The purpose of this essay is to frame the upcoming debates by large topic. I do not intend to back one position or the other or one candidate over the other here.  The GOP is facing huge fights over these ideas and doctrines that may result in a contested convention where there are two (or three) candidates left in the running for nomination. This may not be  a bad thing because a good internal fight can have a cleansing, clarifying, and renewing effect on the party.

The Coming Doctrinal Fights in the GOP

Doctrine– (noun)- a rule or principle that forms the basis of a belief, theory, or policy.

Over the past twenty years, and especially in the last two years there has been several growing rifts within the Republican Party along the lines of Insurgents versus Establishment, the importance of Social Conservative policy, the importance of Fiscal Conservative policy, and on what principals should govern foreign policy. Battles over these doctrines will reveal where the splits are in GOP and should reveal where the party stands by the end of the Convention that occurs during hot August in Tampa Bay in 2012.

These internal fights are necessary from time to time as the political landscape and the people who make up the party changes. For instance, today’s Democratic Party looks nothing like it did under Kennedy. In the GOP this cycle, there are several main factions and driving principals that will be at odds more so than in previous years.  What wins in the GOP this cycle will be tested nationally in the 2012 Election. These facets of 2012 have to win the almost all of the GOP first and then win just some non-GOPers to win in 2012. The factions and ideas that will be debated and then tested are:

Insurgents/Tea Party versus The Establishment: The rise of the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party, and the popularity of Sarah Palin among the Right, and the latest Congressional Freshmen are the Insurgents. The GOP has had three true insurgencies in the past 50 years: Goldwater in 1964, Reagan in 1980, and the 104th Congress seated in 1995. That is once every 15 years,  the GOP is due again for an Insurgency.  We know from history that Insurgents are not always successful and are immediately dismissed on sight by the Establishment the instant they begin to rise. The Establishment does not want to change the status quo, the Insurgents do and were sent in to do just that by their constituents; this has been rather evident in the recent budget debate.  The Establishment prefer not to fight and verbally go after the other side. The Insurgents don’t mind a street fight if necessary. In this case, in this cycle, it is the Insurgents who are the fiscal conservatives and street fighters while the Establishment push the problems down the road, maybe change things slowly while protecting their power, and prefer to get along with the other side while maintaining the status quo. The Establishment in the GOP uses the ‘next in  line’ principal to determine who should run for the nomination with their backing, this is a very powerful method of staying in control; and control is a good thing if you are in the establishment or agree with them. The status quo has the Establishment with all the perks and power and a generally comfortable existence in DC. Eventually, if the Insurgents are successful, they can easily become the Establishment and the cycle continues. The Insurgents versus the Establishment factors into the Doctrinal Arguments described below.

Fiscal (Conservative) Policy- One can place themselves on a continuum on this doctrine: 1-10 where 1 does not really care about spending and the size/intrusiveness of government as long as the that person agrees with the policies and spending to 10 where the person wants the government cut right now to levels that balance the budget now and everything else be damned.  All Republicans are on this continuum somewhere. There has yet to be a fiscally conservative Congress or President since FDR expanded the government. No matter what or who is in charge, the government (spending/regulation/deficit/govt size/ or a combination of these) expands. There have been no real cuts, so no hard-core Fiscal Conservatives have had power yet.  But, what about tax cuts? That’s Fiscal Conservatism isn’t it? No it isn’t, because the size reach and expense of government keeps going up even when there are tax cuts. But, but, but…Reagan cut taxes and said that government was the problem! He may have been a Fiscal Conservative at heart, but the size and expense of government still went up under his watch. That brings us to this cycle, we are at the end of continual government expansion from both sides for decades upon decades. The choice this cycle is to slow the growth of government or cut it back; 1-10 is the scale.

Social  (Conservative) Policy- Just like Fiscal Policy, the voter’s Social Policy is on a 1-10 scale, where 1 is a total ‘I don’t care one whit about Social Conservatism nor does any of that that ever effect my choice of candidate in any way, to a 10 where  Social Conservatism is the overriding be all and end all of that person’s vote at the expense of all other doctrines and the candidate must pass a stringent purity test to get my vote. This doctrinal difference is very large in the GOP because it is very rare to find a true Fiscal Conservative/Social Conservative because often, Social Policy costs money which places those programs in the sights of the Fiscal Conservatives. This is a factor that is now unique to the Republicans. Social Conservatism ceased being a discussion in the Democratic Party many years ago. Is this disagreement a negative? That is a question open for debate if one side or the other stays home in the general election.

Foreign Policy- This might be the first time since the Cold War that Foreign Policy is this large in the primary season. This pits two old adversaries against each other, the Idealists(1) versus the Realists (Wilsonian versus Jacksonians perhaps (2) ?); it is almost impossible to be a true isolationist at this point, so it is not included here .  Both sides believe what they espouse is best for America in the long term and short term. A 1 would be a full blown Idealist that would meddle and or invade at the drop of a hat to spread democracy regardless of outcomes later. A 10 would be very concerned with future outcomes and current outcomes as they effect security and national interests if the status quo was changed by meddling or invasion. These can be described thusly: Idealist believe that spreading Democracy/intervening against ‘bad guys’ even by force is always in America’s best interest regardless of the possible outcomes; ideology over national interest and security. In short: ‘Everyone should have Democracy”.  The Realist will place security and national interest over ideology; The decision to invade is based on “What will be the outcome of Democracy if we invade? Will this outcome be in our best interests?”

The upcoming Doctrinal Debate within the GOP should be fascinating to watch and discuss. Some pitfalls are that the party splits, or one side sits at home in the general election, or that we allow the media to form these debates and determine the outcomes for us. This is an internal fight. If we allow the outside to control the fight and shape its outcomes then all sides in the GOP will have lost. We are due for this fight ans should welcome it, it happens once every generation or so.

/——-Footnotes/Background/Out of Bounds for the above article—–/

(1) I would have used the term Neo-Conservative here, but that term has picked up some baggage because of incorrect identification and definition of policy beliefs.

(2) Jacksonianism Rediscovered