Respond to the Republican Party

Activism for Reason, Rights, Reality
1

The other day I sent out a mass e-mail to about 40 state’s Republican Party feedback contacts concerning their ties to the religious right. Making the list of contacts took some time, so I thought I might as well post it here as well in case anyone else would like to use it. I’d also encourage anyone with some time to send their own comments. This election the Republican Party got hit hard, and while they are still reeling from the aftermath I think it’s a great opportunity to let them know what’s up. Specifically in regards to the separation of church and state. If even just a few of the more rational politicians in the party are receptive to reigning in their fire and brimstone I think it is worth it.

In my comment, I generally tried to reinforce some of the key points Paul Hsieh outlined in his post some time ago. Those points being:

-That you support the general American principles

-Separation of church and state should be embraced and religious laws rejected

-That the party has lost your support and the support of many others like you because of it

So here’s the comment from my e-mail, it’s probably a little too long:

I am writing to express my thoughts in light of this election’s sweeping Republican defeat. I used to support the Republican Party in line with it’s values some decades ago. Values such as national defense, individual rights, the right to bear arms, and free markets.

However I’m disappointed to say I can no longer support this party that has been echoing the Democrats by saying “me too” for years now. More importantly, the increasingly frightening attempts to pass laws and rule from religion is completely unacceptable. It is people like me that have been ostracized by the far right. I believe in individual rights, which includes every person’s religious freedom, but attempting to violate the freedom of others according to one minority’s religious beliefs is absolutely not something I can endorse

And so, in short, the only way I’d once again consider lending my support to the Republican Party is if they re-embrace America’s founding principles such as the separation of church and state.

Until then I will be an independent. Neither do I support the anti-American far left Democratic agenda.

I sent it out using the blind carbon copy option (BCC) so that it still appears to be a more personal singular e-mail. In order to do that I put my own e-mail in the “TO” field, and all the other recipients in the “BCC” field, which I believe is correct.

If you check their national website you can click on each state, and then find their website and contact page from there.

http://www.gop.com/Connect/States.aspx

Or here’s the contact list I used:

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

The contact options for California, Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Virginia’s parties are all embedded on their website page in case you want those specific groups.

Of course if you think you’re up to it don’t stop there. Write an LTE or Op-ed discussing the issue. I am not yet experienced with that kind of thing however, so I’ll leave it at that. Feel free to discuss those other methods of responding though if you like.

2

IchorFigure,

Nice work! :pimp: I honestly don’t think you could have written that letter much shorter and still maintained the content and context which you did. The Republican Party needs to hear about the basic distinctions which you made; otherwise, they have no reason to change course.

3

Very nice work!

And thank you for assembling that list of e-mail addresses. I’ve just send them all my own e-mail urging them to stop pursuing the agenda of the Religious Right and instead start advocating limited government, fiscal responsibility, and individual rights. If they get that message from enough people, then maybe it will help strengthen the better Republicans and nudge them in the right direction.

BTW, the note you sent them would be a good LTE. You might need to trim a few words to get it under the usual 150 word limit. Over the next few weeks, most newspapers will be running stories about Republicans going through a period of self-examination, so that would give you a natural avenue for a response. You should be able to find the e-mail address for the letters editor for your local newspaper on their website somewhere.

Keep up the great work!

4

Thanks for compiling the addresses.

5

Thank you. I’ve never really considered sending in LTE’s until recently, so I’d have to see what’s required. This election my state just voted down 3 issues fairly beholden to the religious right, so that might be a good idea to use them as a focal point as well.

6

Thank you. I’ve never really considered sending in LTE’s until recently, so I’d have to see what’s required. This election my state just voted down 3 issues fairly beholden to the religious right, so that might be a good idea to use them as a focal point as well.

Given that you’ve already done the hard work of composing a short letter to the Republicans, you might as well get the most mileage out of it as possible! Most newspapers list the relevant LTE guidelines and contact information on their website. And it’s relatively easy to get an LTE published in your local newspaper with a bit of persistence. (My hit rate for letters is a little over 50% over a 2-year period).

The most important thing it to stay under the word limit, usually 150 words. They also usually want you to include your street address as well as daytime phone numbers in your e-mail to them (so they can verify the authorship), but they won’t publish that information. And also state which article you’re replying to.

My standard intro paragraph in my e-mail follows this template:

Dear *** Newspaper Title *** letters editor:

I’d like to submit the following LTE response to “*** Article Title ***” from *** date ***.

It is intended for publication.

Thank you for your consideration,

*** My name/address/daytime phone number ***

Just for example, today’s Rocky Mountain News had a piece on the Religious Right:

“Religious right regroups after Obama win”

I just sent them the following reply:

The 2008 election shows that voters still want small government, but not the “social conservative” agenda of the Religious Right. Coloradans rejected three tax measures to fund more big-government programs “for the children”. But they also resoundingly rejected Amendment 48 (declaring a fertilized egg a “person”) and defeated pro-life Republicans Marilyn Musgrave and Bob Schaffer.

Republicans should turn away from the divisive “social” agenda of the Religious Right, such as banning abortion and stem cell research. I voted Republican in 1996, 2000, and (reluctantly) in 2004, but not 2008, precisely because of the Religious Right.

If Republicans reaffirmed the principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and separation of church and state, then I’d be happy to support them again. But if they stay in bed with the Religious Right, they will continue to alienate many independent voters and lose elections. And deservedly so.

Paul Hsieh, MD

Sedalia, CO

The ARI website also has a good set of writing tips at:

“How to Write An Effective Letter to the Editor”

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?id=11070…age=NewsArticle

Good luck!

7

Just as an example of what we’ll be up against, J.C. Watts, a former Congressman (and former #4 ranking Republican in the House in 1998) has an OpEd in today’s Las Vegas Review-Journal arguing that the Republicans need to cater more to the Religious Right:

“Winning football and winning politics”

Hence, this is another opportunity for Objectivists to reply on this topic.

I’ve already submitted an online comment as well as a shorter LTE to that newspaper.

To submit an LTE reply to this newspaper, you can use their convenient web form.

8

Hmmm ok, thanks for the helpful info Paul. I’ll see what I can do when I get time. My local paper runs a frequent public opinion column too, that could work.

That article you linked is the first I’ve heard of that tactic, what I’ve been hearing mostly so far is that they want to appeal more to the “modern” type of problems people face. Meaning the economy, environment, appealing to youth, etc. meaning just trying to be more like the Dems. One would think there are only so many options open to them; appeal more to the left, appeal more to religious groups, or attempt to rediscover the American values they pretended to stand for at one time.

9

If anyone lives in an area where an incumbent GOP legislator lost his re-election attempt, I suggest they email him a polite email telling him what he has to do to get their vote next time around.

10

If anyone lives in an area where an incumbent GOP legislator lost his re-election attempt, I suggest they email him a polite email telling him what he has to do to get their vote next time around.

Actually I’d consider mailing to any representative. Those that kept their seats did not keep their majorities in congress. They too will be experiencing a “loss” of sorts.

I think that now is the time ot make voices heard about the differences you’d like to see the in the Republican party. They are and will be openly asking for feedback and anyone’s status as somoene who once voted Rep, but did not in this or the previous election carries weight. It is a window of opportunity to make your voice count for something. Certainly, the “libertarian” wing of hte party is under voiced and under represented. Those ideas wont get a seat at the table without people openly asking for it to happen.

11

…only if you make it clear that you are talking about the loss of the majorities that happened in '06. I’ve seen more than one post that seems to be unaware that the Dems took the majority back then, not in this election. (Their majorities did *expand* this election.)

12

In order for me to better understand this particular choice for activism I would like to ask for reasons why people think it can work.

I will list few of my thoughts and open them to comments.

But if they stay in bed with the Religious Right, they will continue to alienate many independent voters and lose elections.

What is the number of independent, pro small government voters they may gain vs. number of Religious Right voters they may alienate?

To me what you and others propose is for them a political suicide. They are competing against a large number of people who want bigger government and thus won’t support them even if they become more socially liberal (they already have that on the left).

Let’s say hypothetically that they are going to be able to keep their RR support while clearly separating religion from politics (I don’t see it but ok) to attract a small number of independent, pro-small government voters (small in comparison to RR but significant enough to tip the scale in their favor) - they will still remain altruists while in power and thus poor defenders of capitalism.

I think intellectual activism is where the focus should be (I think especially in the area of ethics but I am open to other arguments) and not political activism.

(can we spit this - I would not want to hijack this thread)

13

For me it is all about the separation of church and state. Whether they want to keep fawning all over Christians or not, or somehow choose to embrace small government again, whatever. If theres any chance to give them pause to reconsider trying to force their dogmatic laws on everyone, it would be worthwhile. And this seems like a unique opportunity.

14

Sophia asks a good question.

The reason I believe that this approach would not be suicidal for the Republicans is because there are a number of Americans who are “fiscally conservative but socially liberal”. They don’t feel at home in either major political party, and they’re up for grabs. They go by a number of different names (including “South Park conservatives”, after the TV show).

There have been a number of non-Objectivists arguing lately in that this is the future of the Republican Party. Just two high-profile examples:

Dick Armey (former Republican Majority leader in the House and now head of FreedomWorks.org):

“‘Compassionate’ Conservatism Was a Mistake”

Wall Street Journal, 11/7/2008

John Avlon

“The path out of the wilderness”

Politico, 11/9/2008

My friend Ari Armstrong also discusses this issue in:

“How the Republican Party Can Create a New Winning Coalition”

(This was part 4 of his 4-part election analysis. In the other three parts, he makes the point that Colorado was a heavily courted swing state that switched from Bush in 2004 to Obama in 2008. Yet Colorado voters also rejected 3 separate tax hikes to fund more government programs “for the children”. And they also overwhelmingly defeated the anti-abortion Amendment 48 (which would declare a fertilized egg a legal “person”. And they also rejected multiple pro-life religious Republican candidates including Musgrave and Szabo for the House and Schaffer for the Senate.)

At work, I know a number of moderate Republicans who fit the “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” profile. Most of them were turned off by the selection of Palin as VP because they thought it was pulling the Party in the wrong direction. So although McCain may have energized his base, I know he also “de-energized” a number of moderates and independents.

Whichever political party can capture that middle of “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” independent voters in the long run will win.

I also completely agree that the primary effort should be intellectual activism, as opposed to political activism. But in this context, I think one can combine those efforts by (1) arguing for a philosophy of individual rights that resonates with those independent voters and gives consistent and explicit principles behind their emotional “sense of life”, and (2) simultaneously tell politicians that this is what voters want and that if they support these ideas, they will attract voters (and win elections).

Of course, Objectivists are not just another flavor of “centrists”. Instead, we offer clarity and principles, and that’s what the Republicans are searching for right now, at both the individual and Party level. If we don’t articulate our ideas right now, then others will (offering their own warped versions of “priniciples” and “clarity”, but based on faith and mysticism).

I don’t expect that Republicans will all convert to Objectivism. But we don’t need to have that happen. We simply have to get people starting to talk seriously about our ideas as part of the mainstream debate. Once that happens, then we have a good chance of winning, because (as Ayn Rand pointed out multiple times), we have the ultimate allies – reason and reality.

But to get our ideas in circulation, we have to be willing to advocate for them over and over again. Fortunately, the time is ripe right now for them to get a hearing. It’s up to us to seize this opportunity before it slips away.

15

I think people like Rudy Giuliani fit the"fiscally conservative, socially liberal" profile. He ran such a poor campaign that it is still unknown as to whether such a candidate can win nationally. But regionally the answer is yes. Republicans need a regional strategy: the fiscally conservative, socially liberal style that wins on the east and west coast like Giuliani, Ptaki, Romney that might carry traditional blue states in a general election. A Republican that can win in places like New York or California can afford to lose the Christians in Alabama. But they need to develope these type of candidates first.

16

Let’s say hypothetically that they are going to be able to keep their RR support while clearly separating religion from politics (I don’t see it but ok) to attract a small number of independent, pro-small government voters (small in comparison to RR but significant enough to tip the scale in their favor) - they will still remain altruists while in power and thus poor defenders of capitalism.

I think this is indeed a very good question, but at the same time I do not think you can draw a conclusion that it is a mistake without running the analysis. Note that it is not just an analysis of how many fundamentalists there are, vs. how many “libertarians” there are. Voters vote on values heirarchies so the question is more like “How many people who hold strong ‘culturally’ conservative positions (i.e. pro-life) will change their vote if a candidate upholding freedom of religion, small government were the Republican option.” This takes into account also what the next best alternative choice is - say a statist liberal.

This would compare against those socially liberal, fiscally conservatives who the party lost, who would return on such a platform, along with other moderates who might find this palatable.

I think it is erroneous to assume that one population is very large and the other is very small wihtout some data. When I looked at this originally, just the number of people who had specifically “libertarian” leanings numbered in the 10’s of millions. That is of the order of magnitude of fundamentalists.

Certainly if one runs an “anti-religion” platform, it will be political suicide, however, the platform that Ari Armstrong advocates above is not that type. Rather it focuses on “freedom of religion” (i.e. a non-activist role for religion). In my small, corporate town, which is decidedly republican, I know many people, especially conservatives who attend church, but do not like fundamentalists inserting religious views into politics. Being corporate types these people woudl readily vote for a small govt republican even if he wasn’t pro-life, over a big govt liberal. If you look only at church membership it appers that the numbers of votes lost is far larger than it really is.

It is a very complex analysis, akin to a marketing study. I agree however, the intellecutal activism is a high priority. Politically, however, I would push for those persons who adovcate similar ideas as Ari’s and push for their voice to be heard. A good example are the key conservative intellectuals who did not support McCain such as David Frum, George Will, Christopher Buckley, Peggy Noonan, Andrew Sullivan, etc. These represent the largest coalition from the more libertarian side of hte Republican party. Andrew Sullivan, one of the most read bloggers on the web, for instance is a homosexual, Roman Catholic, libertarian who specifically wrote a book discussing the take over of hte Rep Party by fundamentalists. Christian. He has been an outright Obama supporter, but also advocating principles to help the Rep party recover. These are the kind of people who we need to highlight in the debate politically. Of course while making sure not to pollute ideas we don’t find compatible, intellectually. Striking this balance, of working with groups of non-Objectivist ideas on commonly held beliefs without sanctioning ideas we don’t agree with is something Objectivists need to learn to do. Yaron Brook spoke to this idea at OCON.

17

I just posted a comment to Opinion Journal in response to a “where to now, for the Republicans” type article, where I stated by saying they need to tell the Religious Right to pound sand.

Alas I didn’t save the text, but we’ll see if they post it.

(The long-silent voice emits a tentative croak…)

18

A similar discussion here.

http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archiv…ublican_aga.php

Megan, says no, we can’t get rid of the religious right, and it too is speculative (i.e. no numbers).

19

This article is currently being featured on Associated Content and it more-or-less espouses the same ideas talked about in this thread. If nothing else it reinforces the idea there are real people out there receptive to the idea.

20

Well, apparently I will never learn if my WSJ comment got published. Only the first page of comments will display in my browser (Firefox 3.0), after taking a *ridiculous* amount of time to load (even by dialup standards). World Wide Web crapware.