|
Much
comment has been devoted of late to the divisions
within the Republican Party, both in Virginia and at
the national level. In our two-party system, it
would be hard to imagine either political party
without divisions. It’s in the nature of having
only a pair of major parties.
The
key to success for the parties is effective
management of those divisions. At the moment,
Virginia Democrats appear to be managing that
problem better than Republicans.
It
is tempting for party leaders to handle internal
conflict by trying to find the lowest common
denominator that links all party factions. Seldom
does that work.
Another
approach is to have vigorous debate, followed by a
decision between conflicting positions within the
party so that bold leadership is possible. This can
succeed only when all factions agree in advance on
the rules that will prevail as they debate on a
course for the party. That’s what the nomination
process should be about.
When
a party agonizes over its internal differences and
cannot choose one position over another, it is
doomed to decline. There is no better example of
such a party than the British Conservative Party,
also known as the Tories.
Earlier
hits month, the Tories lost yet another general
election after running a campaign that excited
virtually no one in Britain. This allowed Prime
Minister Tony Blair to win an unprecedented third
term for his Labor Party.
What
a comedown for the party that brought inspiring
ideas to British politics and government a quarter
century ago! The dramatic change the Tories
accomplished under the leadership of Margaret
Thatcher necessarily antagonized opponents of change
and often produced bitter political struggles.
Ultimately, weaker members of the Conservative Party
tired of political confrontations and deposed
Thatcher.
Since
that point, the Conservative Party has become a pale
reflection of the party of 1979 that overwhelmed its
opponents and inspired a majority of Britons with
bold ideas and decisive leadership. There is a
lesson in that experience for Virginia Republicans.
Internal
divisions cannot be patched over or left unresolved.
The party cannot provide bolder leadership unless it
chooses one position or the other. Voters don’t
rally to a party because it is “unified.” They
are drawn by powerful ideas presented with
conviction.
There
is a danger, of course, in getting too far ahead of
the voters or embracing positions that are far too
controversial to have a chance of gaining popular
support. Yet the essence of leadership is pointing
others to a destination or objective they may not
see on their own.
A
former Marine Commandant, who later received a
presidential appointment to lead a troubled federal
agency, told me years ago that conflicts are ever
present in organizations. When they become a major
distraction, there is an obvious failure of
leadership. Not a failure of discipline, but a
failure to submerge internal differences with the
inspiration of a great common challenge and purpose.
This
is especially the case for a political party that
claims to favor limited government. Unlike
big-government, high-tax liberals, who tend to bribe
voters with their own money by promising more and
more programs, Republicans must have a defining
vision that is coherent and powerful. They must
convey to voters a sense that individual initiative,
market solutions and voluntary institutions can be
more effective than government in solving
problems. If Republicans can’t meet
that challenge, they will inevitably go the route of
the British Tories.
--
May 23, 2005
|
