The Shape of the Playing Field, Part 1

In the wake of last November’s election, both major political parties in Minnesota are trying to figure out what comes next.  The Democrats (DFL, Democrat-Farmer-Labor as they are styled in Minnesota) are enjoying a moment of triumphalism.  Republicans are turning introspective.

Democrats:  Never Been More Powerful

Still fresh from last November’s victory, DFL Chair Ken Martin was re-elected over the weekend to a second two-year term.  He is reported to have said “the party has never been more powerful.”

The DFL Chair is more worried about underperforming than overreaching.

"If the last election was a referendum on anything, it was a referendum on inaction, on gridlock, on shutdown, on partisanship. People want to see us move a progressive agenda forward." 

So far, his party may be history’s first to both underperform and overreach.  They are spending this week pursuing a divisive social issue (guns) with nary a word about jobs or the economy.

Republicans:  “Where Do We Go From Here?”

Meanwhile, hundreds of local Republicans gathered last week to discuss the future of the state party.  As one would expect, proposed solutions ran the gamut.

It’s no secret that I am less than satisfied with the outcome of my recent adventure in electoral politics.  In the 90 days or so since the election, I have been an avid consumer of all entries in the genre of “Where Did We Go Wrong?”

The ideas keep coming in, but are of varying quality.

“The Moral Crisis”

At one end of the spectrum is the near-parodic column written by Hamline University Professor David Schultz, “The moral crisis of the Republican party.”  In this column, our state media’s “go to” political analyst argues that, “The real problem with the party is an ethical and moral one, far more serious than the political missteps that have plagued it in recent years.”

What are our moral and ethical problems?  Apparently, Republicans are immoral and unethical to oppose bigger government and the fashionable social issues of the day.  Not to mention “aging,” “hostile,” “Christian,” “fringe,” “greedy,” “intolerant,” both “lacking (and without) compassion,” “indifferent,” “angry,” “old,” and “adolescent-thinking.” 

At least Professor Schultz is honest about his contempt for the two-party system.  Others of his ideological bent prefer to couch their criticism in less caustic language.

Avoid Sherpa Conservatism

My contribution to the cannon was a piece warning against those on the left—and their media and academic partners—who would limit Republicans to playing the role of "Sherpa Conservative".  I quoted National Review’s Jonah Goldberg on the liberal view of what the proper role of conservatives should be in the national discourse,  

"Good conservatives... should know their place and gladly serve as Sherpas to the great mountaineers of liberalism, pointing out occasional missteps, perhaps suggesting a slight course correction from time to time, but never losing sight of the need for upward 'progress' and happily carrying the extra baggage for progressives in their zealous but heroic quest for the summit."

I would recommend this post by blogger Liz Mair, who put forward five big problems with today’s Republicans.  “Field better candidates,” “get better technology” makes for good advice in any era, but little of what she recommends could be implemented at the grassroots level.

More helpful are many of the essays included in Commentary Magazine’s symposium “What is the Future of Conservatism?”  Almost all the big names of the conservative movement are represented among the 53 essays.

I highly suggest reading the entire longish piece by David Horowitz that Scott Johnson has reprinted over at Power Line.

As for this Column, you will find no Sherpa Conservatism here.  Over the coming months, I will present a full alternative to the agenda of the left and hold accountable those who now hold complete power over our lives.