How Do You Say "Republican" in Massachusetts?

Good question, Aaron. Glad you asked it.

Of all the wonderful and sorrowful stories to come from Tuesday's election, buried in the rubble are Republicans in New England. Here in Massachusetts, the governor is a Democrat, the whole Congressional delegation the same and of 200 members in the Legislature's two houses, only 21 are Republican. While this is an exaggerated version of the rest of New England, it's quite bleak elsewhere.

On WBUR's election coverage, one of their analysts (half-jokingly) suggested the Mass. GOP should secede from the national party. Actually, that's a great idea. The national Republican Party, under the Bush administration's direction, has become so wedded to intolerant culture wars apparently beloved by much of the South and Midwest (they have to be beloved somewhere, right?) and a crude approach to populism -- "Anyone with a thought is an idiot" -- that barely anyone wants to admit to being Republican around here these days. Rightfully so.

This, obviously, hurts the local Republican Party, as they can't elect any new candidate, even a likable, articulate and persuasive one like this guy, which then discourages compelling candidates from bothering to run, and re-electing one of their party's stars against a relatively impressive first-time candidate who no one had known before she entered the race becomes a bright spot. But it's also bad for Democrats. Note that many of the Republicans who lost Tuesday -- Sens. Coleman, Smith and Sununu and Rep. Shays, for example -- are party moderates representing majority Democratic areas or states where, because of what the national Republican Party has done the past 20-but-most-especially-eight years, no one wants to vote for anyone with an "R" next to his name. That means the Republican Congressional caucus increasingly consists of conservative politicians representing places that prefer this extreme version of "thought." That means we have a Republican Party increasingly unwilling to compromise on policy proposed by President-elect Obama, as close to the center as they might be (and I think we need to acknowledge that things like cap-and-trade, fuel efficiency standards and letting the Bush tax cuts for $250,000-plus are barely left of center), and solving the general morass in which the country finds itself is increasingly difficult. That's a major problem.

So, to return to the question in the post's title: You don't. The Mass. GOP should secede and change its name. After thinking about it a few days, I propose: The Responsibility Party. It still begins with "Re" to subconsciously help people find it on the ballot, without having the stink of "publican." More importantly, it crystallizes all the Mass. GOP's talking points for what's wrong with state government here in one word. It implies fiscal and ethical accountability, both of which state Democratic politicians sorely lack and the citizens here sorely need, and which should be at the center of the party's platform. It has a whiff of opposing gay marriage, which will make hard-liners happy, because it suggests "family responsibility," even though we all know families with two dads, two moms, and one mom and one dad have an equal probability of being responsible. Really, the Responsibility Party should at least never publicly raise the marriage issue and maybe even quietly support it because one of the foundations of New England conservatism is getting out of the bedroom. Romney only brought it there because he was laying the foundations of his unprincipled presidential run. The new name also suggests post-partisanship, which, thanks to Obama, the country thankfully loves right now, and starts to solidify the incomplete argument that Republicans need to be elected to the Massachusetts Legislature because it needs both parties' voices.

Republican candidates have been right to make this argument because government works better when opposing viewpoints are present, heard and sometimes compromised for the greater good, but they've been making it without having a broadly appealing viewpoint. Some thoughts: Keep the fiscal and ethical accountability. The public will eventually come around on that. Drop the strident, accusatory tone (and press releases). Keep advocating for a business-friendly corporate tax structure, but advocate for a higher minimum wage that is tied to inflation or something appropriate so it doesn't only increase in fits every 12 years. "The federal government no longer realizes how much you have to earn to be able to live comfortably in Massachusetts," they should argue. Eliminate the Pike tolls, but put up new ones on the state border at each major highway. "If you're from out of state and don't pay any taxes, there has to be some fee for using our roads." Eliminate the Turnpike Authority, roll the T back into state government. "Enough of convoluted 'quasi-public' entities that can't borrow to pay their daily operations." Consider implementing congestion pricing in downtown Boston, tie the proceeds to public infrastructure improvements, mainly transportation. Think ambitiously on how to create more affordable housing. "Density is a great thing." Develop a plan that could eliminate public pensions within 75 years. All of these establish you as the party that cares about a responsible, pragmatic government while also caring about everyone who lives here and caring about making sure everyone can afford to live here.

Peter, if you still have your job in a couple months, you can use these ideas free of charge.

Update: As expected, the Peter mentioned above, former Congressman Torkildsen, said this week he won't seek re-appointment as the state GOP's chairman.

Further Update: It should be noted I'm not the only one to propose the same recently. David Bernstein of the Phoenix has a very funny take here.