Appealing to ‘Whole Foods’ Republicans

This article from the WSJ was forwarded to me. I am as big a fan of Whole Foods as I am of conservative thinking, and I jokingly refer to myself to as a granola conservative. I defend my love of organic, all-natural foods to fellow conservatives by explaining that this evidences just how ultra-conservative I am. Going organic isn’t progressive or modern at all; it’s a throwback to the old days, when food wasn’t enriched, bleached and fattened up with unnatural food sources (read: corn, as a result of skewed government policies), antibiotics and hormones. Not only is supporting a company run on free-market principles by a conservative-minded CEO a conservative thing to do, it is, albeit on a very small scale, a vote against government policies (corn subsidies) that have interfered in the marketplace and distorted incentives for companies to create cheap, junk food that is not good for any of us. And when we get sick as a result, the government steps in to say that health care costs are unsustainable and that they should run the system. And the vicious cycle continues…

The gist of the WSJ article by Michael Petrilli is to point out that in order for the GOP to make progress among young, college-educated and often urban-dwelling voters, it must embrace those who live a progressive life but disagree with progressive politics. Petrilli begins an interesting discussion here that takes us back to the whole debate over whether the GOP should be a big-umbrella party or not. The problem is that his take on how the party should embrace this group of potential voters is inherently negative and exclusive.

Here’s where I agree with Petrilli:

What’s needed is a full-fledged effort to cultivate “Whole Foods Republicans”—independent-minded voters who embrace a progressive lifestyle but not progressive politics. These highly-educated individuals appreciate diversity and would never tell racist or homophobic jokes; they like living in walkable urban environments; they believe in environmental stewardship, community service and a spirit of inclusion. And yes, many shop at Whole Foods, which has become a symbol of progressive affluence but is also a good example of the free enterprise system at work. (Not to mention that its founder is a well-known libertarian who took to these pages to excoriate ObamaCare as inimical to market principles.)

What makes these voters potential Republicans is that, lifestyle choices aside, they view big government with great suspicion. There’s no law that someone who enjoys organic food, rides his bike to work, or wants a diverse school for his kids must also believe that the federal government should take over the health-care system or waste money on thousands of social programs with no evidence of effectiveness. Nor do highly educated people have to agree that a strong national defense is harmful to the cause of peace and international cooperation.

Next, he brings up examples of what the GOP must do to show these potential conservatives that there is a place for them in the party.

So how to woo these voters to the Republican column? The first step is to stop denigrating intelligence and education. President George W. Bush’s bantering about being a “C” student may have enamored “the man in the street,” but it surely discouraged more than a few “A” students from feeling like part of the team.

The same is true for Mrs. Palin’s inability to name a single newspaper she reads. If the GOP doesn’t want to be branded the “Party of Stupid,” it could stand to nominate more people who can speak eloquently on complicated policy matters.

Even more important is the party’s message on divisive social issues. When some Republicans use homophobic language, express thinly disguised contempt toward immigrants, or ridicule heartfelt concerns for the environment, they affront the values of the educated class. And they lose votes they otherwise ought to win.

This is where we disagree. According to Petrilli, to woo young, granola conservatives, the GOP must not extol the virtues of people who may not have been the brightest in school (President George W. Bush and Gov. Sarah Palin according to Petrilli) despite having real-world business and governing experiences to bring to the table. Why can’t the GOP embrace street and school smarts? Degrees from fancy schools don’t ensure effectiveness and success at governing — the Obama administration’s lack of accomplishments is evidence of this.

Then, he goes on to suggest that many Republicans are homophobic and perhaps racist or anti-immigrant. He doesn’t provide any evidence of this. He just makes these generalizations about Republicans and moves on.

If he’s referring to Republicans’ stance on gay marriage or immigration, one would think that ‘educated’ voters, whether they’re self-educated or college graduates, should be keen enough to dig deeper into these issues and understand what the fundamental arguments are over gay marriage and immigration. Petrilli casually brings these issues up as evidence that Republicans are “divisive on social issues” and therefore unappealing to young voters and leaves it at that. His discussion of how the GOP can appeal to this younger group of people is an interesting and important one for the future of the party, but he loses conservatives the moment he starts Bush and Palin-bashing and furthers these negative stereotypes of Republicans.

What I liked about his article is that he identified a group that I consider myself a part of — young, educated, urban-dwelling, politically sensitive (but not overly politically correct), organic buying and yet conservative voters. At some point, for younger generations, it stopped being ‘cool’ to be conservative. But after living in cities like Chicago and New York for a while, many of these young people become fed up with their city’s inefficiency and bureaucracy and start to understand the drawbacks of giving too much of your money and power to the government. And to build the party up and make a lasting effect on policy, the GOP needs to tap into this segment of the population. But it must do so in a positive way; bashing the more conservative side of the party like Petrilli does isn’t the way to get there.

Tags: Future of the GOP, young conservatives