The Republican Party in Illinois, which I affectionately call the “ILL GOP”, is still run by the apparatchiks put in place by the likes of Edgar, Thompson and Hastert. These apparatchiks are now more interested in filling an ever expanding number of patronage positions (merely replacing Democrat with Republican apparatchiks) than they are in articulating a moral and just form of governance. This is why they have so utterly failed the Republican rank and file who so foolishly give them their votes.

I don’t agree with everything David Brooks writes (he’s a bit milquetoast for me), but he nails it here.

Q+A: David Brooks

As the Republican Party seeks to regain political control after the last election, some conservatives are calling for a new image.

“As Republicans sort out the reasons for their defeat, they likely will overlook or dismiss the gorilla in the pulpit,” Kathleen Parker wrote for The Washington Post. “To be more specific, the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn’t soon cometh.”

Evangelicals make up about a quarter of the electorate, and about 62 percent of them identify themselves with the Republican Party. David Brooks spoke with Christianity Today in Wheaton, Illinois, about how evangelicals can change their image.

Do you see evangelicals as the core of the Republican Party or as weighing on the neck?

I see them as the core of the party. Just sheer numbers, politically, the party would be dead without evangelical voters, or without a lot of evangelical voters. But even more seriously, spiritually, … the moral core of the party is provided by social conservatives. Without that core, it would just be a party of tax cuts, and that wouldn’t be a very inspiring party. I think social conservatives will always be the core of the Republican Party.

Any political consultant in IL, or ILL GOP apparatchik, should be sued for malpractice (or laughed out their business) if they tell you anything other than the above bold text. The people who say “only a moderate can win” are, and always have been, wrong. This is not to say a ‘moderate’ can’t win, but that moderate had better have a pretty good relationship with the social conservatives. If he think he can win in IL absent their support (even if grudging), he doesn’t understand the party rank and file.

Can Christian conservatives repackage certain issues?

Life issues will always be center — life and death issues will always be central. I guess what I would think is the core issue — which is possible [issue] around which to build bridges — is the family, issues about family togetherness, reducing divorce rates, helping kids do missionary work or aid work in Africa. All that stuff should come from the core pro-life community to a broader community.

How does religion make a difference in the Republican Party, as opposed to just promoting conservative values?

Religion connects you to a set of moral principles that are more than just conserving the past or the free market. Americans like the free market, they like capitalism, but it’s not that inspiring. To really inspire people and inspire young people, you’ve got have a more serious moral mission. So I think social conservatives at their best provide that. As long as it’s not a social conservatism that is about how sinful everybody else is.

I agree with Brooks that there ways for social conservatives to moderate and improve their message, but there is nothing wrong with people standing on their principles if they are good at articulating them.