A Republican Strategist Discusses the Northeast
Carroll Andrew Morse
Last week, the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberly Strassel hinted at the national Republican Party's willingness to totally give up on the Northeast…Laffey supporters are betting that if he wins the primary, the GOP establishment will offer its support....It's still a long shot, although at least some Republican strategists are nonplussed. They've long argued the party should write off the Northeast, and focus on consolidating its gains in the South and Midwest.
Now, I don’t know that Rod Martin lists “Republican Strategist” on his resume, but he is the Executive Vice-President of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies and the founder of the TheVanguard.org, a national-level “online community of Americans who believe in conservative values, the free market and limited government as the best means to bring hope and ever-increasing opportunity to everyone, especially the poorest among us”. Mr. Martin has thought long-term about both the policy ends the conservative movement should be focusing its energies on and about the best political strategy for achieving them.
I asked Mr. Martin to comment on Ms. Strassel's article, asking specifically if he believed that Republican strategists were ready to write off the Northeast and, if so, was it a smart thing for them to be doing. Here is his reply on the challenge of and the hope for Northeastern conservatism…
Rod Martin: The problem is complicated. Conservatives outside the Northeast see the Northeast as the biggest single problem within the Party: liberal, establishment, looking down on and working to thwart conservatives (and particularly Christians). Rightly or wrongly, the faces of Northeast Republicanism they see are Christie Whitman, Arlen Specter, and Lincoln Chafee.
And that's not the worst of it. Conservative officeholders in Washington feel compelled to back leftists like Chafee (and Arlen Specter) to keep the numerical majority. In so doing, they choke off the growth of Northeastern conservatism, infuriate their national base, and make themselves hostage to their enemies.
But the bottom line in the Northeast is the same as it is everywhere else: eventually, ideology always matters, and eventually, if the voters want a Democrat, they're going to vote for a real one. Thwarting true conservatives like Steve Laffey is self-defeating on every possible level, not least the level of real voters in Rhode Island. The conservative message is universal, and universally needed. Is the Kelo decision any less onerous to Northeasterners than to Texans? Is the war on terror really harder to grasp in the shadow of the Twin Towers than it is in Idaho? Is sound economic policy any harder to explain in Connecticut than in Alabama(or Poland, or Hong Kong)?
Are we really supposed to believe that universal truths, increasingly accepted around the world, cannot be sold in the birthplace of American liberty?
Quite the contrary. I think we need to do all we can for our Northeastern brothers, to help them make the case at home and to demonstrate the power of that case elsewhere. And I think it's high time we helped them root out their home-grown leftists -- who are losing the old lefty Republican base to the Democrats anyway -- and finance guys like Steve Laffey who deserve the chance to show the way.
9:02 AM
"Conservative officeholders in Washington feel compelled to back leftists like Chafee (and Arlen Specter) to keep the numerical majority. In so doing, they choke off the growth of Northeastern conservatism, infuriate their national base, and make themselves hostage to their enemies."
Everyone sing AAAAAAAAA-MEN together.
Hey, the Democrats go through the same thing in the South. For example, look at Tennessee: they're putting their Senate eggs in Harold Ford Jr., who is more conservative than Chafee, Specter, Whitman, etc. The Democrats have long been doing the same hand-wringing the Republicans are now.
"The Democrats have long been doing the same hand-wringing the Republicans are now."
The only difference being that the country has repeatedly REJECTED the Democrat agenda. The Dems, however, have decided that to win they need to be MORE liberal.
Since 1980, the American people have been voting more and more conservative with Clinton only winning the office because the conservative vote was split by two candidates. The problem is, the Republican Party has been becoming LESS AND LESS conservative, thereby alienating exactly those who put them there.
And this year we're fixing that. RINOs across the country will have to get real jobs in January.
As usual, Rod has it right on the mark!
The basic gist of his comments, which are very much in line with his beliefs, are that Republicans are more alike across America, than we are different -- and if we want a cohesive message, we need to focus on what unites us as a party -- meaning principles. We're far better off trying to get real Republicans elected, instead of constantly settling for very pale imitations. We deserve better.
...And yes, he could also be considered a Republican strategist, but I won't tell you why :)
The real problem down in DC is leadership. There is none.
That's why there is run away spending with the republicans in power.
This is why Steve Laffey is the best thing for RI and the US Senate. The guy doesn't just get along with everyone, he gets his agenda to become policy by convincing people to vote his way, i.e. leadership!
The historic turnaround in Cranston was lead by Laffey with the full approval and almost unanimous support of a Democrat controlled city council.
Chafee is irrelevent while Laffey is a leader.
J Mahn
The only thing the imposition of ideological requirements for GOP candidates can do is blow the party's majority in Congress. Are conservatives going to sabotage the other remaining GOP senators in the Northeast, too?
Look at why the Democrats dominate the General Assembly: the party encompasses everything from hardcord liberals to members more conservative than most Republicans. If either side of the spectrum banished the other from the party, it would be handing control to the GOP.
BTW, how liberal are the Gulf War veterans the Denocrats are running for House seats in a number of the districts around the country? Liberal-bashing doesn't work quite as well on those who've spilled blood and sweat in Iraq.
Rhody,
You are right. The reason the Democrats control RI is because their party is willing to accept Democrats from across the political spectrum.
Can you be pro-life and be a RI Democrat? Yes.
Can you be pro-2nd Amendment and be a RI Democrat?
Just look at where the NRA spends its money in RI to answer that question.
Unfortunately, by being Democrats, they vote for the leadership which leans left. It's the reverse of what happens at the national level with moderate Republicans voting for Congressional leaders that lean right.
I'm not even sure why some RI Democrats are even Democrats. Maybe it's because Republicans in RI tend to fight each other and aren't willing to unite.
"I'm not even sure why some RI Democrats are even Democrats. Maybe it's because Republicans in RI tend to fight each other and aren't willing to unite."
In the same vain, why is clearly-liberal Chafee a Republican? Because he doesn't have to deal with the Democrat Primary race. He's using the Republican label as a "Go to the dead of the class" ticket and in the general election you simply get to choose between a liberal or a liberal who's daddy was a revered senator.
No, Rhody, this is prima facie inaccurate:
Look at why the Democrats dominate the General Assembly: the party encompasses everything from hardcord liberals to members more conservative than most Republicans.
One of the things we complain about most often, on Anchor Rising, is that the Republicans have the very same range. If anything, the Republicans scorn their conservatives more than the Democrats scorn their liberals.
In other words, there must be some other quality than a "big tent" to explain the Democrats' dominance. Although it sounds reasonable, I have a hard time believing that the Democrats could do much, ideologically speaking, that would truly prove to "be handing control to the GOP." More and more, I'm leaning toward apathy and a cultural laziness toward challenging thought in this state as the secret cocktail to their success.
Be that as it may, the experiment of a Republican party that is more reliably conservative has yet to be tried. I would argue, moreover, that giving conservative Democrats an option that is, in image and practice, more conservative would prove to be more effective than giving them an indistinguishable option that merely ensures status as a minority.
RI Democrats are often (but not always) Reagan Democrats - many are pro-life, some are opposed to excessive taxation. Many are pro-war. They are often pressured to support the party line, so they appear very inconsistent. But one thing to bear in mind, and that is Chafee and his views are clearly contrary to these types of Democrats, whereas Laffey with his sprinkling of populism in his message, is more palatable. And while Whitehouse plays the Lamont card, he pushes himself further left - I am forecasting that Laffey will make history and Whitehouse will be history in November.
Not sure I agree, Chuck. My father was a Reagan Democrat (and former state Democratic committee member), as pro-life as they come, anti-tax, and no friend of unions, either.
He also believed Chafee was the best mayor Warwick had in the 40 years he lived there, and supported his Senate campaigns. Knowing a decent number of his peers who share the same views, I can say Laffey's faux populism won't sell with as many Reagan Democrats as the Laffey camp believes.
Click here for the new Anchor Rising & Ocean State Current page
About Community Crier
About Engaged Citizen
Administrator
"Conservative officeholders in Washington feel compelled to back leftists like Chafee (and Arlen Specter) to keep the numerical majority. In so doing, they choke off the growth of Northeastern conservatism, infuriate their national base, and make themselves hostage to their enemies."
Everyone sing AAAAAAAAA-MEN together.
Posted by: Greg at August 22, 2006 10:52 AMHey, the Democrats go through the same thing in the South. For example, look at Tennessee: they're putting their Senate eggs in Harold Ford Jr., who is more conservative than Chafee, Specter, Whitman, etc. The Democrats have long been doing the same hand-wringing the Republicans are now.
Posted by: rhody at August 22, 2006 11:10 AM"The Democrats have long been doing the same hand-wringing the Republicans are now."
The only difference being that the country has repeatedly REJECTED the Democrat agenda. The Dems, however, have decided that to win they need to be MORE liberal.
Since 1980, the American people have been voting more and more conservative with Clinton only winning the office because the conservative vote was split by two candidates. The problem is, the Republican Party has been becoming LESS AND LESS conservative, thereby alienating exactly those who put them there.
And this year we're fixing that. RINOs across the country will have to get real jobs in January.
Posted by: Greg at August 22, 2006 11:48 AMAs usual, Rod has it right on the mark!
The basic gist of his comments, which are very much in line with his beliefs, are that Republicans are more alike across America, than we are different -- and if we want a cohesive message, we need to focus on what unites us as a party -- meaning principles. We're far better off trying to get real Republicans elected, instead of constantly settling for very pale imitations. We deserve better.
...And yes, he could also be considered a Republican strategist, but I won't tell you why :)
Posted by: Will at August 22, 2006 2:31 PMThe real problem down in DC is leadership. There is none.
That's why there is run away spending with the republicans in power.
This is why Steve Laffey is the best thing for RI and the US Senate. The guy doesn't just get along with everyone, he gets his agenda to become policy by convincing people to vote his way, i.e. leadership!
The historic turnaround in Cranston was lead by Laffey with the full approval and almost unanimous support of a Democrat controlled city council.
Chafee is irrelevent while Laffey is a leader.
J Mahn
Posted by: Joe Mahn at August 22, 2006 2:40 PMThe only thing the imposition of ideological requirements for GOP candidates can do is blow the party's majority in Congress. Are conservatives going to sabotage the other remaining GOP senators in the Northeast, too?
Posted by: Rhody at August 22, 2006 3:57 PMLook at why the Democrats dominate the General Assembly: the party encompasses everything from hardcord liberals to members more conservative than most Republicans. If either side of the spectrum banished the other from the party, it would be handing control to the GOP.
BTW, how liberal are the Gulf War veterans the Denocrats are running for House seats in a number of the districts around the country? Liberal-bashing doesn't work quite as well on those who've spilled blood and sweat in Iraq.
Rhody,
You are right. The reason the Democrats control RI is because their party is willing to accept Democrats from across the political spectrum.
Can you be pro-life and be a RI Democrat? Yes.
Can you be pro-2nd Amendment and be a RI Democrat?
Just look at where the NRA spends its money in RI to answer that question.
Unfortunately, by being Democrats, they vote for the leadership which leans left. It's the reverse of what happens at the national level with moderate Republicans voting for Congressional leaders that lean right.
I'm not even sure why some RI Democrats are even Democrats. Maybe it's because Republicans in RI tend to fight each other and aren't willing to unite.
Posted by: Anthony at August 22, 2006 5:24 PM"I'm not even sure why some RI Democrats are even Democrats. Maybe it's because Republicans in RI tend to fight each other and aren't willing to unite."
In the same vain, why is clearly-liberal Chafee a Republican? Because he doesn't have to deal with the Democrat Primary race. He's using the Republican label as a "Go to the dead of the class" ticket and in the general election you simply get to choose between a liberal or a liberal who's daddy was a revered senator.
Posted by: Greg at August 22, 2006 5:56 PMNo, Rhody, this is prima facie inaccurate:
One of the things we complain about most often, on Anchor Rising, is that the Republicans have the very same range. If anything, the Republicans scorn their conservatives more than the Democrats scorn their liberals.
In other words, there must be some other quality than a "big tent" to explain the Democrats' dominance. Although it sounds reasonable, I have a hard time believing that the Democrats could do much, ideologically speaking, that would truly prove to "be handing control to the GOP." More and more, I'm leaning toward apathy and a cultural laziness toward challenging thought in this state as the secret cocktail to their success.
Be that as it may, the experiment of a Republican party that is more reliably conservative has yet to be tried. I would argue, moreover, that giving conservative Democrats an option that is, in image and practice, more conservative would prove to be more effective than giving them an indistinguishable option that merely ensures status as a minority.
Posted by: Justin Katz at August 22, 2006 6:50 PMRI Democrats are often (but not always) Reagan Democrats - many are pro-life, some are opposed to excessive taxation. Many are pro-war. They are often pressured to support the party line, so they appear very inconsistent. But one thing to bear in mind, and that is Chafee and his views are clearly contrary to these types of Democrats, whereas Laffey with his sprinkling of populism in his message, is more palatable. And while Whitehouse plays the Lamont card, he pushes himself further left - I am forecasting that Laffey will make history and Whitehouse will be history in November.
Posted by: Chuck at August 22, 2006 8:07 PMNot sure I agree, Chuck. My father was a Reagan Democrat (and former state Democratic committee member), as pro-life as they come, anti-tax, and no friend of unions, either.
Posted by: Rhody at August 23, 2006 12:06 AMHe also believed Chafee was the best mayor Warwick had in the 40 years he lived there, and supported his Senate campaigns. Knowing a decent number of his peers who share the same views, I can say Laffey's faux populism won't sell with as many Reagan Democrats as the Laffey camp believes.