How to build a Northwest conservatism
Conservatives in the region pay too much heed to national conservative themes and not enough to the deep values of the Northwest. These values do not necessitate liberal politics.
Just over half a century ago, conventional wisdom declared that America was all liberal, with a few McCarthyites on one fringe and a handful of communists on the other. The liberal scholar Lionel Trilling wrote in 1950, “nowadays there are no conservative or reactionary ideas in general circulation.” Rather, “liberalism is not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition.”
Much the same could be said for the Northwest these days. With the resounding defeat of Republicans in statewide and Congressional elections last month, there are reasons for liberals to proclaim their title to the Pacific Northwest. There are also reasons to suppose that Republicans are doomed to an inherent disadvantage in Washington state.
Of course, there’s nothing new about the idea that this is a liberal state. Our earliest settlers included experimentalists of various sorts, socialists, hookers, hard-living loggers, and — like anyplace out West— people who wanted to leave behind their roots for a fresh start and no rules. It’s not just geography that separates us from the Bible Belt. And for the most part, Washington has been a Democrat-voting state since the Great Depression. Most of our great politicians — Henry Jackson and Warren Magnuson among them — were Democrats.
One reason that Washington Republicans have not been successful at building a long-term governing majority is that Northwesterners are independent. It’s difficult for any society, much less one that abhors establishments, to get together the sorts of broad coalitions that make it possible to elect candidates. Democrats can pull it off because they tend to organize around interest groups (unions, public employees, feminists, seniors) instead of shared principles. As for Republicans, Tim Eyman’s signature gatherers don’t deal much with Dan Evans’ disciples, who don’t want much to do with Ellen Craswell’s crowd. Dino Rossi was the closest Republicans came in generations to having a statewide leader who could unite the party from east to west and from middle to right.
But even unity in the party would not be enough to change the idea that this is a liberal, Democratic region. The main reason that Washington Republicans lose elections is that they have never attached themselves to the idea of the Pacific Northwest. They have generally fed off of “conservatism” as a national movement (“I liked Ronald Reagan, therefore I’m a Republican”), or they have constructed the party on policy impulses (“I don’t like taxes, therefore I’m a Republican”), instead of identifying a distinctive and unifying vision that matches the place we live.
If Republicans are ever going to challenge the assumption that this is a fundamentally liberal state, conservatives — the ideological base of the Republican Party — will have to engage in a deeper conversation about our region than we’ve ever had before.
Finding a Northwestern vision will require more than tweaking campaign talking points or finding better candidates in the next election. Of course they have to do those things. But demographic charts don’t win over the public imagination. Building a Republican Party that wins elections time and again will require serious thinking about the basic identity of the Pacific Northwest.
When Trilling observed that there were no conservative “ideas in general circulation,” he didn’t mean that America was without conservative impulses. But Ronald Reagan would never have been elected if the conservative movement was a mere bundle of impulses. Impulses must be articulated, and the conservative movement began with ideas, with thoughtful scholars and writers like William F. Buckley, Milton Friedman, and several others who were willing to challenge the assumption that America was fundamentally liberal. These thinkers were concerned about recovering the defining principles of America. They didn’t ask, “What is conservatism?” because there wasn’t a conservative movement to speak of. Instead they asked, “What is America?” and “What about America is worth conserving?”
The answer, which Reagan translated into a winning political message, was limited government, strong defense, and traditional values. To communicate these principles, Reagan didn’t have to become a policy wonk. He told the American story and captured the nation’s imagination.
Today’s conservatives across the country need to update the conversation about America’s identity to the demands of a global information age when we face new kinds of challenges in the world and a new search for meaning in our communities. As the world of Microsoft and Amazon draws us beyond home, it’s all the more important for us to conserve the good things close to home.
And conservative leaders in the Northwest ought to come together over the question: “What is the Pacific Northwest?” In other words, “What about the Northwest is worth conserving?”
I suspect that they would be delighted and inspired by what they find. We live in the most beautiful corner of creation. We take pride in our cities and towns, our families and schools. We believe in the freedom to create and innovate and prosper. It is the story of pioneer settlers and mountain women, of the Pacific Rim and the Scandinavians, of Bill Boeing and Bill Gates. When we finally get down to what the people of Washington love and want to conserve the most, we’ll find that it’s the stuff of a broad movement that translates to politics: free markets, strong local communities, and the environment.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Comments:
Posted Fri, Dec 26, 8:17 a.m. inappropriate
This is just the usual set of platitudes, not even warmed over. From the Claremont right wing think tank indeed that hasn't had an original thought or formulation or concept in years. Best as I can tell, the folks who flocked to these parts turned Puget Sound into one huge super-fund site in little more than a century. What do "conservative" or "liberal" even mean in this context? What is being "conserved" ?
The most astonishing thing really is that "government for and by the people" has been turned into contentious matter. How about: "government as needed" - as we agree to need it to govern ourselves? As to values, it is not very long ago that the "witches of Wenatchee" were going strong. Keep that "elephant" out of my bedroom! The original, North European, puritanical streak is far more in evidence here than in the countries where most of these folks grandparents came from. If Cold Warrior military industrial complex "Scoop" Jackson was nominally a "democrat" that only goes to show that to do the things he wanted he needed to join that party, just as if you want to be effective in Nebraska there is no other game in town aside the Republican party.
Posted Fri, Dec 26, 8:45 a.m. inappropriate
here is a fine paul krugmann piece on "goo-goo-government"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/26/opinion/26krugman.html?_r=1&ref;=opinion
that addresses some of these matters:" F.D.R. managed to navigate these treacherous political waters safely, greatly improving government’s reputation even as he vastly expanded it. As a study recently published by the National Bureau of Economic Research puts it, “Before 1932, the administration of public relief was widely regarded as politically corrupt,” and the New Deal’s huge relief programs “offered an opportunity for corruption unique in the nation’s history.” Yet “by 1940, charges of corruption and political manipulation had diminished considerably.”
How did F.D.R. manage to make big government so clean?
A large part of the answer is that oversight was built into New Deal programs from the beginning. The Works Progress Administration, in particular, had a powerful, independent “division of progress investigation” devoted to investigating complaints of fraud. This division was so diligent that in 1940, when a Congressional subcommittee investigated the W.P.A., it couldn’t find a single serious irregularity that the division had missed.
F.D.R. also made sure that Congress didn’t stuff stimulus legislation with pork: there were no earmarks in the legislation that provided funding for the W.P.A. and other emergency measures.
Last but not least, F.D.R. built an emotional bond with working Americans, which helped carry his administration through the inevitable setbacks and failures that beset its attempts to fix the economy.
So what are the lessons for the Obama team?
First, the administration of the economic recovery plan has to be squeaky clean. Purely economic considerations might suggest cutting a few corners in the interest of getting stimulus moving quickly, but the politics of the situation dictates great care in how money is spent. And enforcement is crucial: inspectors general have to be strong and independent, and whistle-blowers have to be rewarded, not punished as they were in the Bush years."
I remember well from my 25 years in New York all those honest mail deliverers, honest subway workers, or to put it differently: the outcry there was when one of Ike's people - Shermann Adams was it ? - was caught accepting a vicuna coat! From a vicuña coat to billions upon billions of contractor fund embezzled and overcharged in Iraq. Now there is progress! To mention just this item in the Republican list of accomplishments!
Posted Fri, Dec 26, 9:04 a.m. inappropriate
mikerol - thanks for your comment, but I know that this isn't "the usual set of platitudes." I've been thinking through these ideas and discussing them with conservatives in the area for awhile. What I'm talking about here is something that very few conservatives have talked about of late: I'm talking about a regional-based conservative conversation that goes deeper than politics and policy. Most of the recent national discussions about the future of conservatism concern who will run for president in four years and how to tweak talking points. I'd say conservatives have to do something more: step back from politics and ask deeper questions about the country. Here in WA State, conservatives need to ask deeper questions about what is important to conserve in our region. I think it's strong communities, the environment, and free markets. The point is, conservatives may have to think outside the box. They may have to look for leadership outside of national talk radio and Reagan nostalgia. They may have to do some original thinking about what it means to live in the most beautiful corner of the world. They may have to enter dialogue with liberal neighbors to discover that we all share some common values in our corner of the world. I'm not sure that I have everything right in framing this, so I value your feedback. - HANS
Posted Fri, Dec 26, 9:05 a.m. inappropriate
It is going to be difficult to "conservify" this region. The west coast has long been the destination of cultural refugees from the rest of the nation. Just think of the long history of misfits from small town America that ride into the sunset and head west hoping to fulfill dreams or escape some boring burg, maybe a place where "Adam & Steve" can kiss and no one cares. These folks have made quite a smart and beautiful place over the past 150 years. Hard work and obsessive creativity have resulted in great art, products and services that mark the region. The problem with modern conservatism and WA state Republicans, IMO, is the Crasswell/ Eyman factor. Quite simply it comes off mean, selfish and most importantly, short sighted. If you want to live in conservative country, you have way more of the lions share of the geographic USA but the NW is liberal country, this is ours and we will fight for it.
Posted Fri, Dec 26, 9:18 a.m. inappropriate
Purple - two things
1. "The problem with modern conservatism and WA state Republicans, IMO, is the Crasswell/ Eyman factor. Quite simply it comes off mean, selfish and most importantly, short sighted." Totally agreed. Which is why I'm proposing going deeper than this to discuss Pacific Northwest, which are certainly not all Eymanesque, certainly not all Craswellian - and not all liberal.
2. Just because our history seems to predispose us to be fundamentally liberal, doesn't mean that we are always going to be liberal. Just because the earliest Puritan settlers of Massachusetts were really conservative doesn't mean that Massachusetts is conservative in 2008. I'm fascinated by Knute Berger's suggestion that Seattle can be a "slow city." http://crosscut.com/2008/12/24/mossback/18729/ He writes, "It's tough for Americans to see virtue in being slow and rooted, but in our genes we Northwesterners have leaned a little in that direction. Sure, Seattle's been a boom or bust town, but the old settlers sang about being contented with a life of ease while gorging on 'acres of clams' on Puget Sound. That is a slacker hymn if there ever was one. If anyone in the West can slow down, it ought to be us." We've become a settled place, which means that there are certain permanent values that have become attached to the Northwest. A Northwestern conservatism would have to be built around these values. - HANS
Posted Fri, Dec 26, 9:35 a.m. inappropriate
I think the writer makes an important point about steeping regional politics in regional issues and identity. Both parties have competed to see which can be the biggest shill for the business community and often act as if the commercial vision for the region is the only vision. Liberals, however, have done a much better job of addressing regional issues because of the centrality of environmental thinking and policy to the progressive agenda, be it transportation, cleaning up Puget Sound, or simply thinking of the region as a living entity, a bio-region. (Interestingly, the region's single most influential utopian tract, Ecotopia by Ernest Callenbach, is widely seen as a lefty manifesto, but there is a conservative strain in that vision too.) In addition, federal largesse has largely shaped and transformed the region (dams, nuclear power, agriculture). There is a conservative, populist libertarian impulse throughout the West, but by its nature it is hard to harness. But a conservative regional response that is not solely dictated by, say, the agenda of the BIAW would be welcome. One interesting thing is whether conservatives in Washington and Oregon could learn anything from their successful counterparts in British Columbia or Alberta.
Posted Fri, Dec 26, 9:57 a.m. inappropriate
Ok Puyallupan, great if you can run a candidate who values, supports and invests in our environment, schools and infrastructure and will lay off the gays, abortion and theocracy lust- you just may start winning elections. But it must be more than greenwashed conservatism, more than lip service. Are you willing to support bills such as the GMA that may step on someones property rights or should we allow pavement and wal marts from the Columbia to Canada? Will your candidate be willing to support equal rights for gays, tax gas for roads and bridges? After all we all don't make money in a vacuum. It's going to come down to taking real positions on specific issues that NWers value. If your "NW conservative" candidate speaks to these issues I may vote for him/her.
Posted Fri, Dec 26, 10:18 a.m. inappropriate
puyallup, thanks for the reply.
1] strong communities - i noticed during my 15 years here the explosion of building that occurred in south king county, as no doubt have you. that kind of cookie cutter architecture has occurred at other times too: look at how quickly the "craftsman" style became industrialized after the turn of the century. some communities are less at the mercy of the economic engine that drives development. as to conserving: how many lompocs i think it is [a disneyfied version of denmark north of st. barbara] or faux Bavarian villages can you build? how many faux "old time" western nostalgias? nothing against slow: i am a king of slowness these days, but this is not an option, generally, unless you have made your "nut," or don't give a hoot about it. perhaps a different vocabulary is needed than the use of "conservative" and "liberal" - yes, it is feasible i suppose to maintain a small plot agrarian existence east of the cascades, but most of the agriculture there, too, is nationally and globally connected and dependent, seattle tacoma are major ports, dependent on expansion, on trade. capitalism is the most dynamic building and destruction engine ever. the military industrial complex has a huge footprint in the region, courtesy of "scoop" jackson; even "Bugdud Jim" McDermott brings in military pork! mossback has been on a nostalgia kick for many years now - for what exactly? it doesn't ring too. if i've been nostalgic it is for the year 1900 when a grand uncle of mine came here and first worked as a boatman on the frazier river [he'd just missed the gold rush] and eventually became one of the founders of the vancouver, b.c. stock exchange. those were wild and wooly times and i am sorry to have missed them. but even revolutionaries, of whatever kind, once and if they win, want to stay in power, and live their kind of conservative life, unless they are that rare being, a trotzyite who doesn't hold on to power and believes in a permanently revolutionary state of being.
Posted Fri, Dec 26, 10:33 a.m. inappropriate
Hans,
You make a lot of valid and interesting points. Conservatives, however, need to remember that politics is about governing, not debating theories.
To win back swing voters conservatives/Republicans need to offer specific solutions to real problems. Phrases like "strong communities, the environment, and free markets," don't mean anything to non-ideological voters. They just want to know what you're going to do to help them get a job, make their kids' school better, and get the snow and ice off the street in less than a week.
Conservatives love to debate things like whether or not bailing out the auto industry is consistent with "free market values." Real people don't care. If it works they're for it; if it doesn't they're against it. We need to offer real ideas that really work.
Posted Fri, Dec 26, 11:31 a.m. inappropriate
The most bizarre thing about all this conservative soul searching is what isn't mentioned - competence, intelligence, long term vision, judgement, effective management skills.
I guess it's no surprise given that the conservative hall of fame has just one lonely member, Ronald Reagan, and conservatives like to attribute his success to his persona rather than basic leadership skills.
Until conservatives embrace competence as a core value, no one should vote for them. And until they learn to truly love their country and the liberal principles it was founded upon, their legacy of shame (Nixon, Bush, Cheney, McCarthy) will only grow.
Posted Fri, Dec 26, 11:33 a.m. inappropriate
Chris,
Thanks for the reply. There are two extremes that I think we can fall into in politics - one is to be overly intellectual, the other is to be overly practical. Politics is both things, an intellectual and a practical endeavor.
First, I'll agree with you (as I suggested in our email exchange) that politics is practical. It's about building a winning coalition. It requires compromise, prioritization, and a constant assessment of public interests. To your great credit, you have developed this practical art as few Republicans have done in our region. I think your argument about the importance of the suburbs is probably correct as far as demographics go.
Second, politics, as the greatest politicians have practiced it, is also an intellectual endeavor. Aristotle defined politics as the ordering of the community in pursuit of the highest ends. To do that practical thing, it's necessary to know something about those highest ends. Statesmanship requires deep study. People like the Founding Fathers, Lincoln, Churchill, and Reagan were serious about big ideas. Of course, they weren't stuck in an ivory tower. They understood the link between ends and means. They built their winning coalitions around unifying visions that addressed the great challenges of their times. For the Founders and Lincoln, it was the ideas contained in the Declaration of Independence. For Churchill, it was the idea of Great Britain and the West. For Reagan, it was the idea of limited government, strong defense, and traditional values. Yes, these leaders also studied and perfected the art of policy. They also inspired people with unifying visions.
I think the best contemporary example of this is President-elect Obama. Why did most young people (my generation) vote for Obama? Not because his particular policies were exciting, but because he's inspiring. He seems to articulate the American Story in a fresh way that resonates with something inside of people. Most people don't have a clear set of policies on which they vote. That stuff is obviously very important, but I think imagination may go further than policy positions when it comes to winning the most important battles.
So again, there's two extremes - one is to go around talking about theories without any way to build coalitions to do anything about them. The other is to pursue political means without a clear idea of ends. My point about the Northwest is not that we should retreat into an ivory tower and stay there, but that some deeper thinking about our region's values would be helpful for very practical reasons. If we can find a way to tell the Pacific Northwest story in a way that inspires people, we can do what FDR did for the Democrats (and what Obama is trying to do again) or what Reagan did for the Republicans.
HANS
Posted Fri, Dec 26, 12:05 p.m. inappropriate
I agree with Chris, just look at the shallow four-year-old sound-bites Dino Rossi was using in the debates just two months ago. The more meaningful idiology behind it, if it was there, did not get expressed in tangible action plans.
When pressed Rossi spat across the board spending cuts. What decade is this?
Posted Fri, Dec 26, 12:14 p.m. inappropriate
Mr. Vance the pragmatist! Whatever works works is what gets you where we are at!
Posted Fri, Dec 26, 12:33 p.m. inappropriate
Hans,
Soaring rhetoric can go down in history, but events drive politics; and elections are usually lost, not won:
The Founders weren't able to generate support for independence until the British overreached and sent a large body of troops to America and attacked Boston.
Lincoln only won in 1860 because the Democrats bungled the slavery issue and split their party.
Churchill was an outcast until it became clear that the appeasement policy of Baldwin and Chamberlain had failed. As soon as the war was over the British people booted him out of office because Labor promised them free housing and health care.
Reagan won because of Carter's disasterous handling of the hostage crisis and the economy.
And Obama won because of Iraq, Katrina, and the stock market, not because he gave great speeches.
Posted Fri, Dec 26, 12:48 p.m. inappropriate
The Dems had a runner start at the 2008 presidential race by the bungling of the long desrired position of national power by the likes of Tom DeLay.
Posted Fri, Dec 26, 4:54 p.m. inappropriate
Chris, you are hitting way too hard on the stock market as the single factor behind Obama and Gregoire's victories. Six months before the election, all the economic indicators showed that Obama was going to win--the housing market collapse/stock market collapse merely provided the final push to the dagger. Eight years of Republican failure on the war and the economy started the decline and Obama's oratorical abilities and big-time intelligence did quite a bit to push him over the top. The Republicans badly underestimated the guy and it seems like you are still making the same mistake.
Posted Fri, Dec 26, 5:57 p.m. inappropriate
J.R.,
I think the events of the last 4 years, plus Obama's skills as a candidate, got him elected. I think the stock market collapse turned a close race into a landslide.
Posted Fri, Dec 26, 6:07 p.m. inappropriate
Reagan translated into a winning political message, was limited government, strong defense, and traditional values.
While Regan ran on these ideas the fact of the matter is that he expanded government and left us deeply in debt. And please define "Traditional Values."
They should be more sentimental about Puget Sound than the sound of family farms being paved over.
I'm not sure what you mean here.
Posted Fri, Dec 26, 6:10 p.m. inappropriate
Chris, the polls look like a sea of blue to me:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html
Posted Sat, Dec 27, 7:52 a.m. inappropriate
Chris,
You write, "Soaring rhetoric can go down in history, but events drive politics." I agree that events drive politics, and I agree that soaring rhetoric is not everything to the art of good politics. It also requires good strategy and good principles.
In the past century, four presidents and one president-elect have had once-in-a-generation opportunities to take huge actions in response to huge events. Always the president's party was in control of Congress, and mostly, as you say, events had brought the president to power. Their ability to respond effectively and maintain political power (and build a long-term governing majority) is contingent on their strategic skills, principles, and rhetorical skills.
Woodrow Wilson had his great opportunity with World War I and lacked the STRATEGIC skills to make the best of it
Franklin Roosevelt had his first opportunity in 1933 and his second at the outbreak of World War II and he had all 3 of the essential traits
LBJ had a mandate after JFK was assassinated and lacked all 3 of the necessary traits, as he proved with his execution of the Vietnam War
George W. Bush had a mandate after 9/11 and lacked the RHETORICAL skills to make the best of it
Barack Obama has a mandate now. He may have political skills like FDR.
Posted Sat, Dec 27, 10:10 a.m. inappropriate
Hans,
I think we're both straying a bit from the orginal subject. I simply believe that Republicans have relied too much on rhetoric in the past and need to get specific in order to win back swing voters.
Posted Sat, Dec 27, 10:18 a.m. inappropriate
Here's some advice for all Republicans, Northwest and elsewhere, in this holiday season and into the new year: go offline in a corner somewhere and figure out your future as the conservative party. Make sure you address what "a broad movement that translates to politics: free markets, strong local communities, and the environment" means in the context of massive corporate bailouts, communities that are reeling from record unemployment, and your party's denial that global climate change has it's roots in human activites. And you might also consider whether the old and tiresome liberal-conservative dichotomy has any currency in a post-Bush world. This would allow the rest of us to concentrate on the real problems facing the U.S., including its moral responsibility to assist the billion or so mortals around the globe who have a tough time even finding their daily bread.
Posted Sat, Dec 27, 10:32 a.m. inappropriate
dn,
George W. Bush massively increased America's foreign aid efforts.
http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/February/20070205173017esnamfuak8.193606e-02.html
Another specific policy that Republicans need to talk about more often
Posted Sat, Dec 27, 4:21 p.m. inappropriate
This is an interesting piece. And good discussion.
I'm one of those "liberal gun nuts." In fact, I think the Second Amendment is our most liberal right.
So, I think the problem here is one of definition.
This is what I think liberalism is: "A political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties."
I cannot find a similar positive statement about conservatism that accurately represents the actions of conservatives. Mostly, I see conservatism as basically the Great Oz of talk radio roaring in reaction against liberalism.
"Traditional values..." for example. What is that in so young and dynamic a place as the Pacific Northwest? No, really, what IS it?
I just see no there there in conservatism (hyphenated or not) as it relates to us in the Northwest. Once you get beyond the idea that, yeah, we all hate paying taxes, you run smack into the reality that one person's "waste, fraud & abuse" is someone else's idea of essential governance.
Or is it really true in the end that conservatism is just the advocacy of wealth in the Northwest? I don't see that either. Does the G.O.P. represent small business? Or Wal-Mart? Costco? Or Stimson? RealNetworks? Or Microsoft?
What I do see in the Northwest is a struggle WITHIN liberalism, between libertarians and progressives. That is the fulcrum I teeter totter on. It is what distinguishes libertarian Oregon from goo-goo Washington. Now THAT is a relevant debate.
But I see libertarians thwarted time and time again by their unholy alliance with the church ladies.
As a scarred warrior of the 30-year conservation/preservation wars, I like the idea of conservatism trying to become the new environmentalism. Nukes vs. dams. Can't wait.
Posted Sat, Dec 27, 6:21 p.m. inappropriate
I just noticed there are no references to Dan Evans in the article or the comments anywhere. What's up with that?
I rarely vote for Republicans because we need governance and you can't get quality governance from people who hate government. Evans is a good example of a Republican who believes in the value of governance and also embodies much of what the author of post spoke about.
Posted Sat, Dec 27, 10:24 p.m. inappropriate
I chuckled when I heard young Mr. Flake from AZ define RINO'S as Democrats with different friends. Dan Evans' disciples just have different friends. IMHO, GOP must do two things.
1) The Republican Party MUST quit trying to out "Democrat" the Democrats.
2) Re-embrace the idea of governing in a limited, transparent, responsible, and non-intrusive manner. A philosophy not held by either Deomcrats or Republicans.
I understand the author's point regarding Northwesterners have been a population somewhat indenpendent and one that abhors establishments. However, that demographic is no longer the majority. Elections in the state of WA are won between Snohomish and Tumwater, along I-5. There isn't much of an independent and establishment abhorring population living in that terrain.
Currently, the PAC NW political landscape is defined by tensions of definition. Liberalism as in Jeffersonian (Hard-living Loggers and Hookers), or Liberalism as in Wilsonian "confiscatory" Keynes economic applications (Socialists)...? And as other here have articulated here: what are we, here in the NW, trying to conserve? Thus more definitional tension. Quite frankly, at the foundation I have difficulty with why the tension must exist. (By the way, FDR called the PAC NW "His Grand little Soviet." Not sure we want relish in continuing that legacy. The GMA is an example of that legacy.)
Posted Sun, Dec 28, 8:48 p.m. inappropriate
Oops, there is a reference to Evans after all.
Posted Thu, Jan 1, 3:50 p.m. inappropriate
Mr. Zeiger makes an excellent point for future GOP candidates: your campaign and platform needs to be pragmatic and localized. While events do often drive campaigns, an agile candidate/campaign will respond in a way that bridges back to their platform.
Sentimental reflections on state parks and campgrounds is nice; real proposals to cleaning up the region's waterways is more compelling. Talking about hybrid cars and salmon culverts is nice; being able to point to environmental leaders/groups backing your campaign, and why, is what wins.
If the GOP wants to win in the next cycle's state legislative battles, they must recruit and equip candidates with a unified message, and a strategy for communicating it. That could be a message of fiscal responsibility coupled with improving education--but it must also include serious concern for other local and regional issues like: congestion relief, infrastructure investment, environmental & energy issues.
Above all else, candidates need to zero in on their local constituencies, learn their specific concerns, address them in their messaging--and do the hard work of putting together a compelling coalition of local community leaders and decision-makers who will lend them their active support.
Posted Fri, Jan 2, 12:49 p.m. inappropriate
The romanticized independent, self-sufficient spirit that is a requisite for living in the west is neither conservative or liberal, republican or democrat. It is an apolitical state of being that is and should remain separate from the incoherent sloganeering of any national political parties. It should bring us all closer together more than push us apart. Koombayah, my friends. However, I do invite Northwest republicans to just take a moment and consider relocating to any of the places in the country that consistently reflect the political, personal, and fanatical religious values (not just the political theater) of the GOP platform. Honestly, I'd rather see local conservatives in a movement or party that does not need republicans or that party blueprint to succeed. It could open the door toward conservatives putting more attention toward conservation instead of following the leaders of a national party and identity that has paid nothing but lip service to conservation (along with science and the environment) for a generation. Though, something as radical as that may interrupt that venerable tradition of arguing at holiday dinner tables across the region for a generation. Or not.