I wasn’t there, though certainly I’ve attended my share of Republican state conventions. I didn’t walk the aisles in Austin, hear the speeches, press the flesh, pocket the literature, buy the overpriced soft drinks. To wit, what do I know?

Not much maybe. I have just a hunch, nevertheless, from reading varied accounts of the convention, and the hunch is that for the most part something was missing. I say so because in reading the stories I found my mind wandering, my attention flagging, my interest in another glass of chardonnay increasing. Then I read about Newt Gingrich and what he said.

In admiration of the former U.S. House Speaker, I yield to many. There’s always been the showboat factor to reckon with in appraising Gingrich.

But consider what he told the convention: namely, that it was time to attack our energy problems by attacking — in a proper parliamentary sense, of course — the liberals who stand in the way of our going after oil and natural gas right here at home. We can’t exploit — howsoever cautiously — the riches of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Nor can we drill in offshore Florida or offshore New England. Come to think of it, all the places we should be drilling if we want to find oil are pretty much legally off limits, and Gingrich wants that to stop. “Drill Here, drill now, pay less [for gasoline],” is the former Speaker’s theme.

It’s not always easy with Newt to know when the showboat docks and the public philosopher steps forward. That’s not my point. My point is, here’s a Republican who knows well enough what’s on the voters’ minds — viz., the punishing and disconcerting price of gasoline — and who has at least a plan to deal with it.

It’s how you win elections — by offering to solve problems and talking the voters into letting you have a go.

Reading stories about the GOP convention, I didn’t get the sense a lot of attempted problem-solving was going on. Positions got enunciated well enough — on eminent domain, the integrity of the State Board of Education, the Margins Tax on business, tuition deregulation, gambling, and so on and so on. Most of what the party said about these matters made good sense. Somehow it didn’t congeal. Nobody seemed to be solving problems. Nobody except maybe Newt, and he’s not running for anything.

Those who indeed are running could do worse than take their wares — their plans and programs and philosophies — and apply them to specific grievances, daring voters not to vote Republican if they want things to get better. You’ve heard no doubt about “change you can believe in.” It’s the Democrats’ way of telling the voters, say, we can fix this thing. Whatever thing they may be talking about. The plan may not be much. Say it’s the rising cost of healthcare, and Democrats want to raise taxes to pay for expanded health insurance coverage I can reply, no way, that just makes the problem worse. I’m right, but so what if I’m not seen as working just as hard as the Democrats to solve the problem?

Today, especially. The war and energy prices at the national level; at the state level failing schools, high property taxes, highway congestion, and an immigration problem no one can quite get his arms around. Is there a Republican vision for tackling and disposing of these assorted problems? The loudest noise I hear from the right is a sort of grumble: No; can’t do it; won’t do it. “No,” often enough, is the proper response to a crazy solution. But instead of just “no,” what about a sane solution? What about “Drill here, drill now, pay less”? It makes sense from a free-market perspective, and it solves, potentially at least, a problem.

In like manner supply side tax cuts, under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, jolted the economy back to life.

A conservative party, at any level of government — for such is the GOP — labors under a peculiar disadvantage, that of loving inactivity for its own sake. Conservatism rightly distrusts windbaggery and wild ideas. Yet the habit of distrust can turn into negativism and complacency, especially after years of unquestioned political dominance.

Dominance makes a party fat; causes it to yawn, to look inward instead of outward, to see complaint rather than creative initiative as the natural posture.

I wouldn’t say that’s quite where Texas Republicans are in 2008. I just wonder why it took an outsider, a professional agitator with a world-famous ego, to pop the political whip, to identify a problem and make it seem as though one Republican — just one — had a notion what to do.

Comments (9)

Comment	smaller | bigger
Name
Write the displayed characters
Subscribe via email (Registered users only) I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.
	Add Comment