For Republicans, common ground is necessary

When I heard that some in the G.O.P. were trying to establish a “purity” test, I was concerned. According to what I read, candidates failing to agree with at least 8 of the 10 points in the test would not be eligible for money or endorsements from the party. My concern was based on a tendency by some to narrow the party’s base, thus hurting our overall chances in the 2010 elections. After reading the ten resolutions, I’m not concerned.

Fiscally, I’m about as conservative as you get, and I favor limited government. The stimulus bill, bank bailouts, cap-and-trade, and socialized medicine all nauseate me, I oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants, and I’m a strong proponent of 2nd Amendment rights. That seems fairly common for a Republican, doesn’t it? It is, until you consider that I support gay marriage, I’m prochoice, and support the decriminalization of marijuana. Some would find these positions inconsistent with the Republican party, but I don’t. If someone truly believes in limited government, then they should stay out of its citizen’s private lives.

My concern is that a “purity” test would contradict the small government message that Republicans rely on and stand for, while favoring social conservative views at the expense of those with libertarian leanings. Fortunately, this doesn’t seem to be the case. The list is filled with core tenets that most Republicans should agree with, and does allow for some disagreement by only requiring agreement on 8 out of 10 items. Here’s the list:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care;

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.

Basically, this looks like a reasonable list. It will ensure that those seeking funding from the party and its donors actually deserve the funds. After all, why should a party and its donors fund an individual that will fight against the G.O.P.’s goals?