Colorado Republicans are in a dog fight at the State Legislature, one that has been one-sided for far too long. Extremist Democrats have had the power to force nearly any progressive policy issue they want – from taxpayer funded abortions, to firearm restrictions, attacks on TABOR (Colorado’s Taxpayers Bill of Rights) and parental rights. Republicans have been unable to stop these overreaching, onerous, and many times unconstitutional pieces of legislation. This ineffectiveness has frustrated Republicans across the state and instead of acting as a uniting force, it has instead created rifts that have only gotten deeper and wider throughout the years. Republicans are now in an identity crisis that has been mostly centered around the concept of what defines a Republican, who gets to decide who is in that group, and what do we do with the fringe?
Categories have always been a difficult concept for humanity throughout our history. Even a brief look at the fractious nature of our religious ideas shows how difficult this concept has been for mankind. The problem arises from the fact that categories are by necessity rarely rigid. We tend to want to treat and create categories similar to how we create proper sets and subsets in mathematics: with fixed and clearly defined sets of features. These proper sets are even self-defined by these features similar to a square: four equal, straight lines each set at 90 degrees. It is easy and self-evident in math to allow the features to be the standard by which concepts are categorized. However, in real life, categories are much more nebulous and similar to how we define and categorize colors. It is much easier to understand that there is a central idea and standard for what the color red is, and it is easy to appreciate that there are fringes to that color. When does red stop being red and instead is called orange? When does it instead change to pink? Such a simple idea and category, the color red, instead has a fringe and a different concept depending on whether you are painting or trying to match your prom date’s vermillion dress.
This categorization by no means eliminates the necessity of an ideal, in fact it only reinforces it. There needs to be a centralizing ideal to aim at and encourage movement towards. However, we cannot ignore the fact that there will be a fringe around that ideal and that the ideal Republican cannot be defined by a simple list of features. The very idea that a simple list of features could define a Republican necessarily begs the question of who gets to determine the list itself (another idea that Colorado Republicans are fighting over). And as independent thinkers, the idea of handing over the definition of our ideals is not a natural one. The fringe is a good and necessary factor as it creates debate and movement around the ideal. It helps define and reinforce the centralizing goal. It even helps define the Overton window. It should allow us to debate ideas and to help Republicans become more persuasive not only within our own party but to take those persuasive ideas outwards to the general populace. Instead of debating what centralizing ideas define the Republican party, we have instead turned the argument into who gets to label and define what theses groups are and who gets to be included in them.
Republicans in Colorado have turned the fringe into those that need to be cast out and something the party needs to be purified of. The MAGAs versus the RINOs are arguing that neither should be included in the circle. Instead of debating and uniting around the ideals of Liberty and Freedom, we have instead turned toward the progressive idea of labeling others and then casting them out. We have been arguing more over who has the power to create the list of features that will define a conservative, a republican, or even a liberty lover instead of embracing the challenge of persuasion. An R behind one’s name has become a data notation instead of a...
