This Week in Epistemic Closure

I have argued in the past that those who charge the Republican party with epistemic closure forget (conveniently or not) that there is plenty of epistemic closure in their ranks as well. But this does not mean that epistemic closure amongst Republicans should not be criticized.

So, let me go on record as stating that cherry-picking a convenient media forum for debates between Republican presidential candidates is a bad idea. I recognize that Republicans would like to have friendly moderators ask friendly questions of their candidates, but eventually, those candidates are going to have to confront potentially unfriendly moderators. Best that they learn how to joust successfully with unfriendly moderators early in the campaign; honing that particular skill from the outset could be useful to the candidates and to Republicans in general as the campaign goes on.

And let me also go on record as stating that purging Republicans who happen to disagree with certain planks in the Republican party platform is a really terrible idea. (Link via Charles Lipson.) Winners can afford to purge their ranks. Losers cannot, and given that the Republican party has picked up the unfortunate habit of losing elections, it currently qualifies as a loser party. To win, it has to expand its tent, not shrink it. And incidentally, whether or not one is a same-sex marriage supporter (and I am), who in their right mind thinks that opposing same-sex marriage is a political winner these days?

Bergoglio and Branding

Patrick Ruffini on what the Republican party can learn from Pope Francis:

Months ago, Catholics and other observers wondered changes would be in store with the election of Cardinal Bergoglio. Most honed in on how he might differ from Benedict XVI on doctrinal grounds, or in reining in the Roman Curia. These are the kinds of substantive matters that Very Serious People, and those who pretend to be like them in the media, are supposed to care about. And they are quite important in the long-term unfolding of history. 

But ask the average man on the street what has changed about the Church with the new Pope, and most will not be able to name a single policy change that Francis has instituted. Rather, they will cite his common touch, and his genuine acts of humility, as evidence that the Catholic Church has reinvigorated itself. 

In fact, it is probably right to say that people see Francis as more of a radical reformer than he actually is because of these deeply personal touches. In a way, it doesn’t matter as much what Francis does policy-wise, because his personal example is inspiration enough. 

This is not only the story of one Pope, but the it is the story of all transformational figures who were able to rally people of different backgrounds and beliefs. At the center of the story of Reagan, Thatcher, Churchill, FDR, and some might even say the 2008 Obama was a magnetic persona that fit into a carefully crafted narrative. Having a leader who is much different than what we have come to expect turns out to count for a whole lot, much more than the substantive nitty-gritty of policy. 

This admittedly superficial view of what drives political change does have an upshot for wonks. If policy doesn’t matter as much to winning elections, the wonks have more running room to implement short-term unpopular policies or to resist whole cloth changes demanded in the name of “rebranding" if they can find a popular leader who can bring the public along. 

Call this the 70-20-10 rule. 70 percent of what it will take to pull off a successful rebrand will flow directly from the personality of the leader. 20 percent will come from the specific policies they put in place — very important, but also very boring, and thus downplayed by the media. And 10 percent will come from tactical changes. Yet, policy, message, and tactics do matter when two parties are otherwise stalemated because of a lack of inspirational leadership on either side (which is often the case).

There can be little question but that Republicans need rebranding. Pope Francis is succeeding at rebranding the Catholic church and making it more welcoming to the masses, despite the fact that very little has changed in terms of church policy. The GOP should be looking to emulate his success.

Not the Swiftest Porsches in the Garage

This story on Republicans who regularly get the party into trouble thanks to the less-than-intelligent comments they are often wont to make in public, is a welcome one. For one thing, it embarrasses those Republicans, and perhaps--just perhaps--forces them to either step up their game, or get off the national stage. For another, it forces party leaders to tell those Republicans to either step up their game or get off the national stage. And for a third, it highlights good work that the Republican party has done in order to enhance its image in the aftermath of two straight presidential election losses.

That having been written, it is clear that Bobby Jindal was right to urge the GOP not to be "the stupid party." To be sure, the vast majority of Republicans have not only heeded that particular call, they have practiced what Jindal has preached long before Jindal started preaching it. But there are too many Republicans who are deaf to Jindal's pleas. As the story makes clear, they have something of an incentive to be deaf; they desperately want to get on television and apparently, they are willing to make dumb statements in order to achieve that goal. Something has to be done to keep those Republicans from taking the party down with them every time they wreak havoc on their own personal reputations.

The best thing that can happen to the Republican party is for it to elect a president whose words and presence will overshadow the mentally challenged statements of a few backbenchers. But paradoxically, those backbenchers make it more difficult for the Republican party to elect one of its own as president, which is kind of a problem for the GOP, anyway that one looks at it. So in the meantime, the Republican party may have to institute a tighter form of message control. Yes, I am aware of the fact that in this day and age, an individual representative or senator is less apt to follow public relations dictates from on high. But that doesn't mean that the Republican party leadership cannot have an open and frank discussion with members about the dangers of making stupid statements, and insist that members either watch what they say and how they say it, or retreat into the shadows. Such a policy will not stop all dumb comments from being made. But it may stop a number of them, which I imagine that the GOP would welcome.