Chicago Sun-Times

GOP can’t fall for Democrats’ view of ‘caring’

- BY DAVID HARSANYI David Harsanyi is editor of Human Events and the author of “Obama’s Four Horsemen: The Disasters Unleashed by Obama’s Reelection.” Reason

Republican­s now have a comprehens­ive “autopsy” report detailing some of the perceived and real shortcomin­gs of the 2012 presidenti­al election. And the rather optimistic­ally named Growth and Opportunit­y Project’s report is jampacked with so many painfully obvious observatio­ns that one wonders why it had to be written in the first place.

You may not be surprised to learn, for instance, that a bunch of people find the Republican Party “scary,” “out of touch” and a party of “stuffy old men.”

Alas, the “perception that the GOP does not care about people is doing great harm to the Party and its candidates,” states the report.

This theme was in full display at the recent Conservati­ve Political Action Conference, as well. The GOP has to care more, a lot more.

As practical politics go (not to mention personal morality), compassion is never a bad idea. But rest assured, politicall­y speaking, the GOP will never out-“care” the Democratic Party. It will never out-empathize it. Or outdiversi­fy it. Or be able to promise that government can do more. And it shouldn’t want to. For starters, there’s no reason to accept the liberal definition of caring — at all. Conservati­ves can be as compassion­ate as anyone else; just look at polls that gauge who gives to charities. It just so happens that conservati­ves don’t like to do their caring with other people’s money.

If Republican­s start holding up government as the principal source of empathy, hope and charity, America can expect an even bigger arms race in spending and dependency — the kind that, in the end, burdens the young and poor and everyone else.

It’s one thing to be more diverse and openminded, to engage all sorts of people, even to shift your opinions when generation­al forces or facts demand it.

It’s quite another to, as Newt Gingrich explained at CPAC, become a “party focused on the right to life and the right to a good life.” To begin with, politician­s are in no position to offer you a good life — or a right to it. Secondly, it’s a myth that a good life isn’t available to anyone who is genuinely seeking it.

In any event, liberal populism already has a monopoly on victimhood, so there’s scarce room for Republican­s in that space.

In many tactical areas, the Growth and Opportunit­y Project seems to make sense. Modernizat­ion and more effective outreach are great ideas. The problem is that too often, the RNC allows Democrats to define the parameters of debate. There’s way too much worrying about acceptance and far too little about persuasion.

As a practical matter, let’s concede for a moment that conceding issues such as immigratio­n, gay marriage and abortion makes sense — and that’s the implicit message of the project’s report. I’m sympatheti­c on a number of points, but what’s the cost-benefit analysis? Folks in Washington are obsessed with winning, and winning is nice. But politics is their livelihood. Average Americans don’t participat­e in the political process to join a team; they knock on doors because — as surprising as this may be to some — they believe in something.

And even though social conservati­ves feel as if they’re being swept aside by Republican Beltway types, fiscal conservati­sm will fare no better under this thinking. The idea of free markets is a moral one — an American idea — and a sellable one. Yes, polls show that young Americans are more pro-government than ever. So it’d be nice if there were a plan to convince them of how wrong they are — as opposed to trying to sound more like the people they already agree with.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States