Taking the Fight to the Dems

As intense as the battle on the radio, newspapers, and the internet may be, the future direction of the Republican Party will ultimately be mapped by our elected officials.  Accordingly, I jumped at the opportunity to speak with Joel Pollak, a young Republican running for the U.S. House of Representatives from the ninth district of Illinois.

Joel is a Research Fellow at the Hudson Institute focusing on human rights, and has published two books.  He made his first big splash when, as a student at Harvard Law School, he challenged Barney Frank on details of the economic recovery plan.  At the prompting of residents in Illinois and members of the Republican Jewish Coalition, Joel is taking a shot at unseating Democrat Jan Schakowsky.

Joel and I talked for a while about national politics, his time in the Middle East, what it’s like to be running in a district dominated by Democrats, and, of course, the future of the Republican Party.  The following excerpt gives a sense of the direction—both for the party and the country—that one “future Republican” envisions.

SR: The Republican National Committee will consider a “Republican litmus test” when it meets this January in Honolulu.  To pass the test and thereby be eligible for campaign funds from the Party, prospective candidates must agree with at least 8 out of the 10 principles.

Should this test be adopted? Is it good for the party? Are there any points that are particularly consistent or inconsistent with Republicanism as you see it?

JP: The “litmus test” emerged because Republican leaders have apparently begun to understand that they have to win back the confidence of conservative Americans in the wake of the 2008 election, the NY-23 debacle, and defections on key House and Senate votes. In its origins, the “litmus test” is not a purge by the right, but a commitment from the top—an attempt by GOP institutions to reassure the grass roots that the party will stay true to its values.

That said, there are two questions that remain. One is strategic: is it better to give people credit for the Republican values they share, or to punish them for the points on which they disagree? In other words, is a “litmus test” really better than a new “Contract With America”? I support the latter, which I feel is positive and inclusive. That way, we can focus on our common agenda rather than our differences.

The second question is the substance of the test itself. Most Republicans I know, myself included, could sign on to all ten principles. The minimum score of eight would also allow pro-choice and pro-gay marriage Republicans to wave the GOP banner proudly. I do wonder, however, whether we actually need ten points to articulate the simple principles Republicans have always believed in: freedom, strength, and tradition. What we really need most is the courage to fight for them.

SR: President Obama’s decision to increase troops…  What should the Republican response be?

JP:  I believe Republicans should support President Obama’s decision to send more troops to Afghanistan, while stressing that the numbers are still probably too small and that the decision took far too long. I think it is to the credit of the GOP that we have remained devoted to the struggle against terror and radical Islam, with few exceptions. We should continue to lead on national security, where we remain the more trusted party.

I do believe that Republicans should point out the radicalism and hypocrisy of those Democrats who have opposed the president’s decision. My opponent, incumbent Jan Schakowsky, leads the anti-war chorus in Congress but still voted for the defense appropriations bill—no doubt partly because she inserted four earmarks totaling $7 million for her favorite causes and cronies. Even the anti-war groups were livid.

SR: You are a Republican running in a heavily Democratic district.  Have you moderated your policies for the campaign?  How does the ninth district of Illinois affect your particular brand of Republicanism?

JP: My experience has been that Republican values are in sync with the values most Americans share, even in left-leaning districts. Americans believe that individuals should be free to pursue their dreams. Americans believe in personal responsibility and government accountability. Americans believe that faith and family keep our democracy strong. These are all beliefs that the Republican party stands for.

The Democrat party does not seem to share a common set of principles, but a common set of sentiments: when they are at their best, Democrats want to help the poor and vulnerable (or at least to be seen to be doing so). Many probably do not believe that big government is the way to help. But they know government can humble the wealthy and strong. That is why Democrat party leaders often try to whip up feelings of envy, victimization, and resentment. They create a false and debilitating hatred of success.

My approach is to emphasize the way in which Republican policies can help the poor and vulnerable, and the way in which Democrat policies hurt them. Republicans support school choice, while Democrats took away scholarships from black kids in D.C. Republicans want health insurance tax credits, while Democrats are cutting Medicare for seniors. Such contrasts are becoming increasingly easy to point out.

SR: What happened to the Chicago Bears offense? It seems like Forte averages under 3 yards a carry and Cutler throws a couple interceptions each game.

JP: The Chicago Bears are like America at the moment: lots of talent and potential, but a lack of competent leadership. It is not time to replace the head coach—at least, not yet—but we do need to give him better staff. Likewise, President Obama would be a better leader if he had a Republican Congress to work with. He has the ability to unite people of different views, but a radical left-wing Congress will never give him that opportunity.