Skip to footer

Republican Party 2.0: 4 GOP leaders share ideas for political upgrade

In the aftermath of election 2012, four prominent Republicans share their visions for how the GOP can adapt its messaging to reflect a diversifying US electorate.

Lisa Murkowski, US senator, Alaska

AP
Lisa Murkowski US senator, Alaska

  • By Staff

The best way for the GOP to appeal to female voters? Drop the "good ol' boys' club" image and start resembling the rest of the country, says Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) of Alaska.

Changing GOP principles or philosophy isn't necessary, says the Alaska senator. "What we do need to do is make sure we are talking to all the people..., not just those that look like us and sound like us."

Clumsy rhetoric about rape, abortion, and access to contraceptives undermined the GOP's message about jobs and the economy, turning off women who might otherwise have voted with the party, says Ms. Murkowski. "When our candidate gets put on the defensive because of statements ... by others of your same party, that really rolls us back in terms of time.... Women look at that and say, 'Wait a minute, I hear you on the economic picture,... but I'm rattled by what I'm hearing coming out of your party.' "

Murkowski, a member of the political-action committee Republicans for Choice who generally favors abortion rights, doesn't envision a GOP shift on abortion, although "contraception may be another issue."

What she does picture is a genuine "big tent" party, one that isn't merely calculating about drumming up support for the next election. "To be a big-tent Republican, you open the door, and you mean it," she says. "It can't be a campaign theme. We've got to be living this and allowing others to see this as something they want to live.... That is what is going to allow women to view the Republican Party as the party for them."

– Husna Haq, Correspondent

2 of 4
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.