By Jennifer Nevins =
On February 9th, the Illinois Republican Central Committee held an open-to the public meeting. If you are not aware of this, cut yourself some slack: most of the precinct committeemen I know were also unaware of it-which logically means that their committees weren’t aware of it either. Nevertheless, approximately sixty concerned observers attended the meeting; the public portion lasted three hours after which the committee adjourned to do their sausage making in private.
After a bit of jocular banter by Chairman Tim Schneider, a discussion ensued over precisely how much time to allot to non-member statements. In a move that illustrates the leadership’s reluctance to actually listen to its base, the committee members voted to allow sixty seconds per speaker and the microphone was passed around to those interested. Twelve individuals took the opportunity to speak their minds. I was one of them-and – owing to a kind soul who donated his moment in the sun- I took a little more than my allotment.
When one is thoroughly disgusted with just about everything their Party’s leadership has done both in this election cycle and in the one preceding it, cram jamming remarks into a sixty second box is nigh impossible. Of course, containing the outrage was the reason for the time restriction in the first place , and in IL GOP land, a minute beats a muzzle.
Two 2020 candidates, activists, and precinct committeemen voiced their hopes and their discontent. More than one audience speaker made the case for re-focusing efforts on minority outreach, and good examples were offered to buttress their points.
But here’s the thing. Calls for outreach to women, members of the LGBTQ community, and ethnic minorities are always interpreted by the leadership to mean that our platform needs to be modified or diluted to appeal to these groups. This is most true in the case of the ballyhooed “suburban woman voter”. This voting bloc comes up most frequently in the Peter Roskam and Randy Hultgren campaign post mortems . The ( big, honking) ) trouble is-both of Roskam and Hultgren’s opponents were radicals who both advocated-then and now-for unfettered abortion.
Precisely how do you appeal to women who vote for this type of candidate without watering down your pro-life platform? The short, yet complete answer is you don’t. Nonetheless, the musings about our pro-life plank and blaming of our President-both implied and overt-continues.
There is an irony here. The leadership wants us to move on from the past. And we do need to move on-from a segment of a demographic that will not vote for us unless we become that whom we are running against.
The truth is, there are other voter mines in which to dig—deep veins of gold and silver just waiting to be dug if we use the right tools. Minorities and white working class Americans can and often will be receptive to a political alternative if a better job is done of articulating a platform and why that platform will benefit them. What we say to the LGBTQ community shouldn’t differ all that much from what we say to an immigrant community, an African American community, a union worker community.
The problem is, it is to these groups that we aren’t saying much of anything. How hard is it to simply say that we want to prevent their jobs from leaving the state? That we respect their right to live their lives as they see fit? That we plan to keep their families safe with a strong military? That we want to safeguard their financial future by cutting taxes? That we stand for freedom – true freedom, not the restrictive, busy body socialist nonsense the Democrats pretend is freedom?
Chairman Schneider, tell me, which groups outside of the most progressive that won’t appeal to?
The leadership had better understand that voters for whom ideology trumps economic and national security Will. Not. Vote for our candidates. Chasing after these voters by creating distance from the leader of the Party and its solid platform does two things: it alienates the much needed base and it results in very few ideologue votes. Simply put, progs vote for other progs. That’s something that shouldn’t be so darned hard to understand. Sure- you may peel a few of those voters off-but the cost will vastly outweigh the benefit.
Frankly stated, if the party leadership is unwilling to fully embrace our existing platform while simultaneously articulating a clear message to traditionally Democrat groups, it must be replaced. Root to branch.
The time to decide is now.
