5 criteria we can use to judge who is helping the GOP become "the smarter party"

Ryan Streeter

Sarah Palin and Paul Ryan are both plain-talking people with middle American values. But most political observers would sense there’s also a pretty big difference between them. Palin, in the words of the TIME feature on her last week, has “worked more on her profile than on her platform.” Ryan, meanwhile, can’t be accused of working too much on his profile, but he has developed a reputation as a policy wonk with a serious platform of reform.

The difference has to do with how Palin and Ryan engage with ideas and communicate them. More on this later.

Some have talked lately about the level of “adult conversation” we’ve enjoyed during the debate about the deficit commission and tax cut extensions. A number of politicians have dispensed with sound bites as they’ve tried to deal with the fiscal problems facing us.

But is adult conversation sustainable in a highly politicized environment? No – unless you have politicians who are determined to keep the debate elevated, focused on ideas, and set above the sound bites and partisan posturing.  No commission or set of policy ideas will do it on their own. Political leadership is needed.

Which raises a question: does the GOP have the leadership needed to keep the debate elevated this way? Can the GOP be a smarter party, the kind of party that lives up to its aspiration to be the party of ideas?

The only way we can answer this question is if we can provide criteria with which to assess candidates and elected officials.

So here is my first take at the criteria.  If a candidate or elected official wants to be taken seriously, he or she:

1. Should be conversant on at least three big issues. Three is a rather arbitrary number, but the idea is that the world is big place needing leaders who can work intelligently across several issues.

2. Should be able to cite compelling evidence or use arguments (rather than declarations of ideology) to back up the policies he or she advocates. There’s a big difference between advocating universal tax cut extensions and explaining to people why and how lower tax rates foster growth. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal is a good example of this point, especially on health care issues. 

3. Demonstrate an ability to stray from the party talking points and say things in his or her own words. Voters appreciate being able to see that a political leader has internalized what he or she is trying to say. Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie have won voter affection for their ability to show that they understand and mean what they are saying. They don't sound like the larger class of political droids who show an aptitude for repeating pre-programmed talking points. 

4. Should be able to practice the first three points consistently, over time – not just in one-off speeches or statements. Giving one good speech or sitting for one good interview doesn’t do the trick. A political thought leader needs to demonstrate consistency.

5. Needs to have a proven ability to part with the party on matters of principle. This doesn’t mean that mavericks are thought leaders. It simply means that one true measure of thought leadership is loyalty to principle over party – and the courage to defend principle in the face of the party.

Now, let’s look at Sarah Palin again. It’s clear conservative activists like her. But it’s also clear that they have their doubts about her electability and seriousness as a candidate.

This shouldn’t be a big surprise. People generally like her for her authenticity and determination to march to the beat of her own drum, but that's a far step from showing a moral seriousness about how we as a country are going to tackle the big issues facing us.

Is Palin conversant on multiple issues? It is hard to find the evidence that she is.

Does she cite compelling evidence or arguments to support her policy views? She may have done so in a few cases, but in general, it is hard to find evidence to support the claim that she does.

Does she stray from party talking points and say things in her own words? On this front, we can say, yes, she uses her own voice and vocabulary to make points of principle rather than points handed down by political leaders and advisors.

Does she show consistency over time on points 1 through 3? Well, she has consistently used her own words to make her points, but she has not made persuasive arguments over time. She came out with an impressive statement on quantitative easing that even the Wall Street Journal’s editors praised, and she backed Paul Ryan’s Roadmap, but these are largely one-off events. It would be hard to argue that she has consistently argued for principles and ideas in an informed way.

Has she parted with the party on matters of principle? No, not really. Showing that you’re anti-establishment by taking jabs at Karl Rove, making light of Reagan’s experience, and insulting George H.W. Bush’s service to his country does not equal parting with the party. She has taken no notable stances on any policy issue that cut away from the mainstream of the party.

I leave to the reader to decide how Paul Ryan fares on the 5 points. 

For the GOP to be a smarter party, its leaders and members need to do better on the 5 points I lay out above. It's not a question, for instance, of whether Sarah Palin is "smart enough" or "sufficiently intelligent" to be President. It has to do with how she fares on measures of thoughtfulness. That goes for any political leader.

ConservativeHome plans to refine these metrics and use them going into 2012 to assess candidates, members of Congress, and Governors. If you have ideas about how to improve or expand the criteria, feel free to email me here or leave a comment.

Comments

[Ellie Light]

Citing Daniels and Christie only serves to show the dangers of mistaking RINOs for conservatives. Both of them are same old same old. If either were nominated I'd run for the exits.