I attended the Conservative Breakfast Club at the Republican Party of Iowa headquarters this morning.  The speaker was Doug Gross, local attorney and former gubernatorial candidate.  He spoke to us some findings of a poll he commissioned for the Iowa First Foundation.

He noted that the Republican party has a “branding” problem.  In the poll he took the majority considered the Democratic Party to be the party of reform, that is open and affirming, and is the party of the future.  He said that we need to work hard to correct that in order to win.  Then he said, “thanks to our good friends the Democrats some of that work is already being done.”

People are concerned about jobs and they are concerned about spending.  So it’s the economy stupid… he said we need to focus on economic issues – taxes, spending, etc.  Do that and then we’ll be able to defend traditional values.

Three things he said Republicans need to focus on in order to win in 2010 in the Gubernatorial and General Assembly races –

  1. Adopt a reform agenda – focus on the fraud and abuse related to Democrats’ spending.
  2. Be open and transparent
  3. Be the party of economic conservatism
  4. Recruit the right kind of candidates – identify community leaders, not just the strongest ideologues.

I understand where he was coming from, and I do think those are things that are highly important to focus on.  He made a couple of remarks that makes me truly question his desire for party unity and his strategy for success.

The first was when he said we shouldn’t wear our religion on our sleeve.  That people don’t want to come to a public meeting and be preached at.  That we need to respect the separation of church and state.

This is obviously a dig at Bob Vander Plaats and social conservatives who are pushing for a vote on a marriage amendment.  Some problems I have with this.  For starters, what does he mean by “wearing our religion on our sleeves”?  In effect it seems like he’s telling evangelicals to shut up, go home, the gay marriage decision isn’t that important, etc, etc.  Also there is an expectation for people to compartmentalize their faith which I’m not getting into as it would be a blog post in and of itself.

Secondly, the strategy to focus on economic issues so that we win and then can defend traditional values on the surface sounds good, but it is all contingent on candidates who are committed to defend traditional values.  Former Governor Terry Branstad would be Gross’ pick, and he thinks that he will likely run.  One question that Governor Branstad needs to answer is what was with your Iowa Supreme Court nominees?  All of his appointees decided in favor of gay marriage and I believe his nominees still hold the majority on the court.  How committed is he to appointing judges that don’t legislate from the bench?

Third while economic issues are very bright on the radar now that doesn’t mean social issues are no longer important to Iowans.  For the first time a majority of Americans identify themselves as pro-life, and 67% of Iowans want the chance to vote on marriage so it isn’t as though social conservative views are out of the mainstream.

Evangelicals and other social conservatives need to be able to make their arguments (in the political realm) in a winsome manner pointing why our positions will benefit society in order to gain an ear of the independent voter.  With gay marriage and the right to vote on an amendment – that isn’t a religious argument, it’s a constitutional one.  We have a constitutional crisis in Iowa with one branch thinking it trumps the others.  The case can be made that way, and if we were to lose an amendment vote then we would have to accept that.  With abortion… again constitutional – what about the fundamental right to life?  Everybody except the unborn?

Separation of church and state doesn’t mean you check your values at the door.  It doesn’t mean you don’t live out your faith even in the political realm.  It does mean that the state won’t establish a church, nor will it establish a theocracy.  Of all the social conservatives I know I don’t know of anyone advocating that.

Another thing that Gross said when talking about the recruitment of the right kind of candidates.  I agree with him when he said we need to identify those who are community leaders, not just the strongest ideologues.  He’s right.  Look for people who have done something in the community.  Who has influence, who has shown results.  Who has a record of getting things done.  He then said that we tend to “recruit the pastor of a breakaway church who homeschools their kids.”

Afterwards I was tempted to introduce myself saying, “Hi, I’m Shane and I’m a former pastor who homeschools his kids,” but I resisted.  He obviously doesn’t know many pastors.  How many pastors have run or actually want to run any way?  Most would consider that a demotion as they already have a higher office.  I don’t know what he means by breakaway churches, but many pastors are community leaders and carry influence.  Not that every pastor is qualified and should run, but it shouldn’t disqualify you either.  Many pastors I know are heavily invested in their communities and would be an asset in elected office.

Regarding homeschooling… Doug Gross should ask Mike Huckabee and President Bush how important homeschooling families were to their campaign in Iowa.  Remarks like this does nothing for party unity.

My point is while we can’t just be a one issue party.  If Branstad ends up running he’ll have to be a unifier.  Here in Iowa we do need to reach out to like-minded independents, but we can’t neglect the base.  Evangelicals and social conservatives don’t want to be used for their votes; they want their issues acted on.  They don’t want a wink and a nod, but commitment.  So the successful candidate in Iowa will have focus on the economic issues since that is the current felt need, but at the same time demonstrate a commitment to traditional values.

To throw social conservatism under the bus or to sweep it under the rug is a losing strategy.  If you lose the evangelicals and social conservatives in Iowa, you will also lose elections.  It’s not one or the other.  It needs to be both.

7 comments
  1. They invited Doug Gross to a “Conservative” breakfast? Am I the only one that finds the humor in that?

  2. Great post my friend.

    Focus on local leaders who raise taxes, government salaries, maybe blindly increase funding for failing schools and promise only to better administer government or slow its growth. Maybe some local leaders who directly profit from specific legislation?

    The Golden Dome crowd are precisely the people in the party that are not inclusive. That group welcomes only those who blindly accept the entrenched party elite that has now brought 5 consecutive electoral defeats in Iowa and anyone who raises questions, is very quickly driven out. After all, who in the party is very publicly telling whom to shut up and fall in line?

    The Golden Dome crowd went nuts when I suggested we seat 25 or 30 high impact volunteers or potential candidates up front at our boring dinners because our large donors, whose seating wouldn’t have been adversely affected anyway, would object to sitting next to such people. The donors themselves, of course, had no objections but the appratchicks sure did.

    We certainly do need to embrace new people and new policy solutions but without changing or hiding our principles. We aren’t the Democrats, we only have experienced long term success when we draw Reagan’s proverbial bright lines. But, we lose when we abandon those principles when governing and reward only a small number of our most affluent and least ideological constintuencies.

    Since Iowa is majority pro-life and a super majority anti-homosexual marriage, and our last gubernatorial candidate polled around 45 or 46%, I would suggest locking down those constituencies while offering the public something new, like actually smaller government in the way of economic policies.

    Finally, on this rant, we cannot campaign on the spending abuses of Democrats if we have the same faces (e.g. Christopher Rants, Doug Gross, etc…) that are so publicly identified with our own brand of corporate cronyism and spending abuse as the faces of our party. The average Iowa Republican, much less the average Iowan, isn’t all that invested in the Values Fund corporations and who does better in the lobby but they are invested in their own day to day problems.

    Maybe we’d better figure out how to solve them.

    1. @Theodore Sporer, Great points Ted. I’m all for telling people what I’m for.

      I’m for traditional marriage.
      I’m for the sanctity of life.
      I’m for fiscal discipline.
      I’m for smaller government.
      I’m for lower taxes.
      I’m for educational choice.
      I’m for maintaining state sovereignty and stopping the encroachment of the federal government.
      I’m for gun rights.
      I’m for transparency.

      I think with the current status of our state, that is truly progressive.

      So, who do you like for Governor?

  3. Good Post Shane,

    I share your flustration with Republicans who give a wink and a nod to social conservatives and then throw them under the bus. The establishment of the GOP has been one of the chief arbitrators of this strategy.

    Republicans like the gentleman you speak of in your post, continue to ignore the potential of a positive upswing in the evangelical vote. I heard Fmr. Congressman Bob McEwen speak today, and he made a point which I think was very good. He explained that there are about 65 million evangelicals in the United States. If every Evangelical voted they would decide all 50 governors, Congress, and the White House. However, only half of all evangelicals are registered to vote, and only one quarter actually vote on election day. Rep. McEwen made the point that no politician believes he can firmly rely on evangelicals to get out and vote.

    Therefore, no politician feels that he owes the evangelical Christians anything when it comes time to set priorities.

    However, an out of the box thinker, unlike the man you discussed in your post, would realize that the greatest vote ceiling lays with the evangelical Christians who are not registered nor engaged. The true swing vote is independent evangelicals.

    This man seems to represent a tired and old establishment figure who is trying worn out strategies that do not work. When the GOP establishment warns that a nominee like Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee would turn away swing voters, they are ignoring the fact that Palin and Huckabee would be a natural fit for one of the largest unengaged voter segments in the country today.

    I appreciate this blog. It is one of the few socially conservative blogs that exist today. Conservatives of your brand are severely underrepresented in the blogosphere today.
    .-= Steven Osborne ´s last blog ..Charlie Diradour Lies In Announcement Speech, Says Campaign Was A Mistake =-.

  4. Shane,

    Great post. Someday the GOP will learn that they have to fight for ALL issues in the platform and not just pick and choose on what is convenient at the time. NOBODY votes for that type of politics. Not even the mushy middle. I know that a number of people who were not comfortable Pres Obama’s radical pro-abort view still voted for him anyway. Why? Because they liked what else he had to offer (don’t understand that, but whatever). What this should tell the GOP is that you don’t change your core beliefs to win voters; you become strong on ALL the issues to win people over and give them something to vote for instead of against. The voters may not agree with everything you stand for but they trust your credibility and your conviction.

    And you got that right, Republicans will never win without the social conservatives, Chistian conservatives, values voters, or whatever they want to call us. (I believe their favorite term for us is whack-jobs.) I for one will never again pull the lever for someone who throws me under the bus.
    .-= Iowans Rock´s last blog ..Jim Tyler: A Private Citizen and Great Iowan =-.

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Sarah Palin: Fact-checking the Fact-checkers on the $3.8 Trillion Hike

By Sarah Palin Yesterday, PolitiFact.com fact-checked my statement about the coming $3.8…

Everyone Looked Bad After James Comey’s Testimony

Shane Vander Hart: Watching as former FBI Director James Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee there were no winners, only losers.

How Close are We to War with Libya: Will a No Fly Zone Result in Nation Building? (Updated)

Following the relatively peaceful uprisings resulting in regime change in Tunisia and…

AP and The Des Moines Register Spin Extension of Bush Tax Cuts

I missed the Associated Press article by Stephen Ohlemacher yesterday until I…