Idaho GOP of 2010 more closely aligned

In the recent announcement for his candidacy for the Republican nomination for the Idaho 1rst Congressional District, one of the seemingly more reform-minded candidates noted that anyone who reviewed the historical Republican Party platforms would be disappointed by how far the party has strayed far from its roots.

As a fifth-generation Republican, one whose family participated in the "anti-Nebraska" rallies that led to the original formation of the GOP, and whose ancestors marched with Sherman in the blessed crusade to save the Union, I decided to take that candidate up on his challenge and read every word of every national party platform from the original 1856 platform to the most recent. I was prepared to witness a slow and steady descent from the high principles of Lincoln to the sorry state of Republicanism today.

For those who do not wish to spend the time reading a lengthy opinion piece, I'll cut to the chase. Anyone willing to accept the challenge and do the reading, will quickly discover that the Idaho GOP of 2010 is more closely aligned with the founding principles of the Republican Party than at any point in the past century. What is more, over the 154 years of its history the national party has shown a consistency in the proclamation of its beliefs that is nothing less than astonishing.

Consider that the original platform represented a fundamental break with politics as usual. For the first time a political party in the United States propounded positions based upon "moral imperatives" rather than political expediencies. A rejection of so-called "compact theory" (the notion that the federal government is the product of an agreement between states rather than a direct creation of "The People") was, of course, the first or second plank of the first seven GOP platforms. Calls for the abolition of slavery and other American "barbarisms" (such as polygamy) were accorded similar prominence.

In successive platforms a requirement for literacy in the English language as a precondition for immigration to the United States was proposed. "Engagement" in world affairs (as opposed to isolationism) was encouraged. "Sound currency" and the gold standard were defended, free and fair trade ("reciprocity" in the parlance of the day) was promoted, and fiscal restraint was trumpeted. This comes from the very first platform - "The people justly view with alarm the reckless extravagance which pervades every department of the federal government; that a return to rigid economy and accountability is indispensable to arrest the systematic plunder of the public treasury from favored partisans..."

Yet essential public works projects ("internal improvements" as they were called) were never considered inconsistent with the party's belief in fiscal restraint. From the first platform's call for a federally funded intercontinental railroad, to a turn-of-the-century defense of the Panama Canal, right through to the modern interstate highway system, wise investments in infrastructure were embraced. Nor was defending states rights ever considered inconsistent with supporting the Union - from the 1928 platform, "The effort which, however, is continually being made to have the federal government move into the field of States activities has never had, and never will have, the support of the Republican Party."

To be sure, the essential moral nature of party platforms changed a bit after the turn of the last century. Statements of "sympathy" for social campaigns, such as: the prohibition of alcohol sales; the extension of voting rights to women; and the elimination of segregation and other racial abuses in Southern states became progressively muted throughout the first three decades of the last century. And the party flirted with isolationism on the eve of the World War.

But the somewhat moralistic platforms of Thomas Dewey in 1944 and 1948 and Barry Goldwater in 1964 nudged the party back toward its foundations, until Ronald Reagan and his 1980 platform set it squarely back into place. That platform famously featured pro-life and other planks, more principled than politically expedient - as has every party platform since.

Modern day Republicans can be proud of the consistency of the conservative voice of their party. The platforms have remained rallying points for those opposed to governmental excess and committed to preserving a moral social order.

Has every official in more recent years, elected in the name of the party, lived up to the lofty calling of the platforms? I can't make that claim. I can only report on my reading, and relate those historical ideals that the GOP asked, and still asks, every American to help it achieve.

Paul Matthews is a Rathdrum resident.