Charlie Harper: Rhetoric vs. responsibility

I consciously became a Republican when I was in the second grade. I know this because I was selected/volunteered to be Gerald Ford in the Presidential Debate held for Mrs. Whittington's and Mrs. Stover's classes. I was not told when I raised my hand that a speech would be involved.

Like most kids with an unwanted project to do, I turned to my father to help -- late into the night before it was due. Usually this would have gotten me a stern rebuke for waiting until the last minute as well as minimal hints to let me know that I had to do these things for myself. Instead, I remember Dad pushing his own "homework" (and a very large metal adding machine) aside on the dining room table and taking quite an interest.

What we ended up with was the most clearly identifiable parent-produced work product of my school career, before or since. Dad had me practice it a few times and it was clear I had no idea what the words meant. So he pulled me into his lap and we had a long talk.

There is exactly one line I remember from the speech. I asked my second grade class clearly their pressing issue that day: Did they want more or less government? I'm sure they looked as clueless as I did when I asked Dad about it, but I wouldn't know, as I doubt I looked up from my paper.

What I remember discussing with Dad was who we wanted making our decisions. Would we want the government or Mom and Dad to decide the things that affected our family? Did we want to pay more or less to the government to then have other people decide things for us?

It wasn't an "anti-government" talk, however. This was the Cold War era, and national security was a clearly defined and needed role of the federal government. If we discussed other roles programs such as Social Security and Medicare they didn't resonate with my second grade agenda/world view.

The message was essentially one that limited government requires personal responsibility. If we wanted to chart our own course we would have to be prepared to do the work ourselves. If we wanted others to do it we would have to pay them, and then have to take many of these things on the terms and conditions that others decided.

At its roots as I originally understood the concept, conservatism was a choice that came with the burden not of only work and effort, but also of accepting accountability for the outcome. While it offered the potential to enjoy benefits on the upside, the converse requires living with consequences for inaction or poor planning, and sometimes even bad luck.

Over the years I've added a lot to the definition of what it means to be a conservative, and refined and questioned many other issues that tied in or did not. But the basis and heart of what it means to me remains what I learned that evening sitting with my Dad at the dining room table.

It's this same lesson that makes me openly question the current conservative movement within the Republican Party. We have an open fissure of some folks who no longer feel the party represents "conservative" views, or is not successfully delivering a proper vision of "limited government." In many if not most ways, they're right.

The problem I have is with the personal responsibility part of this argument. There are many I've been to meetings with for years, have watched as they've taken leadership roles within the party or with the Tea Party. They've been officers, delegates, and consistently involved.

And yet rather than accepting the failure of getting Republicans elected to the White House during the last two elections, or getting Congress to do what they wish, the problem falls upon "the establishment." It's not the fault of those who have been involved as leaders but call themselves "grass roots." To them, the problem of the failure of conservatives falls upon a mostly mythical collection of boogeymen that appear as a crutch to absolve politically active Republicans and Tea Party members for a lack of a winning message, strategy, or outcome over the past eight years.

There's plenty of blame to go around within the GOP. We've demanded our candidates lie to us about what is possible, and then feign surprise when they fail to deliver. We've had some "leaders" preach that winning elections is not as important as principle, as if those who lose elections can vote to enact or protect our principles.

We'll need an entirely separate column to explain why reveling in anti-political correctness as an excuse to say offensive things turns off swing voters, yet we're surprised that the mushy middle doesn't vote with us in key elections.

The primary season has just begun and yet it promises to be long and tedious. It will test intra-party relationships that have existed for decades.

At the end of this, if the GOP is to be successful, we're going to have to have a lot fewer people trying to play the blame game to absolve themselves of past failures, and accept the modern electoral landscape with all of its challenges. Personal responsibility can't get any closer to home than that.

Charlie Harper, author and editor of the Peach Pundit blog, writes on Georgia politics and government; www.peachpundit.com.

This story was originally published September 1, 2015 at 2:21 PM with the headline "Charlie Harper: Rhetoric vs. responsibility ."