Some years ago I was talking with a member of the College Republicans chapter at my alma mater, and she mentioned that when the chapter went to national conventions they were often the only woman-led chapter present. She even joked about how it took a chapter from a women's college to have any female representation at College Republican events at all. Listening to her, I wondered two things: 1) would an advantageous male-female ratio be worth subjugating my most deeply held beliefs?, and 2) how could an intelligent young woman make the observation that Republicans are not friendly to female leadership and yet still willingly be part of their organization?
I thought about that today reading Jack Cafferty's blog post on CNN.com about how the GOP can attract women. The comments back to his question all seem to boil down to the perception that Republicans intrinsically don't respect the agency of women, reflected in their party's views on everything from reproductive rights (chicks can't handle 'em) to equal pay (bad for business). It's a portion of the larger problem that the GOP has no empathy for people who for whatever reason lack privilege.
Several prominent Republicans have attempted to start the process of refocusing what the party should be about. I hope the National Council for a New America involves more soul-searching than mere re-branding - the difference between actually coming up with new and productive ideas and just coming up with new ways to sell the same old talking points. I hope they take a sincere look at why so many people think they're bigots, and if that means apologizing for calling the NAACP "commies" and getting out of the way of same-sex marriage rights, then so be it.
Because - deep breath - America needs the Republican party. Or rather, we need multiple parties, at least one of which should be more conservative than the others. Competition produces better ideas (you'd think the free market guys would get that), and our entire system of government was built on that concept. But somewhere along the line (about 1964) the GOP became more concerned with winning than with governing.
That's why you've got Mike Pence going on "Hardball" hemming and hawing when Chris Matthews asked him of he believed in evolution. (Evolution, really? What is this, 1850?) This is the party that fought for African American civil rights at great political cost, even loss of life, barely a century ago. It's truly sad to see the descendents of that legacy sink to race-baiting an war-mongering. It took the Democrats a long time to leave that kind of thing behind; our country would only be better off if the GOP did the same.
Rachel Maddow had a great interview with Rep. Ron Paul last night. Now, I don't think I would ever vote for Paul because his ideas are so radically divergent from mine - but at least he HAS ideas. Ideas based on something other than idealogy and saying no. Paul isn't just against positions, he's FOR things.
Every political party has high tides and ebb tides, and the ones that survive do so because they adapt to a changing world. If the GOP wants to stay relevant - and I honestly, non-snarkily hope that it does - its members need to listen to the Ron Pauls and the Colin Powells more, and listen to the unelected, unaccountable fringe elements like this guy less.
No comments:
Post a Comment