5views.com

I have some complaints about the way the Republican Party is run in Washington state. I think there is a climate of failure and fatalism that has squelched all attempts to revive the party at all levels.

There are a number of things, in my opinion, that need to change before the party will see successes in this state and be able to advance a more conservative agenda. Foremost among them is grassroots activism in the party.

Based on the February caucuses that seems to have begun. Crosscut.com has more.

In disaster are sown the seeds of re-birth and renewal, and the 2006 election was a disaster for Republicans. . .

The cause was three-fold: an unpopular president and war; an incorrect perception that all Republicans are like disgraced Ohio Rep.BobNey, who resigned after being implicated in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal; and profligate spending by GOP Senate and House members. Faced with a choice between wasteful Democrats and Republicans who spent like wasteful Democrats, voters opted for the real deal and elected wasteful Democrats.

What follows are my opinions. They are mine and mine alone and are based on my personal values and observations. I only speak for one conservative (myself), however, I do make observations while among other conservatives.

I disagree with Scott St. Clair, author of the Crosscut.com article. The problems that led up to the Republican defeats centered around the same issue that usually causes Republican losses. The base of the party was alienated by those who wanted to represent them.

Political corruption within the party was only partly the cause of that alienation. Republican voters tend to hold their elected officials accountable, as opposed to Democrats who reelect scandalous politicians.

The war was only a small part of the problem. Most conservatives (based on polling data), while not in favor of war understand that we have to win the war in Iraq. I know of very few conservatives who would pull their support of our troops and their mission just because things were going badly (by some standards). Conservatives are not flaky.

The conservatives that I know personally don’t change their minds until they’re presented with clear evidence as to why they should. They consistently make principled decisions and support people who stand up for what is right. There was no great cry to pull out of Iraq from within the Republican party. There were, however, some who were asking for a better strategy. We got it and it’s working.

When George W. Bush tried to appoint a crony, Harriet Myers, to the Supreme Court conservatives were angry. Conservatives let it be known that we wanted a qualified justice who would interpret the constitution according to how it was written, not according to his/her own views or the views of their cronies. Harriet Myers lacked experience and because of that lacked a visible track record. After much pressure was applied, Bush chose someone else. So far, we’ve been happy with that selection.

Another issue that frustrated conservatives was Republican inaction on border security. Now just to be clear, I can’t name a single conservative who is against immigration or has expressed racist views about Hispanics. Maybe they exist, but none have expressed those views to me. Most conservatives do want stricter enforcement of immigration and visa laws as well as border enforcement. To put it another way we want immigration, but we want our country to control it. It’s not up to foreign nationals to determine who can come into our country. It’s up to us. Inaction by elected Republicans in DC frustrated conservatives. Some stayed home because of it.

So what will happen this fall? I can’t speak for all conservative Republicans, but there indicators popping up.

But they were out in force on Saturday, full of vim and vinegar and spoiling for a fight. And they were joined by an enthusiastic contingent of newcomers. Some 301 delegates caucused from 9 a.m. until nearly 7 p.m. to elect 34 delegates and 34 alternates to the state GOP convention in Spokane at the end of May.

Fully half raised their hands when asked if this was their first foray into politics. It was a good mix of men and women, young and old, and collars of all hues. . .

Nary a banker, developer, or country club member was among them.

The grassroots are getting involved. That means change has begun.

For years, even decades, the Republican party in Washington state has been ‘infiltrated’ by moderates and liberals, mostly from King County. They were welcomed by some, mostly the elites in the party, because they claimed that they would bring votes from moderate independents. That never materialized but the welcome extended to them remained. That is yet another reason for the alienation of the conservative base of the Republican Party in Washington state.

While I don’t want to exclude anyone because I don’t agree with them, if they can’t support the party’s platform, which is fiscally conservative and pro-life, they’re in the wrong party. I don’t think they should be asked to leave. But I sincerely hope they become increasingly uncomfortable sitting among us so-called ‘right-wingers’. And should they choose to leave the party, I won’t try to dissuade them.

Another source of alienation of the Republican base has been the selection of candidates by elites in party leadership, rather than by primary or caucus. No one likes to be told who they should vote for, but that is a regular occurance in the WSRP. A prominent and recent example was when McGavick ran for the U.S. Senate. There was another potential candidate, who happened to hold to more conservative views, who was ignored by party leadership and pushed out of the race before entering it. McGavick, of course, lost, as do most of the candidates selected that way.

The party leadership seems to be making an effort to change that practice, but it may not be going well so far. The decision to hold a primary for the presidential nomination was said to be an effort to that end. It ended up being a fruitless venture. The caucuses were a mix of open and closed practices. For instance, I attended the February caucuses in my district and was elected (mostly by default) to the county convention in April. However, the caucus vote for the presidential race was never taken. Instead the Pierce County Republican office used our preference on the sign-in sheet as our vote. This wasn’t explained ahead of time. If it had been I would have changed my vote.

Another example of candidate selection is Dino Rossi. I doubt anyone would have run against him, especially after the 2004 debacle, but I think a more open process was in order. I held my nose and voted for McGavick. At least with Rossi the smell isn’t there.

Finally a warning to the WSRP. It’s their responsibility to support this upsurge of involvement by new Republican party activists. There seems to be four things could happen as a result of this upsurge: 1) the current leadership will change their ways and respond to the calls of the grassroots of the party; 2) a power struggle for control of the WSRP between the grassroots and the party elites; 3) the current leadership will be swept aside in favor of leadership that represents the grassroots of the party; or 4) the grassroots will go home and take their votes with them. Personally, I’m hoping for the third choice. I’m not fond of the status-quo in the WSRP.

This entry was posted on Friday, March 14th, 2008 at 3:58 pm and is filed under Campaign 2008, WSRP. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.