The new face of the College Republicans


I met with UW College Republicans chair Crystal Lee as well as CR public relations chair Stephen Duerst today. I talked to them about the direction of the organization as well as that of the modern Republican Party.

Interesting characters and backgrounds. Lee is the daughter of Taiwanese immigrants, who are staunchly “anti-Mainland.” Appropriately, her laptop is adorned with an enormous bumper sticker that reads “I LOVE CAPITALISM.” Nevertheless, she says both of her parents voted for Obama and that she is the only “conservative Christian” in her family. She converted to Christianity when she was in high school. Duerst is also a practicing Christian, and he says he grew up in a conservative family in Wausau.

According to Lee, the org has had a successful recruitment season, and has added roughly 300 names to the email list. They also emphasized community service work in the community, including volunteering at veterans hospitals, a fundraiser for Iraqi children and a “penny drive” headed by History Channel to restore Lincoln monuments around the country.

They were unsure of how to explain the GOP’s ultra-minority status on campus. When I asked them why young people tend to be more liberal, Lee wondered aloud about the effects that liberation from parents or a traditional family background may have on some college students. It sounds like a reactionary explanation, however, she is right to a certain extent. Many people who consider themselves liberal in college, whether they were in Madison during the Vietnam years or the Clinton years, later mold into more conservative voters.

However, the College Republicans are on campus to court college voters. Are there not certain generational conflicts, such as the debate over gay marriage, which hinder the GOP’s ability to accomplish this? Neither Lee or Duerst seemed interested in confronting the point I was suggesting: that the Republican Party will eventually have to ditch some of its favorite social policies to remain competitive in the coming decades. Lee suggested that Republicans may be viewed poorly in academic circles because of a perception that they are indifferent to education. “People think all we care about is tax cuts,” she said. Then is there too much of an emphasis on low taxes? To this they responded that there is room for low taxes and long-term investments in important social programs, such as education.

They emphasized the importance of economic policy in times of economic malaise, and said that students were interested in fiscal issues at this point. When I pointed out that Scott Walker’s fiscal record at the helm of Milwaukee County did not differ drastically from Doyle’s, they excused Walker’s venture into Keynesian economics by citing the political costs of turning down federal stimulus money for Milwaukee residents. Very honest. However, does that not seem to indicate that voters aren’t interested in the small government approach to the recession?

Lee continually emphasized “personal liberty.” When I asked them to define what that meant Duerst immediately cited “support for state’s rights.” States rights? What does that have to do with personal liberties? He then pointed out that the gay marriage debate was a good example of Republicans supporting the states’ decisions to make policy on the issue. When I pointed out that it was George W. Bush who wanted the most aggressive federal action on gay marriage (or at least pretended to want it) Duerst replied that most Republicans prefer the state-by-state approach. Nevertheless, when I asked them about civil liberties Lee seemed to turn the theme back to economic personal liberty, and ignored the reference to the PATRIOT Act I made. However, she did say she believed in free speech.I should have asked her about flag burning and anti-American statements.

My analysis of the College Republicans would thus be very simple. Even if the leadership is more intelligent and better organized this year, the organization will not be relevant until it establishes a local presence. Until it articulates positions on local and state issues, and differentiates itself from the talking points handed down by the national chapter, it will continue to mobilize new members in non-presidential elections.

I can’t believe that I, of all people, forgot to ask them about their plans for multimedia improvements. As I’ve commented before, the CRs have not had the best relationship with the internets in the past. Web presence keeps the rank and file members up to date and allows them to give input, whereas in the past the give and take was often restricted to a small group of insiders. It looks like they’ve improved, however, their web activity pales in comparison to the College Dems, who now have a regularly updated blog.


Tags: , , , ,

6 Responses to “The new face of the College Republicans”

  1. Irish Frog Says:

    I’d like to address one sentence of your interview, as I think it has a special relevance to colleges.

    “Lee suggested that Republicans may be viewed poorly in academic circles because of a perception that they are indifferent to education.”

    Republicans are viewed poorly in academic circles not because of their anti-tax strategies, but because of the dearth of conservative thinkers. Burke is dead, Disraeli is dead, Churchill is dead, and while Reagan himself was no great thinker, he did bring new ideas to the country. They’re all gone.

    The leaders of the Republican party include a mixture of actual morons and those who are proud of their ignorance. Gingrich, Limbaugh, Beck and Palin worship the gut instinct without any regard for careful study or reflection. When the notion that the experts might be right alienates the ignorant base of the Republican party, the leaders are forced into this position. Leaving aside the Republican platform that the department of education is a waste of money, or that universities ought to be able to get along with less public funding, or their war with the NIH and evolution, if you are going to criticize knowledge and education, you had better produce some of your own.

  2. The Sconz Says:

    I think your analysis conforms with the David Brooks article I linked to above.

    “Just months after the election and the humiliation, everyone is again convinced that Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and the rest possess real power. And the saddest thing is that even Republican politicians come to believe it. They mistake media for reality. They pre-emptively surrender to armies that don’t exist.”

  3. Irish Frog Says:

    Leaving out the media figures, who may look like the face of the party, but in reality will never be nominated or elected, the Republicans still have a problem on college campuses and among academics. While it’s fun (and easy) to criticize these demagogues, their elected leaders have the same problems. George W. Bush was constantly at war with those seeking solutions with evidence based backgrounds. Look at evolution, or birth control (no, it does not cause cancer), global warming or economics. Sarah Palin bridges the gap between an elected official and a media icon, but she has the same problem where she dismisses education and experience.

    Forget the talking morons on tv, lord knows the left has them too (Olberman, Matthews), and look at the Senate and House leaders of each party. Bill Frist is a physician, and he suggested that a brain dead woman could come back, and also helped sell the “birth control causes cancer” nonsense.

    I read Brooks regularly, but I put him in the “concern troll” category. He seems to want to support the Dems and their ideas, and then writes columns about how their trying to do too much, are overreaching, or don’t understand the American people (when polling suggests otherwise).

  4. Bea Says:

    If they consider education a social program they better wake up and smell the coffee. My experience with the College Republicans here (I’m almost 60) is they are a bunch of military chickenhawks who wouldn’t know a real patriot if they saw one.
    This ongoing celebration of Reagan is disgusting. He was uninformed and disengaged and in the pocket of right-wing millionaires from the word go. They criticize President Obama for only having a speech. That’s ALL Reagan had. Supply-side economics was an epic fail but they won’t admit it.

  5. Brad V Says:

    “States rights? What does that have to do with personal liberties?”

    Perhaps that’s supposed to be some kind of rhetorical device, but it seems to indicate to me your failure to understand the basic concept of diffusing the power of the state over individuals at the heart of our federal system of government.

    • The Sconz Says:

      Brad, I might have a poor understanding of federalism, but that has nothing to do with the relation between state’s rights and personal liberties. You may have plenty of good reasons to believe that the lower levels of government are more effective and appropriate ways to represent people, however, personal liberties refers to rights that are granted to all people in a system of government, no matter how far away or representative that government is. As I’m sure you and any other student of U.S. history knows, “states rights” has been used to extend personal liberties and to restrict them. Responding to a question about civil liberties by voicing support for a certain structure of government is changing the issue. It’s like responding to a question about the type of foreign policy you support by saying “I support a strong legislative branch.” They may be linked, but it’s hardly inherent.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: