Click here for all of Tim Mak’s reports from the RNC Summit in Hawaii.
Over the course of the RNC’s winter meeting this past week, FrumForum asked members whether they thought the committee was becoming more ‘purist’. Many RNC members, moderates and conservatives alike, agreed that the committee had become more open to a ‘small-tent philosophy’ over the last few years.
Jim Bopp, a National Committeeman from Indiana and the chief sponsor of the purity test resolution, said that the committee was becoming more ‘conservative’:
In 2008, there were 39 new members [elected]… By my reckoning, every single one of them was more conservative or dramatically more conservative than whom they replaced. As a result, [conservatives] have a clear majority of members of the RNC.
Of course, being ‘conservative’ means many things to many people. FrumForum tried to clarify by asking people whether they thought a ‘purity mentality’ or a small-tent philosophy was becoming more pervasive.
Outgoing Florida Chair Jim Greer, a moderate and a strong supporter of Florida Governor Charlie Crist, said that he was seeing more and more members who were focused on the idea of ideological purity:
“Not all of them, but there are more members of the committee that believe a smaller tent and a purer tent is the path to victory… I disagree with this. If we try to be a pure party, there will be very few people left, and no members of the Republican party in office,” said Greer.
The move towards ideological purity may be in response to the energy and anger of the Tea Party movement. Typically, the RNC establishment has been more moderate and less rigidly ideological than the grassroots, said one Republican strategist who preferred to remain anonymous.
Massachusetts National Committeeman Ron Kaufman suggested that a change in direction might have resulted from the influx of tea partiers and Ron Paul after the last RNC elections:
In ’08, you had some new people. I would say they’re more conservative, quite frankly… A lot of them came from the libertarian movement, a lot of people came from Ron Paul, a lot were the beginning of the tea [party] movement. Well, they might not just be more conservative, but also more activist.
However, not every member of the committee agreed with the contention that the RNC was becoming more ‘purity-minded’. Even if the RNC has become more open to a ‘purity mentality’ over the last year, says Paul Senft, the National Committeeman from Florida, the Scott Brown win in Massachusetts has shown the errors of this philosophy:
The Brown election has caused a lot of euphoria… a lot of litmus test conservatives are elated and see the benefits of having the 41st vote, even if they don’t agree with everything that Brown believes in.
The purity test resolution may have failed at the RNC winter meeting, but Chairman Michael Steele and all those who value inclusivity in the GOP should pay heed to a deeper and more dangerous trend – the possibility of a ‘purity mentality’ pervading the membership of the Republican National Committee.
10 responses so far
1 TAZ // Feb 1, 2010 at 12:28 am
Brown would have never won had there been a purity test in place given that he is pro-abortion and is not “against” gay marriage.
Kind of like NY23rd’s Scozzafava as far as stance on issues…..
How do we square that circle with the “small tent” theory?
2 joedee1969 // Feb 1, 2010 at 6:05 am
We need a new test, we’ll call it ” The Boomer Test” and if we don’t pass that test we are all doomed:
http://americaspeaksink.com/2010/02/the-count-down-to-the-baby-boomers-is-here/
3 sinz54 // Feb 1, 2010 at 9:11 am
TAZ:
Because times change. The “square” of Scott Brown came after the “circle” of this idea for a purity test.
The purity test was bandied about, at a time when Scott Brown still seemed like a long shot to win in MA. Had he lost, the GOP base would have said “See? Pro-choice RINOs cannot win; we need purist conservatives. Let’s just write off Blue States altogether.”
But nothing succeeds like success. Scott Brown’s dramatic victory in MA caused even the GOP base folks over at RedState.com to conclude that they really can win in Blue States with moderate Repubs.
4 franco 2 // Feb 1, 2010 at 9:39 am
Just like the word ‘conservative” is open to debate, so is the word “purity”.
The parties are not static. There is ebb and flow there are elements in each party that move the balance within each party. Thing have shifted markedly since Obama has taken power and any analysis must take the new political terrain into account.
#1 The Democrat party has been steadily moving to the left for years, no?
#2 The Republican party has continued to seek compromises with Democrats up until recently. That is – Specter, Snowe, Collins, McCain, Bush etc.
#3 This means that the Republican party, when seeking compromise with Democrats, is also moving leftward.
If Democrats keep moving left and Republicans stay where they are, they can better point out the basic problems and we can have a debate that reasonable Americans can see the difference between the parties.
Those of us who want elected members of the Republican party to stand for something besides trying to curry favor with Democrats because they enjoy getting face time on national TV are not calling for “purity”. We call for a principled approach and a spine to go with it.
Scott Brown is a fine example. He’s not the most conservative candidate, but conservatives are OK with him because he has no qualms about fighting Democrats on issues like bailouts, the health care fiasco, and national security issues. Here is an example of independents and Democrats coming over to OUR side vs. the case of Arlen Specer whose modus operandi was to cave in to Democrats and take Republican voters for granted — same with John McCain.
Furthermore, these two actively UNDERMINED the national debate and made it difficult for the majority of Republicans’ ideas to be represented to the many Americans who still watch the MSM. All the MSM producers had to do to to look “fair” was to book a Democrat Senator like Dodd or Durbin and the Republican McCain or Specter. Then the Republican would be forced to distance himself from the rest of the party and also obliquely agree with Dodd or Durbin on other issues, thus making conservative Republicans appear unreasonable. The result is the real debate over the basic issues never took place. Democrats can pretend that the other “non-moderate” Republicans are obstructionist ideologues, and the media can pretend they are giving both sides fair representation. Win-win for Dems.
Note that Obama’s SOTU speech was replete with overt accusations at Republican’s refusal to go along with his radical programs – programs and legislation Obama himself has now admitted are highly flawed. Obama even admitted that his health care program would not have accomplished what was previously claimed by his fellow Democrats!
Instead of thanking the Republicans for stopping this bill….Again he has ADMITTED that this was a BAD bill and turned out different than advertised – Obama excoriates them for being “partisan” and obstructive. Hmmm. But just because Obama can accuse doesn’t mean it will stick. In fact it makes HIM look bad because as polls show, most people know how bad this bill was.
Being partisan and refusing to compromise on bills that are designed primarily to help the Democrat party and not the American people is paying off with voters.
5 TAZ // Feb 1, 2010 at 8:03 pm
“Scott Brown is a fine example. He’s not the most conservative candidate, but conservatives are OK with him because he has no qualms about fighting Democrats on issues like bailouts, the health care fiasco, and national security issues.”
But a few weeks back the tea party ran a candidate against a Republican (Scozafava) with pretty much the same issues stances as Brown.
Whats up with that?
6 franco 2 // Feb 2, 2010 at 6:47 am
TAZ Here is a rationale pre-election of NY-23 from a hard-core leftist Democrat take it for what it’s worth:
“So who to root for? A Blue Dog who would strengthen the Democrats’ corporatist faction, or a Republican version of a Lieberdem, who will probably be muzzled, but could — if she remained true to her record in Albany — be more of a Susan Collins-type Republican, a moderate in an ideologically rigid party willing to give the Dems fake “bipartisan” cover with crossover votes every once in a while.
If Republicans lose the seat, it’ll dent that sense of momentum they believe is headed their way. If they win the seat, it will have been with a liberal Republican, suggesting that their path to electoral relevance in the northeast is to ditch the Southern-fueled ultra conservatism. Both are good for us.
If the Democrat loses the race, we lose nothing — it was previously held by a Republican. If he wins the seat, we gain another obnoxious Blue Dog, undermining our caucus from within while adding just a single vote to our already dominant House majorities. Furthermore, the typical DC wankers will take this as “proof” that you need to run Lieberdems in such districts to win them, while ignoring the fragmented conservative opposition. Not much of an advantage at all. More than likely, a net disadvantage.
So it’s official, I’m rooting for the Republican to win. As a congresswoman, she could either move even more to the left to properly represent her progressive-trending district and be a pain in the side of the GOP caucus (they have nothing like our Blue Dogs), or Democrats can field a real Democrat to challenge her in 2010.”
– Kos founder Markos Moulitsas
It seems the Democrats have similar problems with “blue dogs” that the GOP has with “RINOs” and a similar debate within their party.
Me, I’m not so sure NY 23 is equivalent to Massachusetts. Every election is local, and if Hoffman was too conservative for NY 23 then Dede Scozzafava was far too liberal, which is why she got such a strong challenge from grassroots tired of being presented with the same old “Susan Collins” type. Next time perhaps the GOP will nominate someone who is “just right” as Goldilocks would say.
The fact that Scozza and Specter promptly switched to the Democrat party is an undeniable vindication of their flimsy ideological moorings. I have to laugh at the lengths some Republicans go to defend these types.
7 GOProud // Feb 2, 2010 at 8:56 am
Former US Atty Gen Elliot Richardson once commented “Where there’s smoke, it’s not fire– it’s usually a reporter with a lot of hot air trying to fan some imaginary sparks”.
I think that fits this “story” about Bopp’s purity test proposal that was always more about Bopp than it was about the future the GOP, Steele’s leadership, the press’s attempt to portray a conservative “uprising” where none existed or some other nonsense… like purging RINOs.
I am not amazed that FrumForum and Mr Mak were hard at work blowing a lot of hot air on a few meaningless, impotent sparks.
Of course, legitimate reporting on this non-story would have cautioned all not to be as fast with the conclusions and projections as the smoker-reportage here… but then, that’s expecting sound opinion from a group who are primarily interested in generating smoke, not light… the appearance of flames, not insight.
Epic fail for Mr Mak and the editors of Frum Forum. My prediction last December when this non-story started the rounds at FF, then The New Majority blog: It won’t make it to the floor; it’ll be in the hotel’s dustbin. I’m batting a 1000.
8 Carney // Feb 2, 2010 at 11:09 pm
For the umpteenth time, it was not a purity test.
The word “purity” deliberately calls to mind an insistence on perfection, an unreasonable zeal demanding extreme positions.
But each of the ten positions are popular with the public and/or are highly watered down. For example, the abortion position did not mandate following every jot and tittle of the line as laid down by the National Right to Life Committee (let alone the American Life League). It merely called for no public funding. Even most mainstream “pro-choice” types agree with that, such as FrumForum hero Scott Brown.
Furthermore, it allowed someone to squish even on these weak provisions, and even to squish on three of them.
What’s all the whining and hysteria about then?
9 Carney // Feb 2, 2010 at 11:17 pm
The so-called “purity test” would have allowed party support and funding for an abortion-funding, cap-and-trading advocate of retreat and defeat in Iraq.
It would have allowed party support and funding for an Obamacare-supporting, “card check” pushing gun-grabber.
It would have allowed party support and funding for a tax-hiking, Obama “stimulus” supporting, illegal amnesty pusher.
It would have allowed party support and funding for a “gay marriage” backing, health care rationing, weak sister on Iran.
Could this mildest and weakest of imaginable standards, have really caused all that squealing and sobbing about the oh so scary rise of “intolerant”, “rigid”, “purity” seeking Right?
What’s the point of a party with no discipline, no standards, no stances on anything at all?
10 Twitter Tidbits: Scott Brown, Dawn Johnsen, Questiontime and more // Feb 3, 2010 at 3:02 pm
[...] results in Illinois are a hot mess. The real story is the division within their party. That purity test might come in handy [...]
You must log in to post a comment.