Charlie Harper: Fueling anger a loser for GOP
A little over two years ago, I wrote a column suggesting it was time for Republicans to retire the term "RINO" - an acronym for "Republicans in Name Only." Not surprisingly given the state of the GOP, many are still using the epithet. I wrote the following then:
"The term was once used to identify a Republican who actively supported the agenda of the opposition party against those of the Republican agenda. It has now become an overused lazy pejorative carelessly thrown about by purists any time they observe or hear something that does not conform to their personal world view -- regardless whether or not the "RINO" in question has actually strayed from the party position."
I have noticed a recent flare-up in the use of the term during the decision to see who will replace John Boehner as Speaker, as well as whom Republicans will nominate for President. In virtually every use of the term, I can stand by the above assertion. Its use serves little more purpose than to spew invective.
The name calling in politics has become a ridiculous crutch for those who are not able to walk through an argument using the legs of reason and persuasion. Republicans or even "conservatives" have been in intraparty warfare long enough that the terms are virtually meaningless to how an independent views them according to issues.
It only further divides the party when those attempting to hold down the fort and simultaneously implement strategies to govern refer to insurgents and their supporters as "crazy." Unfortunately, that's not an acronym, and is equally less than helpful in political discourse.
Meanwhile, Democrats seemed to have moved swiftly from being "liberals" to "progressives" with many now willing to be socialists, so long as they're called "Democratic socialists."
The comparison is somewhat striking. The Democrats don't appear terribly attached to names. They're just terribly attached to the White House.
Democrats actually care about winning and have an "invisible primary" -- a term coined by insiders for delegates appointed outside the primary process. Thus, the party that claims to be "democratic" has a process that allows insiders an insurance policy over an insurgent candidate like Bernie Sanders. Internal labels are largely irrelevant to their process and results.
While Republicans seem to focus on internal name-calling and control of "the establishment" -- while trying to avoid being labeled "the establishment" -- they don't seem terribly focused on or concerned about winning. It often seems that the lasting influence of the influx of Libertarians into the fold is that Republicans now seem more focused on winning an argument than winning elections.
Every time the topic of unity or reconciliation comes up, I am told that I "have to understand that the base is angry." OK, people are angry. We've covered that here, too. Anger doesn't help anyone make good decisions, nor do most people take advice or suggestions from people who are in the middle of a blind rage episode. In short, anger is yet another crutch. It's equally unhelpful to winning an election as name-calling.
Conventional wisdom spouted by most pundits these days is "the candidate who figures out how to tap into this anger will be the winner." The problem with conventional wisdom is that it too often is short on wisdom.
Ronald Reagan didn't win in 1980 because he tapped into anger, nor did he stoke the very real fears of that era's middle class. Instead, he defused it. He stared it down and offered a better deal in return.
Ronald Reagan isn't coming back, and no candidate should attempt to be a parody of a leader elected to the presidency 35 years ago. Candidates, however, should demonstrate not only how they plan to lead our nation, but also how they plan to persuade others to his or her side.
What we're currently getting instead is a reality TV version of a campaign. Even the "debates" thus far have been promoted as if the public is tuning in for wrestling rather than to pick the leader of the free world. The news is covering which candidate hurls the best insult, not the details of any actual plans.
Worse, it remains to be seen if many members of conservative media are interested in winning, or sticking with a business model that ensures profits from acting as a member of a permanent minority opposition party. Too many of our own are feeding the anger without offering a positive vision.
Hurling names and insults only serves to feed the anger. The candidate who hopes to win more than just the GOP nomination needs to have a plan to quell it. Tapping the anger is a temporary path to intra-party victory. A plan to resolve the anger is one that could lead all the way to the White House.
Charlie Harper, author and editor of the Peach Pundit blog, writes on Georgia politics and government; www.peachpundit.com.
This story was originally published October 27, 2015 at 12:40 PM with the headline "Charlie Harper: Fueling anger a loser for GOP ."