How do I get really good comment thread going? It’s all about you guys. I have to wait for something to catch on, but I just try to treat everybody fairly and you guys do the rest.

As an insider I suspect that Holly’s position is more nuanced than I could predict, but her real message is not so much that one of those legs should be pre-eminent, but rather that talking about party positions (such as fiscal conservatism) and then acting against those party principles is the antithesis of being part of the party and that those who wish to do that should not expect to receive the support of the party machine. (Again, Holly is free to correct me.)

I guess my point is that I think Holly is right about the political integrity issue, and while I don’t agree with Jason on everything he is welcome to his opinion (even as an outsider) and the party can benefit from knowing what those outside the party believe about the party. We don’t have to capitulate in order to understand our audience and craft our message in a way that they can understand the message we are trying to convey.

Just because I think we should have leaders that stand on principle does not mean I can’t see what’s happening. The next time California has a gay marriage bill (and they will), it will pass. Easily, would be my guess.

Politics IS the art of compromise and as someone who worked for over 4 years as a citizen “lobbyist” to pass ONE piece of legislation, I can tell you that there are many areas we can compromise on and many areas we can agree on. Anyone who waits for the perfect piece of legislation waits in vain. There are, however, other areas we can not and should not compromise. I’m not asking for people to be “perfect”. I am asking for those involved in the Republican party to adhere to the platform. Why are they even running as Republican if they are say, Arlen Specter or Olympia Snowe and always vote with the Dems? If you support the Democratic platform, then call yourself a Dem, not a Republican…we can’t even get that level of honesty… It happens here in Utah, too. If you’ve been following politics for a “long, long time”, then you know that many Republican elected officials are Republicans of convenience. Have you not heard people say that’s the only way to get elected in this state? I have and I think it’s wrong. I’ll go back to our lobbying effort – I SOOO much appreciated legislators who – if they did not support us – just told us they could not support us, without accusation, without acrimony or name-calling….even with the ones who did the name-calling we knew were we stood, but the most irritating – and one reason I’m “calling out” the Republican party – were those who told us they supported us, but were campaigning against us behind our backs. What is so hard about being honest? What is so hard about having enough of a moral compass (or political acumen, for the cynic) to not have an affair at least while you are in office?! What is so hard about being fiscally conservative and meaning it? I really am reasonable, at least in my own mind – ha! I’ll say again – I don’t expect perfection. I don’t expect that those politicians I support will always be 100% in agreement with what I think. In fact, since I can and do change my mind, I don’t even agree with myself 100% of the time….for example, I used to hate politics. Now I love it. But for heck’s sake, we need to get past the cronyism, the protect-the-good-old-boys-at-all-costs and the current ‘pay to play’ attitude and get to where our elected officials actually stand for something – Democrat or Republican.

And by the way – I hope it’s obvious that I am FOR ethics and FOR reform – but am totally against the initiative being pushed…

Back to your comments – I don’t think the tea party movements have wasted their momentum. They are still mobile, still energized and you will see them have a big impact on the 2010 elections, IMO. In Utah, they will be at the caucuses in droves and for many, it will be their first time. That’s great. Do I agree with all of them? No. Do I think it’s great they are involved? Yes. As with you, I think the overall political picture improves the more voices are involved.

But in the end, I still try to stand on principle and expect those I elect to do so as well.

We delved into this topic a bit (as well as the Constitution in current politics) with conservative author Stephen F Hayward, of the American Enterprise Institute, discussing his “Age of Reagan” book today on FTP. http://kvnuforthepeople.com/2009/10/22/audio-the-age-of-reagan-with-aeis-stephen-f-hayward-const-law-prof-tony-peacock/

It happens sporadically throughout the entire two hour interview, but I believe the most relevant points are made in hour two, when I asked about Reagan’s conservative judge appointments, and Jon asked about his article “Conservativism is Brain Dead” (hit piece on Glenn Beck) and the future of the GOP.

These times are cyclical for both parties, and just as the Democrats learned much from the rise and continued influence of Reaganism, and their rejection by the public after Clinton until 2006, the Republican Party now has an opportunity to learn from their time in the woods.

Cameron wrote above that where the GOP stumbled is in not heeding the will of social and fiscal conservatives. I disagree completely. Social conservatives entrenched the party in a political war that could not be won, and pinned it’s success on a battle that (like it or not) fewer and fewer people care about today. Simplest way to explain it: Roe v Wade will never be overturned. Outside of Utah (again, I call this “red state eyes”… and don’t take offense, Holly, others, it happens to Democrats in Blue States I’ve lived in too), and other conservative hubs, abortion is little more than a wedge issue that annoys voters, and will increasingly become a less effective campaign tool. Gay marriage will be a non-issue by the end of this decade. In fact (I’m quoting Ethan Millard here, to give credit), the next successful GOP leader will be pro gay marriage, not say a word about abortion, and will talk only of fiscal responsibility.

I’m not saying any of this as a partisan “mocking” conservatives, as Holly has written in her own follow up post. I’m speaking right now simply as someone who has followed politics for a very long time. There are very predictable and perceivable trends and patterns to it all. And again, it’s cyclical.

Though I’ve never been a Republican, I was raised by them, and have more conservative friends than I do liberal. I respect where conservatives are coming from on many issues, and think it’s an important contribution to the debates we have. But as long as conservatives fail to acknowledge the changing times around them socially, and focus on the very act of once again winning elections, ideological principle has no meaning.

Take a lesson from the progressives. Progressive Democrats spent years in the House and Senate simply sitting around, being right (IMHO, and bare with me for the sake of the point here). They never successfully pushed a single piece of progressive legislation. They never greatly influenced the debate in either chamber. They were just being progressive, and being right, refusing to bend even a little until they could support something that was exactly what they wanted. It wasn’t until they learned to compromise their “big picture” occasionally in order to make a gain here, or an amendment there, that they actually began to play an active role within the Democratic Party, and the legislative process.

I think there’s a lesson there for those who hope to influence the future of the GOP. If you are willing to lose every election until you can say, with pride, that you have a purity of principle, and never compromised the “big picture” perfection in order to win even a single seat, well, let me introduce you to the Green Party. Ask them how that’s working out for them.

As far as the corporatists go, the Democratic Party ought to be looking within. Where do you think all of the corporatists have gone that have left the GOP? Who do you think all of the deals have been cut with on the medical bills wending their way through Congress? Geez, folks. Instead of looking at the rhetoric, try looking at the money trail. This ain’t rocket science.

The GOP suffers from many ailments. Among them is that the faction that gained control in the post-Reagan era – post-1994 revolution era had way too much success in getting what it wanted. Cameron is correct that the social conservatives were pretty much left out of this (except for a lot of rhetoric and an occasional dry bone being tossed their way). But when the faction in control got most of its wishes, it ended up ruining the party. In case you haven’t noticed, the Democratic Party may be following this precise pattern at present.

Since political parties are large conglomerations, it only stands to reason that all of the factions within a party will only be able to agree on a very few high level principles. Whichever faction is in control will force other factions to accept some of their most cherished goals, but to do so it will probably have to accept at least a few goals from the next most powerful factions. The power faction cram-down was particularly evident in the GOP as fiscal conservatives and libertarian leaners stood around with smiles on their faces and supported stuff like No Child Left Behind and Medicare expansion.

With the various GOP factions now alternatively scrambling to assert power and to blame other factions for the party’s meltdown, the few goals upon which all factions can agree have become tramped into the mud until the only principle that currently unites the factions is that they are not Democrats.

In my opinion, the GOP power struggle won’t gel or even begin to appear to gel until there is an opportunity for more elections, since the power struggle runs on election cycles. (I’m not saying the GOP will win elections, but that elections will help define which factions have actual power.) In the meantime, the members of the various factions (except for the movers and shakers) will think that they know what it means to be a Republican and that everyone in the party does or should agree with them.