The Republican Party of the Future: "walden Three"

THE REPULICAN PARTY OF THE FUTURE:

“WALDEN THREE”

By Robert DePaolo

Despite Barack Obama’s impressive win, the fact that Republican presidents have won five of the last seven presidential elections seems almost miraculous. That is because the Republican philosophy virtually mitigates against political success. For example, saying that government is inherently intrusive, should be small and is not to be trusted makes running for office seem paradoxical, and ostensibly puts all Republicans at an inherent disadvantage in the political arena.

More to the point, Republicans will seldom be viewed as problem solvers. They cannot position themselves as knights in shining armor assigned by fate and suffrage to rescue the people. Ronald Regan did this to an extent, but looking back at the 1980 election, it seems to this writer that Regan’s true advantage over Carter was his clarity. Rescuing the people from their economic plight was not the point - at least not at first. Indeed even his vice presidential nominee, George Bush, labeled Regan’s supply- side notion “voodoo economics” and almost two years after his inauguration, the jury was still out regarding Regan’s capacity to revive the American economy.

On the other hand the nation had gone through a period of frustratingly vague semantics and vapid leadership. Problems had been addressed in hyper-sympathetic and disproportionately emotional terms regarding school busing, military resources, the middle class tax rates, etc.

People wanted someone to cut through the noise, to paint in black and white - to interpret what was actually happening in this country and how the people really felt about it. That gift for clarity - that courage to buck the trend (which, despite President Carter’s southern roots was really an east coast, elitist trend) and define an increasingly uncertain, unconfident America was what got Ronald Regan elected.

In that sense, Regan was one of the few Republicans in history who could be said to have rescued the American people; not with heroic acts or pseudo-sensitivity to the plight of the poor and downtrodden but with heroic (arguably iconoclastic) specificity. With the obvious exception of Abraham Lincoln that really hadn’t happened before.

It might not happen again, because the more dependent this nation becomes (and the recent request for bailouts from virtually every company but Wal Mart) suggests we are becoming very dependent, the more likely it is that voters will seek a messiah. The democrats are better at posing as such.

President Obama is not nearly as unique as some claim. On the contrary, he is in many ways a prototype Democratic candidate for president. Charisma, youth and physical appearance are his assets, as they were for Bill Clinton, Gary Hart, John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and countless others.

It has been a nearly flawless capitulation to post-television era human nature… Reasonably handsome, slender, soft spoken, compassionate intellectual comes to the rescue of the downtrodden.

We are a people by now addicted to media stereotypes and archetypes and in that sense the Democratic image, which is the offspring as well as the beneficiary of television, has become consistent with what we think and feel.

A Republican aspiring to higher office might find that a bit depressing: torn as he or she is between wanting to help the people, yet knowing a free society can only endure to the extent that its people remain self-reliant.

In light of that dilemma, what should a future republican candidate do? Beyond that, how does one appeal to voters without appearing to bail them out? How does one drum up interest for a candidacy while propounding a minimalist approach to governance that can give the appearance of detachment?

There is a possible answer to those questions. One that is consistent with the Republican philosophy and contrasts strongly enough with the Democrat’s doctrine of “patronizing compassion” to produce an alternative form of activism.

First, consider that the most obvious difference between the modern democratic and republican philosophies might revolve around the word, merit. Although Thomas Jefferson’s party adopted the hybrid term, democratic-republican party, his beliefs were almost certainly closer to the modern Republican thesis. For example, his concept of the natural aristocracy held that A: America is inherently competitive, not egalitarian, and B: Its only pretense to equality pertains to the availability of opportunity - as opposed to seizing and taking advantage of same. In effect, Jefferson defined “fair” as a process in which talents lead to success. To him the word “unfair” meant success and wealth were detached from effort and ability, ie. passed on through inheritance. In other words. like Freud, he equated work with morality and happiness. In that context it seems safe to say he would have rejected the idea of entitlement.

Democrats know their political base consists primarily of have-nots (self-perceived and otherwise). To espouse a meritocratic trend in government would unravel that base. Therefore there is a fundamental contrast between the two parties based on the difference between earning and having.

If Republicans were looking for a new conservative activism that would inspire the masses, increase productivity, prosperity, creativity, optimism and moral probity they might find it in the simple concept of positive reinforcement. This is, of course, an idea based on and supported by volumes of research in the field of behavioral psychology. It holds that rewards for specific behaviors not only increase the frequency of the behaviors, but also generate positive shifts in mood, pro-social attitudes and energy levels per se. Indeed some psychologists have suggested that an ultimate positive state of mind arises from a clean and direct relationship between what one does and what one gets.

An early proponent of behaviorism, B.F. Skinner was called a fascist by Ayn Rand after writing his book Beyond Freedom and Dignity - a follow up to his seminal book on a reinforcement-based community, Walden Two. Skinner was considered a liberal by some, an ultra-conservative by others. (When liberals were conjuring up costly and ultimately ineffective ways to improve education in public schools back in the 70s. Skinner was quoted as saying, in concrete, Reganesque fashion, “Kids aren’t learning because they get no bang out of school).”

Regardless of his politics, which in hindsight seems to have simply been behaviorist, his central thesis could be applied comfortably to the modern republican philosophy, thus setting the stage for a Republican brand of activism - in the form of a conservative Walden Three.

To illustrate how this might play out; the new conservative activism might espouse that those who produce, hire, make profits, abstain from antisocial behaviors, succeed in school and sustain marital relationships would be rewarded with financial incentives in the form of stimulus rebates, tax deductions and reduced tax rates. A corporation that increased its profits would be rewarded with lower taxes because the economic behavior and creativity of the company enhances the U.S.A. Similarly, a family whose children succeeded in school, engaged in no criminal activities, whose parents paid taxes and did not violate laws would be rewarded with similar earnings. The argument, from a fiscally conservative viewpoint, would be that reward for productive behavior on a grand scale reduces the behavioral overhead that costs society far more down the road. Public school funding could be dealt with similarly. Not punitively, as conservatives have suggested in the past, but through the simple maxim….perform well and you will be rewarded for that performance. Don’t perform well and you won’t.

It would be effective. Human nature being what it is, most Americans would latch onto the new achievement ethic arising from this new high energy zeitgeist. And should the democrats complain about the rich getting richer, about unfair contingencies or inequity per se, the republicans could respond by saying… We seek a climate of excellence. Our program makes the nation better, and since a nation is nothing more than a series of behaviors which either enhance or hinder its present conditions and journey through history, we think our form of activism is infinitely better than yours.