The Flag of the World

The following speech was given this morning by Eric Earling, a friend, member of the Bush adminstration, newly elected Charter Review Commissioner and all around rising political star, at Republican Roundtable in Everett. These are his words, not mine, so I don’t necessarily agree with everything he has to say–but he’s pretty much spot on.

What makes a winning Republican?

This is an important question to ask, in the aftermath of the defeat of Initiative 912, and the loss of Jeff Sax. Because in the end, our goal as Republicans is to win elections, to increase our opportunities to enact policies we believe to be right.

We must also ask these questions because the broader political environment we face aside from this year’s results is not good – Democrat control of Olympia, two Democrats representing our state in the US Senate, and only one Republican Congressman from Western Washington. We are clearly a party in need of new victories.

Several weeks back, in a speech to this group, Tim Goddard defined the Republican Party as being comprised of thinkers and doers. He said while thinkers are the essential core of the party, the most effective leaders to win elections are men of action.

Consider a couple examples of this theory:

Ronald Reagan was a man of action, of optimism, and forward thinking…and he won two decisive electoral victories.

Dino Rossi gave us the best performance from a statewide Republican candidate in recent memory. Running over 3 points ahead of President Bush, more than 6 points ahead of George Nethercutt, and winning Snohomish County…all in the face of exceptionally high Democratic turnout.

Both of these men ran against the failures of others – Reagan against the weak Carter administration, Rossi against ineffective leadership from Olympia. Yet they weren’t seen as reactionary, simply as an angry “No!” to the current establishment. They had an agenda to improve the performance of the office they sought. Quite simply, they were FOR something. Reagan for a strong, confident America. Rossi for strong leadership from the Governor’s office.

This should tell us we as Republicans are in potentially dangerous territory following the defeat of Initiative 912. What are we for?

In the campaign for 912, we as Republicans were clearly against taxes. Yet transportation has been a hot issue for a decade in this state, but we didn’t have an intelligible plan to improve transportation as an alternative to the policies we didn’t like.

Initiative 912 is a good case study of the weakness of lacking a forward-thinking agenda to match complaints against the status quo.

We said the gas tax was unjust because laws passed at the behest of unions and environmental groups drive up the cost of road construction.

True, but those laws passed because we don’t control the Legislature.

We said government doesn’t need any more money, we pay enough in taxes…that the Dept. of Transportation isn’t accountable.

Fair enough. Yet, even some conservative Republicans in the Legislature argued the backlog of projects that need to be built was so long, new taxes were needed. The also argued that the accountability improvements enacted in recent years based on Republican demands in the Legislature were actually having an effect – that Dept. of Transportation was performing with improved efficiency and effectiveness.

When some people see that good, anti-tax conservatives like Joe Zarelli and Joyce Mulliken are voted for a tax, they think there might be something to it.

Now we can debate those points about the gas tax for hours. But the point it is, one side had a plan. And it wasn’t us.

Consider this: Snohomish County voted “yes” to Initiative 695 with 61% of the vote. We said “no” to Referendum 51 with a similar 60% vote. Yet, Initiative 912 received only 44% of the vote in our county.

After a decade of debate on the issue, our lack of a plan gave us little credibility…especially with frustrated commuters.

In this case, our failure to have a plan dates back to Republican leadership in the Legislature during the mid-to-late ‘90’s. They did some good things, and fought some necessary battles, but they were dominated by Eastern Washington Republicans, who didn’t prioritize western Washington’s transportation needs – that even then were a pressing issue.

That lack of vision left us with a weakened starting point transportation policy battles in the Puget Sound region, and 912 did little to improve that. But while those battles over transportation and taxes are not over, a broader question for us as Republicans remains:

Where do we go from here? What are we for?

We can expect Mike McGavick to be an optimistic, forward thinking candidate in 2006, in a highly competitive race with Maria Cantwell.

Meanwhile, Dino Rossi is seemingly preparing to pick up the party banner again in 2008, to claim the Governor’s office he rightfully deserves.

Meanwhile, here in Snohomish County, we face Democratic majorities in the Legislature and on the County Council. And Democrats sitting in the Governor’s mansion and in the County Executive’s office.

In those conditions, it will be easy to say what we’re against – it’s a safe bet there will be many policies we don’t like. But we as Republicans will be better served at the ballot box by emphasizing what we what we are for, not simply what we are against. The voters we need for electoral victory expect nothing less.

Republican Roundtable is a group dedicated to recruiting, training, polishing and promoting Republican volunteers, party leaders and candidates. The first chapter of the group, the Founder’s Club, meets every Tuesday morning in Everett, and new clubs are in the works. If you’re at all interested in joining a chapter or starting oen yourself, do yourself a favor and drop me a line.

The story goes that the definitive description of the two party system was given by a Republican staffer many years ago. He explained to a group of foreign visitors that “There is the stupid party. And there is the evil party. I am proud to be a member of the stupid party.”

He added: “Periodically, the two parties get together and do something that is both stupid and evil. This is called—bipartisanship.”

One way you can tell that the “Stupid Party” moniker is true is the number of Republicans who minimize their affiliation with their party. Many people who are essentially Republicans will tell you “I’m not a Republican, I’m a conservative.” Others–perhaps a majority, perhaps most people in this room–will tell you “I’m a conservative first, and a Republican second.” I’m here to tell you the exact opposite–I’m a Republican first, and a conservative second.

I’ll give you three reasons that this is true. First off, conservatives are the thinkers, Republicans are the doers. Now, don’t get me wrong, thinkers are important to a party, but that thinking must always be connected to action. Party leaders must be a mix of thinkers and doers–if the party is taken over by those who are only interested in thinking, with no connection to doing, you get the Democratic Party, circa. 2005. The best, most effective Republican leaders are those whose main goal is not thinking, but action–but based on careful thought.

Second, and closely related, conservatives aim for what we want to do, Republicans aim for what we can actually accomplish. Too often, Republicans are more focused on what they want to do than what they can do. In part, this is because Republicans were out of power for so long (or in the case of Washington State, still are). For years, there was no need to focus on the possible, because we could not accomplish very much anyway. Obviously, for a party in power, and a party that is near to gaining power, this needs to change. We need leaders who know what is ideal, but also what is realistic.

Third, conservatives demand ideological purity, while Republicans demand victory. You don’t have to look far for this sort–flip on talk radio, hop on the Internet, you’ll hear Republicans furious at other Republicans for not towing what they consider to be the party line. David Frum once criticized Bush for not being “prepared to suffer martyrdom” for conservative principles. What, exactly, would that have accomplished? Similarly how many times have you heard Republicans vow to vote for a Democrat or a third party over a Republican who they disagree with–usually on fewer issues than the person they end up voting for?

A great Republican once said “there is no substitute for victory.” This includes ideological purity. A minority party does no one in that party any good–again, see Democrats, circa 2005. Quite frankly, this sort of behavior, either by leadership or rank and file, is selfish. Ideological purity may make you feel good about yourself, but you’re the only one helped by it. Take the extreme example of abortion: if you’re a pro-life legislator and can save thousands of unborn lives by voting for a bill that doesn’t go far enough, or save none by voting against it and saving your conscience–then conscience be damned.

Action, realism and victory–this is what seperates Republican conservatives from conservative Republicans. I am certainly a conservative–but what do I want to conserve? The Republic. Unsurprisingly, the Republican party is the best political agent to do so.

Thus, while I am proud to say that I am a conservative, I am prouder to say that I am first and foremost a Republican. Thank you very much.

I gave this speech, more or less, last week at Republican Roundtable, a group dedicated to recruiting, training, polishing and promoting Republican volunteers, party leaders and candidates. The views expressed in the speech do not necessarily represent the views of Republican Roundtable, its leaders or its members–though they certainly ought to, if you ask me. The first chapter, the Founder’s Club, meets every Tuesday morning in Everett. A new Bellevue Club is starting on the evening of the 15th, and other clubs will be cropping up around the area. If you’re at all interested, do yourself a favor and drop me a line.