Response to Michael Gerson

Michael Gerson submitted an op-ed column in the Washington Post regarding the ongoing flap between Colin Powell and the Republican Party. I contacted him by email with the following response...

Mr. Gerson,

I've heard of you, but I've never read any of your columns before. So I have no preconceptions of your ideological biases. However, I must take serious issue with at least one paragraph from your Colin Powell/Dick Cheney column in the Wasington Post (emphasis mine).

Obama's party has assembled its current majority among groups of growing demographic (and thus democratic) influence -- particularly nonwhites, the young and college-educated voters. It is difficult to imagine Republicans regaining momentum in these groups without an aggressive, unexpected message of social justice, inclusion, environmental stewardship and social mobility -- in addition to the economic and moral conservatism that will motivate much of the Republican coalition for the foreseeable future.

I have two problems with the above paragraph: 1) the suggestion that a Party's platform should be subject to change based on the fickle tastes of specific market segments and, 2) the use of trite, disingenuous euphemisms to describe "values" that Democrats and "moderates" allegedly possess and Conservatives apparently don't.

First, I understand the Washington Beltway's obsession with demographics. The use of market research and focus group data has helped the Democrats craft messages that have led them to victory in the last two National Elections. Furthermore, the exploitation of market segmentation (i.e., "NASCAR Dads", "Security Moms", "Values Voters", etc.) is often credited for George W. Bush's re-election in 2004. But in reducing the last several election results down to marketing, you are ignoring the fact that the success of the winning campaigns was down to changes in packaging, not changes to product. In the last two election cycles, the Democrats weren't offering anything new in terms of policy, they were re-presenting old policy in new ways. Do you actually believe that Obama is a moderate? Well, he was certainly packaged as a one. Meanwhile, some "Republicans"...the Powells, the McCains, the Grahams, the Schwarzeneggers, etc...suggest that the way to respond to the last few election results is not to re-package Conservative ideas so that they better appeal to the masses and to market segments, but to change the policy to appeal to fluctuations in taste. It's a bit like asking an advertising agency to market Pepsi and having the creative director respond with "make it taste more like Coke". Well, that's just great...on one hand you screw your own loyal customers by giving them something they don't want, while on the other, you may attract some fence sitters to sample your product. But are there going to be enough of them around to offset the loyal customers you have lost? Meanwhile, how loyal are they going to be to the New Coke-like Pepsi, when they can always switch to the Real Thing?

But my real problem with your column is in reference to the phrase I underline above. Define "social justice". Define "inclusion". And, most of all, define "environmental stewardship". As you employ these expressions, they serve as nothing more than platitudes. By presenting a message of "environmental stewardship", are you actually suggesting that the Republican Party should at least partially buy into that Al Gore moving target of "Global Warming"/"Climate Change"/"Environmental Sustainability" by encouraging more over-regulation of "carbon emissions" and punitive taxes via the "Cap-and-Trade" scam? How do you reconcile economic and moral conservatism with regressive energy taxes that may temporarily feed the entitlement beast but will add more cost to everyday purchases across the board (leaving families with less and less disposable income and inevitably leading to wealth and employment erosion due to "belt tightening")? Let me give you a hint: you can't. Economic conservatism and the kind of "environmental stewardship" you champion are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

At the end of the day, Colin Powell is emotionally symbolic but ideologically irrelevant. He's an incoherent empty suit...kind of like our current President. The less time wasted on the implications of his shallow rhetoric, the better.