document, so instead of issuing it as a card, let’s tattoo it on everyone’s hand. We can even give it a cool-sounding name, like “The Mark of the Beast.” Another triumph for small-government conservative thinking!
hicsuget on May 4, 2009 at 3:37 PM
Any infringement of liberty is a violation of individual rights. This goes back to the distinction between “right” and “privilege.”
hicsuget on May 4, 2009 at 3:38 PM
Impetus!
maverick muse on May 4, 2009 at 3:40 PM
I was with you for a while but Religion is a foundation of Western Civilization (and I’m not a Christian but I can admit this) and being religious is not the same as being a drunk. Having been both I can attest to that.
I would be against prohibition if we had sane education of the negative effects of drugs and alcohol on people and those around them (especially they’re children, who society ends up caring for) but too many otherwise intelligent people seem to think drinking and drugging is not harmful at all. I’m working on a blog post about some pot head burning his old lady’s baby in a bath, the kid has second degree burns and Cheech didn’t notice. You can lecture that kid about how getting high and drunk is no worse than going to church when they’re the kid with horrible scars in high school.
Rob Taylor on May 4, 2009 at 3:43 PM
In hindsight, I see that “they” was a bit unspecific. What I meant by that was “addictive drugs”. There are other goods that need to be regulated as well, but I would agree in general that exchange needs to be free.
Count to 10 on May 4, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Since it is not an absolute world, no one is consistently anything.
I’m not certain that anyone claimed that Republicans consistently under all circumstances without any doubt defend liberty of criminals or terrorists, for instance.
You’ve hijacked the thread from DeMint, so kindly get back on topic. Perhaps you can quote DeMint rather than taking off on tangents that have no end and hence lose relevance to the thread.
maverick muse on May 4, 2009 at 3:47 PM
Not everyone who attends religious services goes insane, and not everyone who drinks alcohol drinks to ruin. I still don’t see the distinction. I would be against prohibition of religion were it not for the absence of education about the dangers of cults.
hicsuget on May 4, 2009 at 3:47 PM
So would the President–true, he sees more need for intervention than your typical Republican, but his arguments for intervention are no different than yours.
hicsuget on May 4, 2009 at 3:49 PM
Believe it or not, rights do come in conflict with each other. When that happens, it is necessary to sort out which will be observed.
And, yes, there is entirely to much of mistaking privileges for rights today.
Count to 10 on May 4, 2009 at 3:49 PM
For anyone concerned about accommodating the spectrum of GOP-ers, just look at the Dems. They run from the Blue Dogs, to the blue bloods, to the Left Coast neo-communists, to everything in between. DeMint is correct, a few SIMPLE unifying principles that are clear, easy to explain, that resonate with the American-ness of the American people, that are easy to use to generate powerful soundbites, and which make great campaign fodder are exactly what’s needed. Debate on minutae of implementation details can wait.
fyzycyst on May 4, 2009 at 3:52 PM
As if. Just because it comes out of P.BO’s mouth doesn’t mean he believes it (let alone knows what it means).
I will reiterate — ideologies are fine for living, but considerations must be made when governing, as much as we find it distasteful.
Count to 10 on May 4, 2009 at 3:53 PM
We got onto this “tangent” when I stated that the Big Tent DeMint envisions fell apart because social conservatives are interested in liberty only so long as no one uses their liberty in a non-Christian fashion. I have been discussing this topic with social conservatives who allege that it is perfectly permissible to restrict liberty when liberty is at odds with traditional mores. This discussion, therefore, is completely relevant.
hicsuget on May 4, 2009 at 3:54 PM
The one unifying principle of the Democratic party is that Republican principle stands in the way of each group getting the first thing on their list.
Count to 10 on May 4, 2009 at 3:56 PM
Wow. I think someone just called me a social conservative.
Count to 10 on May 4, 2009 at 3:58 PM
I do believe that very thing. I’ve read John Locke, I’ve read Ayn Rand, and I’m an economist. That the rights of all individuals, properly defined, do not conflict, is a point I do not dispute.
I do, however, have two questions for you: First, whose rights, properly-defined, would I violate if I purchased alcohol on a Sunday? Second, if I do not violate the rights of anyone by doing so, why do you feel it is okay to violate mine?
hicsuget on May 4, 2009 at 3:58 PM
A local community has a right to set practices for businesses it gives license to. You, in fact, don’t have a right to purchase anything at that location — it is more of the seller’s right to sell it too you, which comes in conflict with the right of the community to determine the terms of his license.
It is important to separate the “unwise” (or silly) from the “unconstitutional”.
Count to 10 on May 4, 2009 at 4:06 PM
You can try, but there is a certain amendment that will get in your way. The founders believed religion is a constitutional right, they did not enshrine self-imposed poisoning in the same document, and wisely left the control of alcohol to the states (and their counties, respectively).
That way, sane people like me could live in a dry county, and self-destructive rawk stahs like you could live in trash counties littered with wreckyards, destroyed fences, and those little white plastic crosses along your roads.
TMK on May 4, 2009 at 4:10 PM
Sovereignty and right are two different concepts. No government has a right to violate the rights of its citizens. Rankin County, MS has no more right to forbid the sale of liquor than China has to enforce its one-child policy.
hicsuget on May 4, 2009 at 4:14 PM
So lobby in your community to rescind the community tradition. That is not an impossibility. Require bars to stay open 24/7 while you’re at it/ pathetic.
Meanwhile, get that hair out of your rear end somewhere else. DeMint doesn’t deserve your attributing a hang-up on him that isn’t his.
maverick muse on May 4, 2009 at 4:15 PM
The remark about prohibiting religion was, of course, tongue-in-cheek–I defend the First Amendment as fiercely as anybody. The right to freedom of religion, like any other right, becomes merely a privilege unless the right to property is strictly maintained, and by violating the right to property on religious grounds you are defeating your own purposes.
Note further that I am not claiming a right to drink and drive; merely a right to drink. Also, it just so happens I live in the single most affluent community in the country very near a certain millionaire ex-Vice President—no wreckyards here, thank you very much.
hicsuget on May 4, 2009 at 4:21 PM
That has a hint of semantics to it. However, states and communities do, in fact, have rights under the constitution. You have the right to property, but how you exchange that with others is subject to some regulation.
Count to 10 on May 4, 2009 at 4:22 PM
You are claiming a right to purchase said drink without regulation, not the right to drink.
Count to 10 on May 4, 2009 at 4:24 PM
We’ve gone from religious freedom to religious authority… no thanks.
Who are any of you to determine my “license?” Where does the constitution/bill of rights talk of the risks of license? Who determines that line between liberty and license?
Statists on the right are just as offensive to liberty and statists on the left. As long as an individual is not robbing the liberty of someone else in their personal pursuits, it’s nobody’s business.
beatcanvas on May 4, 2009 at 4:25 PM
Gore?
Count to 10 on May 4, 2009 at 4:25 PM
OK. But until someone starts making actual sense, none of these gimmicks will work.
AnninCA on May 4, 2009 at 4:25 PM
hicsuget on May 4, 2009 at 4:14 PM
Use that charismatic power of persuasion to get your way; changing people’s minds by insulting them will get you your bottle 24/7. From your timbre, we can tell how well that’s done already.
No one said you couldn’t drink. That in your affluence, you drink your liquor cabinet dry before Sunday morning is telling of your lack of personal responsibility. Shop for your needs while stores are open for business. Quit whining like a pathetic drunk, Gimme my bottle or else. Big baby.
maverick muse on May 4, 2009 at 4:28 PM
I think you are seeing a combination of bad press and a confusion of right vs. left. Just because someone who you group with the right enacts something does not mean that said something isn’t a leftist act.
Count to 10 on May 4, 2009 at 4:29 PM
maverick muse on May 4, 2009 at 4:28 PM
America is faced with the overthrow of our Constitutional Government.
PERSPECTIVE and expectations.
maverick muse on May 4, 2009 at 4:31 PM
Okay. I’ll clarify. People who claim to be Republican (right) want to use the government (statism) to legislate their morality in areas where none of the individual freedoms of others are infringed.
Does that help clarify my intent?
beatcanvas on May 4, 2009 at 4:32 PM
My point is spelled out quite clearly in the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson wrote that all men are endowed with certain “inalienable” rights, and that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed. And, of course, when a government fails to secure these ends, it is the right of the people to choose a new government that does protect their rights.
Individuals, and only individuals, have rights. They can entrust their rights to a government so as to better secure said rights. A government’s right to exist is merely an extension of the rights of the individuals whose rights it protects. A government that violates rights arbitrarily has no right to exist.
China has sovereignty over its subjects, but it holds this power by might, not by right. Rankin County’s prohibition of liquor sales is likewise held by might and not by right–the might of the mob that shows up at the ballot box the second Tuesday every other November rather than the might of the Communist Party. The violation of rights in Rankin County is orders of magnitude less unjust than that in China, don’t get me wrong, but it’s nonetheless a clear violation of rights.
hicsuget on May 4, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Yes, but it also gets me back to the point of “bad press”.
Mostly, these people are asking that the federal government stop implicating them in acts they find immoral. Though they would like to end abortions and the homosexual lifestyle, at this point they are fighting having to support them.
Count to 10 on May 4, 2009 at 4:36 PM
beatcanvas, RINO would be the extreme example of Count’s point. We all equivocate in our personal lives, rationalize this ‘n that on occasion, intentionally or not. But when we focus on what we MUST have, simplicity streamlines momentum in achieving the target goal.
maverick muse on May 4, 2009 at 4:37 PM
The Declaration (and Jefferson in general) tends toward the hypothetical and ideal. Not all of it pans out when applied to actual governance. But it is important that the constitution sets aside rights for the governments under it in the federal structure.
Count to 10 on May 4, 2009 at 4:40 PM
Classy ad. You’ll convince your community of the error of THEIR ways, for sure.
maverick muse on May 4, 2009 at 4:41 PM
Cheney.
hicsuget on May 4, 2009 at 4:42 PM
I don’t live in Rankin County. Where I live, all the liquor stores are run by the state government. Since the government gets both the tax revenue and the profit, there are no dry counties here.
hicsuget on May 4, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Didn’t figure him for the
richuber-rich neighborhood type.Count to 10 on May 4, 2009 at 4:44 PM
Well, I’m not saying they should do that, just that they can. In CA, liquor was sold in supermarkets. In MD, only in liquor stores (which seem less common than supermarkets, oddly enough).
Count to 10 on May 4, 2009 at 4:47 PM
The Cheneys are worth about $40 million. Also, estate prices around here were quite depressed when he left office—I’d need more than 4 working professional roommates to live there myself if they weren’t.
hicsuget on May 4, 2009 at 4:49 PM
Would that this were true… in the turbulence that is Obama’s agenda, how many on the “right” aggitate about things like liquor sales? Yep – five years from now, people will kick themselves for not worrying more about stuff like liquor sales – I just know it.
beatcanvas on May 4, 2009 at 4:50 PM
It’s not as inconsequential as it sounds. DeMint says the Republican Party needs to make a principled stand for freedom. If you’re willing to sell out your own principles, even on the little things, then they’re not your principles after all.
hicsuget on May 4, 2009 at 4:52 PM
You’re not the focus of my comment. Like you, I know that the more liberty you give away, the less free you are. Which is why I fight statists on the right as much as statists on the left. Same agenda (government solutions to social problems), different morality (hating the gays versus hating the rich). Neither thinks much of true individual liberty.
beatcanvas on May 4, 2009 at 4:56 PM
South Carolinians seem to start civil wars. Once it was United States vs. Confederate States. Now it is among their senators, DeMint vs. Lindsay Nogoodnik. Hopefully it will spread in the Republican party and the country.
DeMint for President.
burt on May 4, 2009 at 5:00 PM
DeMint is my favorite senator, with Jeff Sessions, James Inhofe, and Tom Coburn in the runner-up positions (in no particular order).
Refresh my memory if there are any other true conservative Senators I missed.
Marybeth on May 4, 2009 at 5:29 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2