Modern American politics close to prevents the complete collapse of one of our two major political parties. However, what would happen if one did, in particular, the Republican party? The problems the GOP is currently encountering, both in the electorate and within itself, is nothing new in the realm of political trends and closely represents what occurred to the Democrats from 2002-2006; absent of leadership, a clear platform, and lacking electoral control of what used to be their strongholds. In this hypothetical situation, the Republican party collapses after the 2010 election cycle. Unable to maintain the slim presence they had in 2008, the party was unable to hold what they had, let alone have any gains in either the House or the Senate. Members began to defect, as we have known, because political office holders seek a party that will not only aide in their reelection, but have the potential for majority control. A new party rises from the old ashes of the GOP: the Modern American Party (MAP).For any party to succeed, it must have a party platform that appeals to the electorate. Unfortunately for the GOP, the lack of major party platform closely mirrored the collapse of the Whig party in 1856, and its refusal to address the issue of slavery. Bearing in mind that the epic collapse of the GOP was due to its inability to appeal to voters, the Modern American party would need to craft a platform which would not precisely mirror that of the GOP, but at the same time, be able to syphon off the disenfranchised former Republicans, while simultaneously appealing to a wider, more diverse group across the country. A party stands as a brand name. Something that the voters want to consume. However we must be aware that the brand name must be consumable. Therefore, a general party outline (but not limited to) would be as follows:
- Strict constitutional interpretation of laws and bylaws which apply to both the role of government, and the activity therein.
- While maintaining a responsibility of strict economic reforms (minimal government spending), the party must be socially moderate, allowing it to appeal to races and demographics that the former GOP was unable to harness. In other words, truly creating a "big tent" party. This would be difficult, seeing as how most of the former GOP was socially conservative, but its new revived mission of "getting people elected" would be a top priority.
- Stating that health care, education, social welfare, and other former government assistance programs are the responsibility of the individual. This would, at the same time, require a carefully crafted message, as not to immediately turn off those who are dependent on such programs.
- Emphasize the original foundation of our Federalist society, giving power back to the states, and letting such issues as gay marriage, gun control, and abortion left to the referendums of the individuals. These referendums would also be a key step to instituting more of a direct democracy on the sate level.
- The United States shall not take any intervention in international affairs that does not immediately threaten the United States, and shall not engage in nation building techniques.
- Lowering both personal income taxes and corporate taxes, while maintaining labor organizations. This is a two-pronged approach to appeal to both the businesses, and the unions therein.
- Being socially moderate (as opposed to conservative, and leaving issues to the states) the party (while in control of the government) shall ensure the equal rights and protections of minorities, the disabled, and the elderly, regardless of sexual orientation or social class.
- The only government spending increases shall go to national defense, amassing the largest defense-only military in the world.
- Institute import substitution industrialization, having American companies produce the goods for Americans to consume, while cutting down on imports to reduce the national trade deficit. Once rectified, importing may resume at a set rate to be reassigned every two years.
- Inter party rules would state that any action or voice on the floor of either chamber of Congress would require a written declaration of viable alternatives to the status quo. No member speaks without having a real solution for the problem in question.
- Attempting to work from the local level upwards would be completely ineffective. The Republican party has completely collapsed, and the Modern American party would need to swiftly enter Congressional and Senatorial races across America. There will be no gradual introduction spanning many years for voters to "get familiar" with the party. It will be branded as the only viable option to combat the (now) one-party system of government run by the Democrats.
- Surveying the electoral trends from 2000-2010, district shop. Finding Congressional districts which were once friendly to the former GOP, enter the race where the GOP left off. The key to electoral success would be to enter in states that used to be in control of the GOP, which later fell to the Democrats. Such states may include Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, New Mexico, Florida, and attempting to make gains in the Northwest (as the Republicans had done in their first push to the national stage) in states such as Oregon and Washington. Stronghold states such as Montana, North/South Dakota, and stretching down to the South would also be implemented, but an equal amount of effort as what is put into the new states.
- Recruit candidates who are highly appealing to the electorate. This would entail not simply finding a well financed doctor/lawyer, but someone of individual state significance. This could include former members of the GOP (who are now out of a job). Most of the losses the GOP felt in 2010 were not candidate based, but rather voter resentment towards the party's apathy for real solutions and reform. Most voters would gladly have their representative back.
- Concentrating on Congressional elections (being on a micro-political scale, and winning smaller constituencies) would give an immediate base for the party. As stated, the introduction of the Modern American party would not be gradual, and would have up to 150 candidates running in elections across the country in 2012. Conceding the presidential election to the Democrats, the MAP would save resources until the 2016 election after (hopefully) picking up gains in 2014. This would present the perfect opportunity to serve as the dissenting voice to the controlling party. Using the written declarations rule of the MAP, alternatives would be published in national publications. Campaign money would be used to advertise the party's activities and current political agenda. The MAP would be running a permanent campaign.
Who would be the leaders of such a party? That would be determined by a straight party vote among the MAP caucus. Going back to its direct democracy principles of referendums, the party would determine leadership and new policy positions by majority caucus voting through elected officials and the leaders of the party (which would also be chosen by caucus vote by the party as a whole). There would be one rule in effect: no party leader would be allowed to have served in a leadership position in another party (in other words, preventing any for GOP members to ascend to a leadership position, due to this simply looking like the old party that had collapsed). These barred members could serve their constituencies through committee assignments, but not have leadership of the party itself (either directly running the party through the chairmanship of the party, serving as a floor leader, or eventually serving as chairman of a Congressional committee.
What else needs to be done in order to plan for the rigors of political competition? It would be easy to field an array of candidates across the country, considering the electorate would be appalled by a one-party government. In hopes of amassing 150 candidates across the country, the MAP would have a target of getting at least 20% seated. In other words, sending 30 members to Congress (the number going to the House and Senate, respectively, would be up in the air) and creating a presence to build a base of support to then turn to state campaigns. After having won 30 seats in Congress, the MAP would implement a "top-down" strategy. By this, the MAP would first win seats in Congress to gain instant national credibility, with which they could (in the next election cycle) run candidates for governorships, down to mayoralships, and state legislatures in between. This is obviously a long-term strategy to gain control of individual states, but the national presence in Congress would give the MAP credibility in local elections ("If they can serve the country, they can certainly serve my state/municipality" etc.).
Assessing the plan for the MAP, we would hope that the 30 seat threshold would give the party national recognition and serve as a stepping stone for further political gain. It would not be wise to immediately run for the presidency, seeing as how the party needs to remain credible. Running in its first years of existence and losing would be devastating to the future of the party, and its credibility as a viable party would be quickly lost. The strategy would be to continue gains in Congress, until it approached majority status. Although this may take many years, running a solid MAP candidate with national recognition after years of familiarity with the party platform could result in down-ticket voting and launch both the presidential candidate into office, along with the new members needed to attain majority status.
After first gaining notoriety in 2012, the MAP will continue where the GOP left off. Being strictly fiscally conservative and socially moderate, the MAP created the "big tent" needed to stretch across the nation, winning seats in Congress, and later governorships and state legislatures. It would not be long before the MAP achieved the greatest victory of all: the presidency after less than two decades in existence.
Ambitious? Yes. Possible? Yes. Probable? ...
No comments:
Post a Comment