The state of the College Republicans

Citing an interview with this publication as one of the reasons for their decision, the executive board of the College Republicans announced its intention to impeach their chair, LSA junior Gordon Chaffin on Monday, Oct. 5. According to a press release issued by the College Republicans that evening, Chaffin “respectfully resigned from the position of Chairman.” LSA sophomore Charles Borgen declined our request for an interview, but had notably updated his email signature from Vice Chair to “Co-Chair, UM College Republicans” upon sending out the press release.

Though the views Chaffin expressed on health care in his original interview with this publication were much more moderate than those of his fellow Republicans, we were shocked that his quotes would be considered grounds for impeachment. In a document supplied by Chaffin, Events Chair Anthony Dzik (who also declined our request for an interview) cites the Michigan Independent interview and Chaffin’s Facebook status updates as the sole evidence for his impeachment. One can presume, then, that the tension ran deeper.

“If I had to speculate I would argue that Gordon’s personality was the overriding reason this happened and his political views, moderate as they seem, were not the primary reason he was impeached,” said John Lin, an LSA senior and former member of the College Republicans. “He gave them an excuse. If he hadn’t said half the things he said he would still be chair.”

Lin said Chaffin had “a good vision,” but didn’t always know how to “deal with people.”  The executive board refused comment.

Personality clashes aside, the College Republican’s stifling of divergent viewpoints and public shaming of an elected representative mimics the behavior of the Republican Party on the national stage. The similarity is something Chaffin recognized immediately.

“It seems that moderate Republicans like Olympia Snow and Susan Collins are being ostracized in an analogous sense to myself,” Chaffin said. “[The Republicans] would say they’re pursuing their core ideology, which is de facto silencing any type of dissent. It’s counterproductive. Political parties need to be large tents, and when you put a bouncer at the entrance to the tent it doesn’t really work that well.”

Since the nation elected President Obama and the Democrats secured 60 seats in the Senate, the Republican Party has found itself struggling to remain relevant. The voices of its more moderate members are rarely heard while those on extreme Right – led by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck – control the Conservative message and amplify their rhetoric on a daily basis.

“I’ve found that people who have no relation to the situation perceive the decision as ridiculous and emblematic of what’s happening in the real Republican Party,” Chaffin said, adding that he believes this will hurt the College Republicans in the eyes of campus moderates.

Lin, a moderate Republican, argued that the Republican Party’s pursuit of far-Right Conservative ideology is not only stifling, it does not translate into effective policy.
“I think the Party needs to figure out what it’s doing; it’s disorganized,” he said. “All we are is a party of ‘no.’ We’re not offering solutions. To have a two party system you need to be able to have a dialogue and respond rather than saying ‘no, no, no, no.’ The Republican Party needs to translate its core principles into concrete ideas; otherwise they’re just shouting to the wind.”

But Lin doesn’t believe that the perilous state of the Republican Party gave Chaffin, as chairman, the liberty to speak with “no filter.” Indeed, the larger issue isn’t Chaffin’s views, but the position he held in relation to the comments he made publicly. As such, Chaffin’s actions raise not only the issue of the Republican Party suppressing divergent opinions, but – conversely – the question of how to deal with a “rogue” leader guiding an organization at his whim “without consulting with other people,” according to Lin. In an email to the Executive Board, Dzik compared Chaffin to former president George W. Bush, whose actions “reflected poorly on Republicans as a whole even though many of us did not fully support all of his actions.”

I can understand the pragmatism of the executive board’s decision. While their concerns were justified, however, the way they handled the situation was irrational and ego-driven. It would have been wise for the College Republicans to keep their proceedings more closely guarded until after the decision was concluded. In the aftermath, Gordon continues to publicly and freely speak his mind – borrowing the term “maverick” from John McCain and aspiring to be an “agent of change” – while the executive board, perhaps ironically or perhaps wisely, remains silent.
When asked whether the College Republicans would recover from this publicity gaffe, Lin said “The better question is: Will anyone notice?”

As for Chaffin, while he plans to remain involved in campus politics, it won’t be with the College Republicans. He expressed a desire to be an “independent voice,” and work with College Democrats on issues he supports.
“I wake up every day wondering if I’m going to be a Democrat by the time I go to bed,” Chaffin said.