Brands are important. Many companies stake their existence on their brand. In order for a brand to benefit its owners it must mean something and elicit a particular set of thoughts and feelings from the public. There are many examples that illustrate this point:

• McDonalds--When you walk into a McDonald’s restaurant and its golden arches there is a large degree of comfort and familiarity that greets you whether you are in Chicago, New York, Hong Kong or London. You can expect to find the same food prepared the same way wrapped in the same package. This brand consistency has helped grow McDonalds into the largest food service corporation in the world and one of the largest employers in the nation.

• Campbell’s Soup—Campbell’s soup started over 100 years ago as the first canned soup product. Its makers had discovered how to package a concentrated broth along with the additional ingredients that was good tasting enough that people were willing to pay for it in a store rather than make at home. Today Campbell’s soup packaged with the same familiar label regardless of variety is a product that consumers can count on to meet their taste expectations. Grocery stores put it on their shelves and it sells based on brand reputation and their reputation is bolstered every time a consumer tastes the soup because it tastes good every time.

• United States Marines—By some estimations the U.S. Marines should have been eliminated many years ago as a duplicative service. But they proved during engagements in Tripoli, the Civil War and World War I that they were not a duplicative service but a unique and irreplaceable fighting force. Every Marine undergoes the same training whether he ends up as a cook, clerk or combatant. Each one is required to rate as a marksman before leaving boot camp because at its core, the Corps is made up of riflemen. The U.S. Marines are known as the best fighting force in the world. Their motto is “First to Fight”. The United States Marines are a brand that has stood the test of time for over two hundred years and continues to evoke feelings of respect and fear around the world.

Why all the talk about the importance of brands?

Because Barry Goldwater, William Buckley, Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey and others spent many years re-crafting and building up the Republican brand that has been enshrined for the past twenty-six years in the Republican national Platform by elected officials and party activists across the nation and in Illinois. They made the intellectual case for freedom and capitalism and it worked. These principles are still clearly understood and enjoy almost universal support from Republicans and many independents despite external (and regrettably internal) attempts to dilute these foundational tenets of the Republican Party.

Lower taxes are good for everybody.
The welfare state is bad for the long-term interests of the poor and the middle class.

Balanced budgets are preferable to continuing deficits.

Government closest to the people is better than Washington running things.
We ought to reduce the size of the federal government.

The paramount responsibility of the federal government is to provide for the common defense.

Reagan’s victories in ‘80 and ‘84 proved that the Republican brand was a brand people were willing to embrace. This template was adapted and improved upon in the years that followed. The Republican revolution of ’94 as memorialized in the Contract With America proved that it was a brand voters in Illinois and nationwide were willing to put their long-term faith in. Countless elected officials today trace their success and formative ideology back to Ronald Reagan.

So what happened? The brand was diluted.

Nationally, congressional Republicans ended up on the losing side in their battle to force Bill Clinton to accept a balanced budget in 1996 despite the fact a balanced budget had been a primary issue many Republicans had run on in 1994. Following this humbling defeat Republicans did achieve some measure of success, most notably welfare reform, a growing economy (for which Clinton received most of the credit) and eventually although only temporarily a balanced federal budget. However, Republicans in the House and Senate were never again quite so bold as they had been when they first started the battle over a balanced budget. Some Republicans lost their determination to adhere to their stated beliefs in small government and lowered spending when they lost their advantage in public opinion polls. This setback made it easier for those elected officials who came in promising to cut spending and adhere to a balanced budget to continue to compromise their rational for getting elected in the first place. As the years passed, the fervor of the Republican revolution and its ideals held so strongly by so many new members of the class of ‘94 faded.

By the 2006 election the Republican congressional caucus had as many big spenders and big government supporters as the Democrats they had deposed in 1994. Scandals over adultery, sex, bribery and FEC violations further depressed an already depressed and disillusioned base and the GOP was unable to claim the high ground as honest and moral leaders of the nation. Political expediency is one of the root causes for the party having lost its way. President George W. Bush who deserves credit for pushing through meaningful tax cuts that have had a positive effect on the economy has provided no leadership and spent no political capital on reigning in federal spending. The public correctly identifies Republicans as the party in control when a long sought balanced federal budget was breached and at a time when spending and deficits have reached unspeakable levels. As a result, our party’s strongest brand asset, fiscal responsibility, was eliminated as a plank on which Republicans could successfully campaign. Democrats for the first time were able to make inroads with the public on our issue. The continual sacrifice of our political principles and goodwill to win the elections of today has made it that much more difficult for our party to win tomorrow.

Illinois

At the Illinois state level we have a little bit different history, which can serve as an illustrative microcosm for what the future holds nationally for Republicans. In Illinois the Republican revolution of 1994 had little impact, somewhat like a tornado that touches ground in an open field and then ascends back into the sky never to be seen again. Illinois had a string of Republican governors for twenty-five years starting in the early ‘70’s with Jim Thompson who established his own brand of Republicanism. Each of them promised during their numerous campaigns that they would not raise taxes and would control spending.

Each proved himself less than honest.

They raised every conceivable tax and the size of state government continued to grow rapidly. To one extent or another these Republican governors received support from enough Republican legislators and/or legislative leaders to succeed in promoting what in essence were Democrat priorities.

There was certainly a core of principled Republican legislators who opposed their liberal leaders over the years. As time passed however, many were worn down, corrupted, overwhelmed or defeated at the ballot box by what has become popularly known as the “combine”. Good Republican members still remain today, but not enough.

To help finish off the Republican Party in Illinois, Governor Ryan and his top staff at the Secretary of State’s office and the Governor’s office committed numerous crimes to win re-election and enrich their friends. Ryan continued the tradition of broken promises on fiscal issues and compounded the problem of diluting the Republican brand by breaking almost every one of his promises on social issues. By the end of Ryan’s term what we had before us was a landscape of legislation that was either liberal or liberal light.

When citizens go into the voting booth today (especially in Illinois) and see “Republican” next to the name of a candidate, what image comes to their mind? Unfortunately, it is most likely not the image so carefully crafted by Goldwater, Buckley, Reagan, Gingrich, and Armey and enshrined in both our national and state platforms. The Republican Party brand has a natural and consistent core of support if only its elected officials will maintain brand integrity. That brand integrity has been corrupted over the past years so much that some of our core voters don’t see the need to support our candidates, as they appear not much different than the Democrats.

If Republicans have any hope of regaining power and legislating those priorities espoused in our platforms, our current elected officials and future candidates must re-embrace the Republican brand in deed as well as in word. For some of our legislators this may require a ninety-degree turn. If they refuse to do so then it is the responsibility of Republican primary voters to elect someone who will. But for the good of our Party let’s not throw someone overboard who is with us on eighty-five percent of our issues. We can start on the national and state level with the following actions:

Refusing to collaborate with Democrats on their plans to push our system further in the direction of socialism and pandering to every imaginable special interest group demanding special rights, more government handouts, increased regulation and less freedom for individuals.

Reject the notion that if only we embrace some Democrat ideas to appear less partisan then voters will like us more. Partisanship is a virtue if done in the name of what is right. As Ben Franklin said to his fellow members of the Continental Congress as they were about to sign the Declaration of Independence, “If we don’t all hang together, we will surely hang separately”.

We must not pander to the liberal editorial boards of our major newspapers. Their agenda is not ours and is not good for Illinois or America.

We must be the loyal opposition fighting against the Democrats and their agenda.

We must provide alternative Republican ideals and their benefits to the public and highlight the damage done by Democrat ideals.

If this means our members are shut out of influence on every piece of legislation then so be it. If we do not stand for something then we stand for nothing. If our only goal is incumbent protection by appeasement then we will remain in the minority indefinitely. The other side can afford to be ideologically malleable from district to district as it is a party united by self-identity and government reliance rather than a controlling set of governing principles. If we are to experience another 1994 anytime in the near future then the average voter entering the voting booth and coming across the brand “Republican” must envision a candidate who supports lower taxes, smaller less intrusive government, responsible, efficient and corruption free spending of taxpayer dollars, respect for every human being and a strong America. We can make that vision happen by sticking to our guns and having the COURAGE to do what is right.

We can find guidance in the Book of Genesis for our Party’s current predicament. We as a party were fortunate for the (almost) seven years of abundance and trust that the American people put into us, allowing the GOP to govern from both the White House and Capitol Hill. As our party enters these years of lean, we should be reminded how our leaders betrayed that trust. We must stay true to the identity and governing principles of our party should we ever hope to experience years of abundance again.

Dan Patlak is a professional political operative who heads Landslide Group, an Illinois based Republican political consulting firm.