For the record, I consider myself a classical conservative. My political beliefs are rooted in the social teachings of the Catholic Church and the political philosophies of John Locke, Adam Smith and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Over the course of my live, I’ve gained and compiled knowledge to formulate a political opinion, how we as a people should be governed and how those we’ve elected into power should act. I say this two years into a college education, rooted in western values and tradition, while keeping an open mind in the pursuit of Veritas — Truth.
If someone asked me my political affiliation two or three years ago, I would have quickly said, “I’m a Republican.”
“Why?” they would commonly ask, since nobody could believe Republicans actually existed from where I grew up in bleeding blue New England. I would then read off the Republican Party platform, that I committed to memory, of issues that were close to my heart, ranging from immigration to the economy to world affairs.
My liberal arts education has shattered what I had already believed in before entering college and forced me to think critically about why I believed what I believed. Was my stance it based on fact? What different perspective would agree and disagree with my stance? Safe to say, my political understanding has grown, leading me to adopt elements of varying ideologies to my own beliefs.
To clarify, I am still registered as a Republican voter. But after seeing last week’s Fox News primetime debate (if you could even categorize it as such), I am disappointed with what I saw from members of my own party.
As the candidates on the stage tried to validate their legitimacy, basing it on their own character and resumes, every candidate sought to take down each other. Senator Rand Paul immediately sought to begin an offensive against the bombastic, yet popular, business tycoon Donald Trump and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Similar attacks occurred between the newscasters and candidates.
Even the organization of the debate was grossly biased and unprofessional. In a proper debate, each candidate (no matter how many on the stage) gets roughly the same amount of time to discuss his or her stance on an issue. However, Fox News anchors, with their questions formulated by their producers, posed charged queries to specific candidates to seek a reaction from them. Some succeeded. All the questions asked served as traps to see how a candidate would trip or make a poor statement.
Some candidates shined in the debate. Some rose from the petty arguments and focused on new issues or offered new narratives. Two candidates in particular, Senator Marco Rubio and Governor John Kasich, were positive voices in a sea of negativity, name-calling and fear-mongering. I found these two to be a breath of fresh air from the atmosphere of Donald Trump and other yelling candidates. Rubio, son of Cuban immigrants, offers a sympathetic narrative to struggling college students and immigrant families. Kasich offers not only executive experience in administering the state of Ohio, but he also offers views of tolerance to the LGBT community. These should be the voices that mainstream media focuses on rather than sensationalist candidates.
But why do we focus on Trump, and why are the more controversial candidates in the limelight?
The answer is simple: money — not just money into the candidates’ campaign war chests, but also for Mr. Trump and his name recognition to spur more money spent on his brands and the Fox News producers. The debate was a chance to garner more than 24 million viewers to see a spectacle, not to become better informed on the issues.
The debate-circus prompts a broader question on not only the image of the party but that of its core values. What does the Republican Party truly stand for? There is a clear difference between saying something in a debate and doing something, which many of the republican senators running have done: NOTHING ... except elongate filibusters and block urgent legislation from being passed. Yes, positions were clarified by the candidates in the debate, but how do the Republican Party’s values pertain to all citizens? That’s something no one can get from a televised debate.
In an era where income inequality is a critical issue (made popular by democratic candidate Bernie Sanders) one must ask where do the Republican candidates stand on the issue? That was a question not asked during the debate.
The Republican Party refuses to open itself up to the rest of America. Fear-mongering and finger-pointing make up how republicans are dealing with critical issues. For example, Donald Trump’s controversial and prejudice remarks on illegal immigrants feed fear to the American public, leading less educated citizens to side with Trump against those blamed for the country’s woes. Fear breeds hate, which breeds greater injustice.
In order for the Republican Party to survive, it needs to rebrand itself. Republicans are too focused on divisive issues that turn younger voters and ethnic voters away from the image of big business. Not only that, but the Republican Party must go back to the roots of political philosophy and create a narrative of the individual in American society. The individual provides depth to our democracy. So why don’t Republican candidates embrace this?
In addition, middle class republicans should follow in the example of Bernie Sanders and criticize the use of Super PAC money in elections. Too much money by wealthy individuals and special interest groups gives more power to those who will push laws that benefit the rich but not to the rest of our democracy.
The United States is reaching a point in its history where authentic democracy no longer seems like a feasible concept to some. Some argue that an oligarchy is exerting more control in our democracy. Money and ambition drives politics of today rather than the focus on overcoming issues by working together and compromise. Deadlock in congress and partisan politics stall progress and prevent realistic solutions. I therefore argue that the Republican Party needs to witness a return to its core values, drawing upon Judeo-Christian principles and classical and enlightenment political theory. They must also open the party up to change from within. Let the farmer from Iowa, the businessman from Connecticut or the fisherman from Maryland all have a say in a new dialogue. Let the Republican Party be a party inclusive of all peoples and led by strong men, similar to charismatic and conscious republican leaders, such as Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. Let the party of Lincoln be the party of the people and end money's corrupt influence in politics. It will be up to my generation to right this wrong and create a new party dynamic.
