What’s the Agenda?
by Patrick Ruffini :: August 8th, 2007 10:44 pmSo what’s the agenda around which a Movement 2.0 might be built? Ideas, not technology or tactics, are what any political movement is built around. They’re what animated the New Right.
The netroots has been strikingly devoid of new policy ideas. They are all about infrastructure and mechanics. We’ll build something stronger than them if we focus on the ideas. Here’s my (by no means exhaustive) list of big policy ideas that aren’t getting enough attention — and that we might exploit.
War on Terror
- Take the War on Terror into Pakistan if necessary. I don’t think Barack Obama is wrong here. It seems kind of inconsistent for conservatives to lash into “our friends the Saudis” while standing up for the Pakistani status quo. Has anyone considered that it might strengthen Musharraf against local Islamists to be able to huff and puff against American military incursions, instead of always having to play pattycake with us? Musharraf long ago relinquished sovereignty over the tribal areas and his people will probably hate us no matter what we do.
- Define an achievable victory in Iraq. Focus on defeating al Qaeda and seal the borders. De-emphasize nation-building (not the military’s core competency) and sectarian violence. Throw everything at defeating transnational Islamist terrorists. Extend gains in Anbar and build a safe haven there.
- Screw the b*tching about FISA. More covert operations and HumInt. Now.
- Reorient our focus in the Middle East toward strengthening civil society and institutions (the rule of law, education, etc.) instead of immediate elections; Rudy Giuliani made this point at the debate. Most of this is non-military.
Foreign Policy
- John McCain’s idea of a Union of Democracies to delegitimize the U.N.
- Position the Republican Party as the only party able to deal with increasing competition from China. Raise the Clintons’ coziness with the Chinese in the industrial swing states. Launch a moral crusade for democracy in China like we did against the Soviets. We would not endorse protectionism, but making America more competitive. Part of this will require increased legal immigration, particularly the high-skilled kind (H1-B, etc.) to be able to confront an economic engine of 1.2 billion people. If the Middle East ever diminishes in importance, the China issue returns with a vengeance.
Health Care
- Refundable tax credits for health insurance.
- Allow people to buy health insurance across state lines (many candidates have proposed this).
- Make it easy for anyone, including non-employers, to start a health insurance pool. Support association health plans.
- Any other elements of RomneyCare worth looking at?
- Package these all together as H.R. 1, the Health Freedom & Deregulation Act of 2009. I bet a Republican President could claim a significant improvement in the number of uninsured by the end of the first term. I think it’s time for a Republican to do for health care what George Bush did for education: “steal” the issue from the Democrats, with a free-market, accountability focus.
Reform
- End all earmarks. Don’t just reform them. Kill them. Dead.
- Broad tax reform (any other tax changes suggested below are an interim fallback).
- Open APIs for all government data — so our government’s dirty little secrets can be mashed up in third party applications and brought to light. National security and intelligence would be exempt. Imagine something like this for all government activity in your area? Unleash the Army of Davids on all manner of government information, including decades old bridge blueprints.
- FEC-like reporting of all government expenditures over a certain amount ($10K, $100K?) in near real-time. National security exempt.
- Purely as a process thing, I’d love to see Republican legislators do what Durbin is doing now on broadband: collaboratively draft legislation with the blogosphere. That would help rebuild a bond of trust that was broken by immigration.
Budget & Taxes
- Lower tax rates for small businesses in the first three years of operation.
- Index income tax rates to income growth not inflation — would stop de-facto tax increases as society as a whole gets richer and chill revenue growth.
- Rudy Giuliani’s emphasis on shrinking the government payroll through attrition. An astounding percentage of the federal workforce will retire in the next five years, and government service is not exactly an appealing option for recent college grads. (But how do stanch the flow of ex-feds being rehired into the same jobs as contractors for twice the pay?)
Social Security
- Keep on plugging on personal accounts for Social Security. The Democrats keep re-proposing universal health insurance every election, without result. We need to keep going on this until we win, the gutlessness of Congress in 2005 notwithstanding.
- Rename “Social Security” as part of any comprehensive reform to something that honors the individual rather than the state. Framing matters! They won’t be able to say “Republicans will cut Social Security” anymore.
Immigration
- Build the border fence — then let’s talk about regularization that requires illegals to exit the U.S. for a period of time (tied to ~70-80% reductions in border crossings).
Anything else? Leave them in the comments. Or post them on a site like Solutions Factory for others to rate.
Tagged: agenda 
conservatism movement policy
Comments (10) 
Trackbacks (5) 
del.icio.us 
digg it 
subscribe
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
I agree with you Patrick… I realize that we’re not doomed to relive the past, but when you consider that lefty online organizers drew their inspiration from ideas that we originated with the old “new media” (direct mail, newsletters, radio, etc.). - maybe an examination of those methods is worth considering.
It’s funny that TechRepublican just had an article about how a “hub” could easily be put together - we just need the talent (which is out there), the resources (which should be out there) and the ideas to drive the netroots, which you’ve laid out.
If I had to pick three (and everyone is going to have their own priorities), I’d say border, open government (the API idea is awesome), and winning the war on terror are three issues that you’re going to find a lot of agreement online.
I’m not saying the spending issues shouldn’t be addressed, it’s just hard to organize a mass movement around them due to the complexity.
A quick WHOIS search or three found web domains that we could use… we’d just need a good “overall” name to organize it around. It doesn’t have to be fancy… heck the Dems took “Move On” and made effective use of it for years after the issue they wanted us to move on from was already dead and buried.
I hope others chime in on this too!
Well, you’ve got more ideas here than the Congressional caucus in total. Can we get all our folks from Alaska to go on an ice floe?
In order to regain the upscale suburbs and nerdistans we used to do well in we will need to reclaim the mantle of fiscal responsibility and governmental rectitude ASAP. Which means slaying the pork beast and throwing our sleazeballs over the side.
We also need to get back to the soccer mom/security mom agenda. Addressing the recent move by states to empty jails to save money might be a start
I guess the question comes down to whether we are trying to win elections or build an online activist base. The two are mutually exclusive goals. I agree that in order to win we need conservative approaches to solving the problems in suburban areas. That was what won the hearts and minds of voters in 1994.
I think Patrick is proposing something a bit different, how do we get the Eagle Forums, Concerned Women of America, Christian Coalition type groups of our time activated and energized in this new era of activism?
The first thing is not to complicate the issue. The suggestions here are generally to complex to attract wide interest. For example, the underlying theme of most of what Ron Paul stands for is small government and strict constitutionalism. Then other issues from foreign policy and gun control, to the income tax, the federal reserve follow from the initial themes. You’re not going to appeal to a wide base of voters simply by offering a bundle of expediencies.
The ‘war on terror’ issue itself can only be sustained with a widespread propaganda campaign and the whole point of harnessing the internet is to galvanize people who are already committed to certain policies. We also need to consider the wisdom of what we are proposing, not just it’s popular appeal. Attacking a sovereign nation is a pretty serious act. So is attacking an ally. So is attacking a nuclear-armed country.
We have no legal right to do these things. How are we going to promote and protect rights at home if we consistently violate other people’s rights abroad? A great many innocent Pakistanis will die if we attacked Pakistan. Not even the neo-cons are pushing this idea.
But I don’t wish to digress into that debate. Small, limited government has been the consistent theme of Republican policies since the Great Depression. You cannot have small, limited government at home and interventionist, imperialistic policies abroad. It is necessary that the Republican Party first choose between these two alternatives. George Bush campaigned on the former but has governed according to the latter principle.
Do we want a “garrison state” as Sen. Taft warned us against? Do we really want to build our future on the “military-industrial complex” that Eisenhower expressed such concern over. Would we have any serious problems in the Middle East if we weren’t there?
I think the answer to all these questions is no. Small government at home and non-intervention abroad, the Bush campaign of 2000, are the themes which the Republican party needs to focus on. It is simply a less ideological version of the Ron Paul campaign.
But the battle must be fought between this view and the empire-builders which include the current president and the likes of John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. I don’t see how these two essentially different philosophies can be reconciled any more than Rockefeller’s and Goldwater’s philosophies could be reconciled.
In the internet sphere, the small-government people already have a big head start and it will be a crucial weapon in their fight against the empire-builders. But the small-government types also represent the base of the Republican Party. It’s Main Street vs. Wall Street all over again. So I suspect the empire-builders will lose over the long haul. But that doesn’t mean they won’t switch to the Democrat side and give them a permanent majority. Small government Republicans, therefore, are also going to have to solicit Democrats aggressively.
Conservatives are so furious over the GOP’s lack of support for rational immigration solutions. It’s more than building a border fence, its the fact that most Americans don’t want those people here. You’re not going to get online grassroots support for talking about a program that requires them to leave and come back later.
Unfortunately, the border fence has somewhat morphed into a way for mass-immigration advocates to look like they’re strong on illegal immigration. They simply say “hey, lets get that there fence built” and then expect people to think they’re really good on the issue.
Movement 2.0 should emphasize what Americans already want: less immigration, no illegal immigration, more border security, no pandering to Mexico, and no amnesty or legalization of any kind. Why some conservatives and Republicans have failed to grasp this is beyond me. It couldn’t be any clearer.
Why tax breaks for the first three years of a business’ existence? Wouldn’t that cause some sort of weird incentive to only do business for that time period, then open a new business (or the same business under a new organizational name, etc.) Or some other unintended consequence? I like encouraging entrepreneurship, but I am not so sure that’s a great idea.
I tend to think that we need fewer tax loopholes, more straightforward taxes in general, and lower rates across the board. Lower, flatter, and simpler.
Pat,
You’re looking for ideas? Then dump Rudy and volunteer for Ron Paul’s campaign. His whole campaign revolves around one idea - FREEDOM! All other great ideas will be brought to fruition in the private sector. Every other new idea that someone in Government comes up with means a loss of life,liberty and/or property for people in the private sector.
If we are going to have a government too limited to protect its citizens we will find few citizens willing to support that form of government. Please spare us from the “Black Helicopter Republicans” and the “Ned Flanders Repiblicans”
Unbelievable! Let’s try this again Patrick. I’ll say it slowly. Politicians and bureaucrats do not work.
…”Focus on defeating al Qaeda and seal the borders.” As opposed to now when we are focusing on ???. Oh yeah that’s right, “defeating al Qaeda and sealing the borders”
Just unbelievable. At least with the liberals, who refused to admit they spent their entire lives advocating an economic system that doesn’t work, we’d just be broke. The NeoCons will get us killed. But by God we did in the name of God and country.
when a Black Helicopter Republican wins a statewide election in a state with more voters than deer, get back to me
[…] Ideas for a new movement digg_url = ‘http://www.eyeon08.com/2007/08/09/ideas-for-a-new-movement/’; digg_title = ‘Ideas for a new movement’; digg_bodytext = ‘Patrick Ruffini takes up my challenge to put some meet on the ideological bones. While I agree with most, I would re-emphasize. First, we have a set of broad principles: Win the War on Terror and advance human rights around the world Embrace globalization and economic competitiveness as a way to improve the lives of Americans and […]’; digg_skin = “compact”; digg_topic = “politics”; ( function() { var ds=typeof digg_skin==’string’?digg_skin:'’; var h=80; var w=52; if(ds==’compact’) { h=18; w=120; } var u=typeof digg_url==’string’?digg_url:(typeof DIGG_URL==’string’?DIGG_URL:window.location.href); document.write(”"); } )() Patrick Ruffini takes up my challenge to put some meet on the ideological bones. While I agree with most, I would re-emphasize. First, we have a set of broad principles: […]
[…] Patrick Ruffini takes up my challenge to put some meet on the ideological bones. While I agree with most, I would re-emphasize. First, we have a set of broad principles: […]
[…] The Young Voter Issue Matrix. Pat takes issue with my leaving of social issues on Agenda 2.0. That was partly an oversight on my part, but it’s also true that the contours of those issues are already pretty well defined. No one is going to figure out a clever new idea on gay marriage. That’s pretty much a black and white issue. […]
[…] So 2010 and 2012 will look great for the GOP if Democrats win the White House next year. But in the meantime, how do you fix this? You either rack up more successes, or you spotlight the other guy’s failures. In the former category, if I’m a Republican congressional leader, I’m looking over lists of ideas like the “9 With 90” and Ruffini’s list and measuring support among the Blue Dog Democrats. Then I get those Democrats to get those bills through the committee, and file discharge petition after discharge petition (if you have 218 signatures, the Speaker has to bring a vote to the floor) and I make the Democrats vote against a popular idea time and time again. We’ve got to spotlight our governors, demonstrate successful reforms in the states, these little laboratories of democracy. You rebuild the Republican and Conservative brands by demonstrating successful ideas and policies independent of President Bush, who will, by very early next year, no longer be the face of the party. […]
Search for Cheap Insurance…
Sorry, it just sounds like a crazy idea for me
…