Yes… and no.

One of the problems conservatives have is defining themselves as a coalition. When conservatives don’t define themselves, others do… often incorrectly. American Conservatives should not be afraid to define American conservatism. If the risks are bad press coverage, alienation, and election day loses… they already have that. Are conservatives afraid their branding is going to get worse if they define themselves with a litmus test? In the eyes of the media (the conduit to mainstream Americans), I am not sure that’s possible.

Conservatives are never going to be as liberal as liberals. Their weakness during recent elections is in part derived from their own attempt to be all things to all people. Voters usually know when they smell a rat. A disingenuous candidate who preaches limited government and lower taxes at one fundraiser is not credible when he argues on behalf of expanded social programs and his piece of the stimulus package at another.

Liberal-lite positioning — “I’m for limited government and fiscal responsibility, but I am willing to give you, the voter, anything your little heart desires” is not a winning strategy.  It is a short-sighted, election day loser and damages the conservative brand over the long-term.

Also, is there some definitive study that says, “litmus tests are bad”? I recall the phrase being adopted by the media in a political context with respect to SCOTUS nominees and the abortion issue. Why would a clear set of political values used by conservatives to define conservatives be a bad thing? If clear branding is good enough for Apple to differentiate itself from a PC, why is it not appropriate to apply those same marketing principles to the conservative values?

Finally, political values are not the same as political issues. We should not confuse the notion of defining conservatism with a clear set of political values as the same thing as defining a Republican platform around a specific set of political issues. The former is a set of beliefs embraced by voters who typically vote for Republican candidates. The latter is a label for political party that broadly supports candidates on the right side of the political spectrum and advocates on behalf of specific political issues.

So I say, create a litmus test… how could it possibly makes things worse?

During the coming years, I will be focusing much of my attention on educating the Right and implementing new technologies on their behalf. It is an exciting time and long past due.

Earlier today, I was interviewed by Winter Casey over at the National Journal about the relaunch of the congressional Republican website, www.gop.gov. It is a significant leap forward in design, content, and ease of use. Other GOP organizations should take note and keep looking for new ideas and new technologies to advance their message more effectively.

Excerpt:

The House Republican Conference has launched a new GOP.gov, the official Web site of House Republicans in the 111th Congress. The updates are meant to enhance citizen engagement through blogs, a legislative digest, interactive features, video, radio addresses and the option to receive automatic updates when content is published.

Scott Graves, a publisher of Republican blogs, said it looks like the GOP is taking a “play from the playbook of the Obama campaign.” The site’s designer clearly recognized that what Democrats did in 2008 worked, he said. “The Republicans over the last few months have finally recognized that they are going to need to focus real attention and real resources on their online communication efforts,” Graves added. He said he hopes the GOP will look to emerging technologies in 2012 rather than relying on what worked in 2008.

Casey’s article can be read here. Read the National Journal’s Tech Daily Dose here.