Concord 51: A Political Action Committee That Brings Conservatism Into The 21st Century
I don’t have a lot to say about Concord 51 other than I think it’s awesome, and that the young conservatives that visit this site in droves should check it out.
From Politco:
Concord 51, the brainchild of a group of young fiscal conservatives in New York City in their late 20s, among others, is looking to mobilize Republicans under 35 into a national movement.
The group, launched as a political action committee in the 2012 cycle, is moving aggressively to broaden beyond the Big Apple — already to Washington, D.C., Atlanta, Charlotte, Oklahoma City and Dallas — raising more money to contribute to candidates who are aligned with their beliefs and establishing a 501(c)4 that will allow them to do advertising and issue advocacy.
They’ve also caught the attention of big-name Republicans like former presidential candidate John Huntsman and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.
They’re building enthusiasm around a set of conservative values that are more appealing to younger voters, they say — more inclusive of gays, minorities and women — the bigger tent that the GOP needs to build if it wants to win national elections.
Essentially, as the title says, the group wants to help bring the GOP into the 21st Century, dropping staunch opposition to social issues that have held the GOP back in gaining moderate and youth support, such as gay marriage and abortion, and focusing on the actual fiscal, domestic, and international problems the country faces.
From Concord 51’s Facebook Page:
Founded on three principles, Concord Fifty-One is focused on advocating: 1) fiscal conservatism; 2) energy advancement; and 3) strong national defense.
Many in the GOP see the group as a welcomed change.
This is not your father’s College Republicans, always in lockstep with the party platform. These Republicans make no bones about being frustrated with GOP candidates’ propensity of focusing on social issues, which they believe is a major liability to many voters in their generation who don’t see gay marriage, abortion and other issues as central to their core beliefs.
…
It’s a bold move that’s been largely welcomed by party elders who have struggled to engage the youth vote.
“I think the Republican Party looks at us as an incredible asset for the broader, longer-term political movement,” Swift said.
Dan Conston of the Congressional Leadership Fund said the party welcomes groups like Concord 51.
“Republicans are well-suited to compete and win on the congressional battlefield but if we’re going to win a national election again we need to shift our tone, tactics and targeting to reach younger and more diverse voters. We’ve become the decidedly uncool party for younger voters and we saw its impact,” Conston said. “It’s a good thing to have other like minded groups committed to broadening our base and focusing on the key few issues that affect Americans most.”
Currently the group has about 300 dues paying members, but is becoming an active voice in the conservative world. Concord 51 board member Andrew Fadale recently published a piece in Politico, and group members are expanding the reach of the PAC everyday. Membership ranges from $16 a year to “elite membership,” which requires an annual pledge of $1,500.
You can learn more about Concord 51 on their website. I highly recommend that you do.
[h/t to @cdohertyk]
Finally forgoing those antiquated social policies and superficial fiscal policies could be the future of the GOP for frustrated libertarians like me.
12 years ago at 2:52 pmGodspeed, Concord 51.
Fuck Obama.
12 years ago at 2:56 pmBeing a Republican when it wasnt cool – TFM
12 years ago at 3:10 pmThis is great. Good heads up Bacon.
12 years ago at 3:11 pmI like this. It’s unfortunate that something like this has to be created, but it’s a big step in the right direction for the GOP.
12 years ago at 3:18 pmTake a look at their Board Members. I’d party with those guys.
12 years ago at 3:20 pmSo it’s the Libertarian Party with a different name?
12 years ago at 3:26 pmIt’s the Libertarian Party with a better name
12 years ago at 4:13 pmEither way, good shit.
12 years ago at 5:07 pmIt’s the Libertarian Party with an electable* name.
12 years ago at 6:45 pm^
12 years ago at 6:59 pmBasing your name on Liberty is way more electable than what sounds like the most recently delayed flight in Hartsfield-Jackson International.
12 years ago at 7:11 pm^ this guy. Also, libertarians don’t want to continue to spend ~$650B on Defense. I doubt strong national defense and energy are two of libertarians top three priorities.
12 years ago at 7:13 pm^all of these
12 years ago at 9:13 pmI’m glad. Of course I wanted Romney to win this past election, but at the same time, I’m almost glad he didn’t because movements like this will rise, and rise in a big way. Romney would have been better than Obama, sure, but would have done Republicanism as usual (i.e. being a liberal). 2016 will be the return of a Reagan type president, but even better.
12 years ago at 4:05 pmOh, and if you think social issues like gay marriage are something we should stop, you’re a liberal.
12 years ago at 4:07 pm^I’m trying to gauge where you stand. Do you believe federal control of social issues falls under the scope of liberalism, or do you believe control of social issues at all levels of government including state and local governments is liberal?
12 years ago at 4:52 pmI’m more just using liberal as a derogatory term. I definitely don’t believe in federal control of social issues. I call people who do “liberals” because the modern American liberal assaults liberty and encourages federal control of people’s lives in almost every other area, so it’s just as bad as them. As for state and local governments, I honestly have the same viewpoint. I don’t really care what level of government it is. At the federal level, I only see government as necessary for a legal system and a national defense, at the state level for a legal system, and at the local level for a legal system and police force. I don’t even believe in government run fire departments or roads, as there is a free market solution to both that does not create a natural monopoly, as is often thought. All that being said, I’m not advocating federal mandates for states to comply on social issues. That’s a state level decision.
12 years ago at 1:58 amThe problem with extending your ideology all the way to forms of government below the state level is that our current appeals court system facilitates states and federal government involvement. Even if the Supreme Court started ruling in favor of state rights (which in my opinion won’t happen in the next half century because you’d have to get judges on the bench that would rule in favor of the states), our lawsuit happy society forces states and the federal government to get involved. There are too many lawyers in this country to have a free market.
As for social issues I was just making sure that you weren’t a radical libertarian in practice. To take social issues out of the federal level is a lofty goal in and of itself, but to extend it to all levels of government is boarders on radical.
12 years ago at 10:14 amGetting back to being truly conservative and not having the federal government decide social issues. TFM.
12 years ago at 5:01 pmKathleen Shannon deserves my butt pee.
12 years ago at 7:19 pmDamn straight she deserves your butt pee.
12 years ago at 9:55 am