Republicans rebranded

How New England's Republicans can hit 'restart' -- and why we should hope they do

The chance of a comeback by Rockefeller Republicans was rendered even less likely by the defeat of Christopher Shays of Connecticut on Nov. 4. (Bob Child/Associated Press)

AS MY LATE mother-in-law was fond of saying, "everything happens for a reason." For the increasingly lonely band of Republicans here in Massachusetts, of which I am a part, this may be the only source of solace in the aftermath of yet another disastrous election.

After competing for only slightly more than one in five state legislative seats, Republican representation in the House and Senate has dropped from a paltry 24 to an even paltrier 21. The number of Massachusetts Republicans in the US Congress remains stuck at zero. The party's US Senate candidate polled less than a third of the votes, winning only one town in the entire state. Come January, there will be not a single New England Republican in the US House of Representatives.

But instead of waiting hopefully for fate to deliver its next blow, Bay State Republicans should seize the opportunity to take stock and start fresh. Anything less than a complete makeover - including, perhaps, a new name - will fail to bring the moribund GOP back to life.

Reviving Massachusetts' Republican Party is in the best interests of everyone, not just Republicans. One-party rule, especially when it's as lopsided as it is here, inevitably leads to intellectual laziness, excess, and, all too often, corruption. The recent spate of subpoenas and surveillance photos on Beacon Hill suggests that we may already be sliding down that slippery slope.

At a minimum, public accountability requires two viable parties, each with a vested interest in keeping an eye on the other. Even though partisan wrangling can sometimes lead to gridlock, a healthy two-party system generally leads to wiser decisions over time, through a vigorous clash of competing ideas.

The underlying problem for Republicans is the absence of a compelling conservative vision for the future that is aligned with New England's more tolerant and civic-minded political sensibilities.

Typically, political observers say that the national Republican Party has moved too far to the right for moderate New Englanders. But I think a more telling way to frame the problem is that the national party has drifted away from the core conservative principles that used to unite Republicans from all parts of the country, in favor of policies that appeal to an increasingly narrow, albeit fervent, base.

Today's conservative agenda includes a censorious social policy that panders to the Christian right, a guns and butter fiscal policy that would make Lyndon Johnson blush, and a Wilsonian foreign policy that is increasingly untethered from the national interest. Nationally, this platform has just been repudiated; locally, it never had a chance.

If the national party no longer reflects the views of Republicans in Massachusetts, what does the local GOP leadership stand for? I think today the only fair answer is "less" - less tax, less spending, less (I know, "fewer") Democrats. Take whatever the Democrats want, subtract about a third, and what's left will usually be the Republican position on the issue. This is hardly a rallying cry for the party faithful or potential candidates, and it is certainly not an effective appeal to independent voters.

Lacking a governing philosophy of their own, Massachusetts' Republicans have been tarred with the increasingly unpopular (and often unconservative) positions of the Bush administration and its mostly southern and western allies in Congress.

If the core problem is the absence of a compelling vision, then the obvious solution is to develop one. Of course, this is easier said than done. Nevertheless, there are some criteria that Republicans might apply in evaluating various alternatives.

The Republican Party is and should be a center-right party, with an emphasis on "right." Center-left Republicans like governors Nelson Rockefeller and Frank Sargent are not about to make a comeback - just ask Christopher Shays of Connecticut, a Rockefeller Republican and the lone GOP stalwart from New England in the US House of Representatives, who went down to defeat on Tuesday. At the same time, a worldview that is defined merely by moderation - the space that lies between left and right - is no worldview at all. In the post-Reagan GOP, any viable governing philosophy has to be grounded in the basic tenets of conservatism: limited and accountable government, individual liberty and responsibility, and free markets.

But small government doesn't have to mean a weak government. The Jeffersonian dream of a minimalist state is long dead, Question 1 supporters notwithstanding. The relevant question isn't whether government should play a central role in the Commonwealth, but whether government acts to empower individuals, families, and communities or to supplant them.

By way of example, a reformed Republicanism should embrace the rising cadre of social entrepreneurs who are redefining what it means to be an active citizen and who are taking initiative to solve big problems, without first asking permission from the political class. The vibrant civil society they are helping to create is likely to produce better outcomes and is ultimately a bulwark against an ever-expanding government sector. Similarly, pushing for broader school choice places the interests of parents above those of educational bureaucracies and introduces healthy competition into a marketplace that has long suffered under a de facto monopoly.

A new Republican vision should focus squarely on the future, with a sense of hope for what lies ahead. Any conservatism worthy of the name honors tradition. But there is all the difference in the world between careful stewardship of our heritage and rigid traditionalism. What has separated American conservatives from their European counterparts is their boundless optimism and bourgeois populism, embodied by Ronald Reagan, who believed in the potential of average Americans - rather than government - to create a "shining city on a hill." Unfortunately, the loudest voices of conservatism on the national stage today are more likely to bemoan America's decline than to praise its potential. They are also increasingly known for their resistance to science, technology, and change. This rejection of hope and progress runs against the grain of the American spirit and is a formula for even more electoral defeats.

The conventional wisdom in Republican politics has been that the way to win elections is to focus on issues that deepen the fissures between the two parties. Barack Obama's triumphant campaign has shown that the opposite strategy may be more promising. Instead of fighting over issues that divide the electorate, Massachusetts Republicans should start to focus on those issues that transcend the traditional partisan boundaries. Call them reverse wedge issues. For example, promoting charter schools appeals to conservatives, but it also appeals to low-income families who tend to lean left. Ending public subsidies for favored industries, like biotech, movies, and trade shows, reinforces the conservative belief in free markets, but it also responds to liberal concerns about fairness. Issues like these can broaden the base, not circumscribe it. In a place like Massachusetts, where the current base is so small, this is the only viable strategy for Republican victory.

The current fiscal crisis presents Republicans with a particularly attractive opportunity to seize the initiative. Instead of investing their limited political capital in opposing or nitpicking the budget-cutting proposals that the Democrats will have to put forward, Republicans should concentrate their energy on developing bold proposals for transforming the state's bloated and costly bureaucracy, not only to save money, but also to deliver better performance. Reforming the state pension system, rationalizing the capital budget, consolidating agencies and line items, and eliminating programs that can't demonstrate results should all be issues where Republicans lead. Given their lowly status in the State House, Republicans can't expect to pass legislation, but they might be able to change the terms of the public debate.

Defining a distinctly Massachusetts style of conservatism may not be enough to change the tarnished Republican brand. A name change might also be in order, to symbolize the fresh start and create some distance from the national party. In Minnesota, the local Democratic Party is called the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party. Maybe here in Massachusetts - or across New England - the GOP should start calling itself the Independent Republican Party.

Now, some dyed-in-the-wool Republicans might blanch at the idea of splintering the national party. But if this is the only way the GOP's Massachusetts branch can make a comeback, then it would seem to be in the best interests of the national party, too.

Equally important, a vibrant state party that is generating new ideas and winning elections could spark a needed reappraisal of conservatism and expand the Republican base in other parts of the country.

The United States is still a conservative nation. According to a recent Newsweek poll, self-described conservatives outnumber liberals by almost two to one, a ratio that has held pretty constant for several decades. But the conservatism of Bush-Cheney-Rove has drifted far from the movement's roots and it has failed to capture the imagination of the rising generation of American voters - especially young people and Latinos, who both voted more than two to one in favor of Obama. The ever-expanding suburbs, once the GOP's best hope for the future, are now a tossup. As a result, former Republican strongholds like Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia appear to be changing from red to blue.

Last week's elections provide Republicans here, and across the country, with the cold comfort that they now have virtually nowhere to go but up. As Barack Obama says: "It's time for change." Yes we can!

James A. Peyser is a partner with NewSchools Venture Fund, a nonprofit grant-making organization that supports education entrepreneurs. He was chairman of the Massachusetts Board of Education from 1999 to 2006 and is a registered Republican from Milton.