Big Tent Theory
I recall decades ago, when I was less conservative, Reagan’s Big Tent appeal. When contrasted against today’s Big Tent proposal, I am struck by their opposition to each other. On the one hand you had Reagan drawing people together based on shared ideals. On the other hand, you have politicians trying to draw a party together based on name.
With one there is definition, a certainty of what it stands for and an inclusiveness that sees no barrier based on political titles. It did not care if you were Democrat or Republican; Green or Libertarian so long as you shared a common set of ideals. It was, ultimately, the difference between Liberal and Conservative. Neither were truly tied to any one party other than a majority of either residing in each party. It was why Reagan appealed to more than just Republicans; he appealed to Conservatives.
With the other there is uncertainty, a lack of definition that only sees a vague outline called Republican. It does not care if you are Liberal or Conservative, it only cares if you are called a Republican. It sees the success of the opposition and does not take into consideration the totality of why the opposition is in control. It does not think that they should define themselves more clearly but that the definition that once made the party so successful should be abandoned. In so doing it clearly fails to see that the Republican take over in ‘80 and ‘94 as well as the Democrat take over in ‘06 were due to candidates espousing Conservatism. The Republican loss of the Presidency in 2008 to Obama was not due to conservative ideal, it was due to the lack of any solid ideal. McCain’s appeal was to party and a vague sense of ‘togetherness’. Obama appealed to non-liberals because he sounded more conservative after winning the nomination while liberals already knew he didn’t mean it because they knew what his real ideal was.
The Republican party’s success and failure are seen in Reagan vs. Bush (all three: H, G, and J). Government as a problem vs. government as a solution. Ideals vs. party success. Certainly G. W. Bush was not a Liberal, but his approach was certainly less Conservative and in the end relied on government providing solutions to everyday matters. Certainly Reagan was a Republican, but only because the Republican party reflected ideals he cherished. I think people forget that Reagan was once a Democrat and changed parties because the parties ideals shifted more and more towards Liberalism. Contrast that with Arlen Specter who changed parties because he realized he would not prevail in the senate primaries in his State as a Republican because he had become more and more Liberal.
When I look at Obama, I see a likeable man. But his ideals, his values, are contrary to very foundation of this Nation. When you listen to what he says, you hear a man who has little love for America except for how much he can make it reflect his ideals and his values. Reagan, too, was a likeable man. His ideals and values reflected strongly the ideals and values that founded this Nation. What he said and how he acted demonstrated his love for this country and how much he wanted this country to better reflect that foundation.
Reagan’s Big Tent was successful because he had an ideal. It was an ideal people recognized and understood as standing for America. It was an ideal that welcomed you with open arms regardless of your political party. It was uncompromising.
Today’s Republican party’s Big Tent is going to be unsuccessful because it seeks political expediency over ideals (see California’s Arnold Schwarzenegger – he is an example of political expediency over ideals). It welcomes only those who abandon ideals, only those who will say they are Republican. It attempts to mimic the opposition thinking that it will garner more votes yet by this compromise, makes itself a mere shadow of the opposition. To that, people can only ask: why vote you when we can vote for the real deal?
You cannot build a political party on vagueness. You can certainly run a political campaign on vagueness – Obama did so, but you cannot build a party on it and expect it to weather adversity. Reagan’s Big Tent appealed to all because the ideas were clear, fundamental, and uncompromising. The Neo-Repub’s Big Tent attempts to be appealing by losing any sense of foundation and by so doing presents an unstable and thus unappealing party that appeals to few – even Republicans.
Here is to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. May the Republican party soon recall that most basic foundation upon which we declared our Independence and by its very nature necessitates a small and unobtrusive government dedicated to protecting those most basic and fundamental of rights from enemies both without and within our borders. The alternative is at best the dissolution of the Republican party and at worst, it being a mere shadow of the Democrat party.