Rutherford Gets It Wrong On Reagan

The closing speech at the Reagan Day fundraiser held Saturday was delivered by State Treasurer Dan Rutherford, who argued essentially that to win in Illinois, Reagan would have counseled Republicans to drop their unpopular positions.  That may not be a completely fair characterization, but it's what I, as a social conservative got from Rutherford's conclusion.  Lee Newcom seems to agree:

Rutherford claimed the key to winning Illinois was to support anyone who agrees with you 80 percent of the time. That, he shouted, is the key. The power he put behind that point seemed a little overemphasized and several around me caught the obvious pretext to his own potential as a Gubernatorial candidate next time around. There is no other way to handle a sticky issue most social conservatives would have with Rutherford.

In his 80% friend analogy, Reagan was speaking of supporting a Republican in a general election, because you must have a majority to govern. He was not, as some advocate, asking us to just ignore core issues. I believe Rutherford's take on Reagan is a demand to support Republican leaders without holding them accountable on issues. He misses the much more important point: we are not losing Illinois because we are not sticking together, we are losing in Illinois because we have campaigns like the recent one that told folks we won't raise their taxes, but said little more. I think we are losing because we don't stand for much and therefore don't inspire people to vote for what little we offer. But I am a pretty minor player in Illinois Republican politics, so I think I'll just defer to the big guy himself. This is how Ronald Reagan answered these politicians at C-PAC in 1975.

I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, "We must broaden the base of our party” - when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.
Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people.

Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government's coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine.

It is time to reassert our principles and raise them to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.

Strong words for Illinois Republicans. Words I suspect would still not be comfortably accepted by many who today claim his mantle of endorsement by virtue of being in his party.

Once we've thrown out 20% of our platform, what next? If someone comes along who disagrees about something else, does that person have a right to claim he agrees with us on 80% of our platform?

I can support a pro-choice Republican like a Dold or an Enriquez over a Democrat.

But if we throw out abortion as an issue on which to take a stand, do we then have to agree that having thrown out abortion, we can also not stand strong on the defense of marriage?  Rutherford is pro-life, but almost his last act as a state senator was to vote for same-sex civil unions.

And if we can't defend innocent life or traditional marriage, can we stand up against illegal immigration? Many Illinois Republicans would say no to that.  Can we be firm on gun rights?  Former presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani wasn't.

If these things are not core issues, can we stand strong on lower taxes? What about a Republican who advocated a public takeover of healthcare? Are we still allowed to demand a strong, pro-active national defense? What about limiting spending? Is that a core Republican principle?

If we chip off 20% of our platform -- thereby making it that much smaller -- must we then submit to having another 20% chipped off later?

10 years ago, the issue was abortion. Today it's marriage. What will it be next?

Arguably, a majority of voters in Illinois recently voted for higher taxes, and bigger and more corrupt government. Does anyone want to argue that the GOP should adopt those things as platform planks in order to attract more voters?

Or is there a point at which a thing is the right thing to advocate, whether it's popular or not, and we simply have to work harder to make our case?

Let me conclude with this about our state treasurer. After the event was over, he came back and visited blogger's row, and stood for pictures with all of us. He was very personable, very friendly, very likeable. But I think he's wrong on this point.