By Vikram Srinivasan

Just as tents can collapse from being too small, they can also fall apart from being too big.

That’s a lesson the GOP should remember as it confronts the issue of what role moderates should play in rebuilding a “big tent” party. Answering that question will depend heavilys on what we mean by “moderate.”

As a conservative, I’m of the view that there should be a large role in the party for moderates. But only for one variety: the principled kind.

When a political party has shrunken to the small size the GOP has now in Congress, it can be tempting to rebuild the ranks with whatever candidates can be found. But, by rebuilding on the shoulders of unprincipled “moderates” the party risks diluting its message and undermining its own sell at a time when its core asset is its ability to offer a distinct vision from the Obama administration.

To be sure, the story of the GOP’s decline over the last decade is a tale with many subplots. But prominent among them is a narrative of failed and ineffective candidate recruitment. Oftentimes, it seems like the only criteria national political heavyweights consider in encouraging Congressional candidates are the size of their pocketbook, their name recognition, and their electability.

Certainly, all three are important. But they are not the only criteria that matter. Candidate recruitment at the local level cannot be divorced from a national strategy that controls the party’s image and message.

This failure of a comprehensive approach is very much evident in the tarnishing of the Republican brand. The significant growth in non-discretionary spending under the last Bush administration, unchecked by a supposedly conservative Republican Congress, reflects a complete departure from core conservative philosophy. This story of failed congressional oversight can be explained as a classic case of parochial local interests overriding any core philosophical principles of elected officials.

Perhaps it is too idealistic to hope that the local instinct, the tendency for members of Congress to support initiatives that benefit their own district at the expense of underlying philosophical principles, will ever be diminished. But that does not mean the party would not be able to assert at least some minimal control and provide some structure to otherwise potentially incoherent strands of conservatism within its ranks.

Some might very well have no issue with such ideological divergence. But the problem with being politically “moderate” is that too often it doesn’t mean anything other than a lack of philosophical mooring—a sort of ideological cherry-picking that is all too often wholly inconsistent with itself. For our public officials being “moderate” melds all too comfortably with political opportunism. Ideological inconsistencies and support for pet projects can be too easily be rationalized on the basis of appealing to moderate voters.

The bottom line, however, is that voters seldom support candidates purely on the basis of ideology—in fact, the appearance of being moderate or reasonable may be more important than what the facts say.

President Barack Obama is a prominent case in point. Obama was the most liberal member of the entire U. S. Senate according to the 2007 vote ranking of the non-partisan National Journal.  Yet, Obama ran a campaign that stressed his post-partisan appeal—a sell sharply at odds with his own voting record and complete lack of bipartisan cooperation, either in Illinois or in the U.S. Senate.

In trying to rebuild a party on core conservative principles, Republicans should certainly shun shrill, divisive rhetoric that makes the party seem reactionary and parochial. Nonetheless, electing moderates for moderates’ sake is a deeply flawed strategy. Instead, the operating principle in candidate recruitment should be to elect the most conservative, thoughtful candidate electable for every seat.

This is not to say that the party should not court independent voters. Rather, it is to suggest that the best way to court such voters is to make a persuasive sell on the basis of presenting a clear contrast to the Obama administration and a coherent message and vision of its own.

A big part of the problem for Republicans in this past election was that they did not stand for anything, or at least anything worth voting for among broad sectors of the politically independent public. Republicans had deeply and seriously undercut themselves over the past several years and had no credibility to make a serious case for fiscal responsibility or conservative economic policy. Moreover, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) had so many serious departures from conservative ideology and was utterly unable to articulate a conservative policy worldview, from economic issues to any other area of policy.

The fact that the hyper-liberal Senator from Illinois was able to craft such a broad-based political campaign against a truly centrist candidate should sharply rebuke those who would suggest that only by “returning to the center” can the party reclaim its majorities. In fact, the party already was “in the center” when it lost in 2006 and 2008. Winning again will require reasserting conservative principles as underlying the core of the GOP.

On campus, that means encouraging the truism that being a Republican can mean many things to many people. But at the same time, we must remember that for it to mean anything at all, there really can be little compromising on core philosophy regarding the role of government. At end of the day, liberalism and conservatism are philosophies on the role of government, aligning with the Democratic and Republican parties respectively. For Republicans, that means being fundamentally skeptical of government action in any and every arena where private actors and individuals could suffice.

A strategy for rebuilding the party that emphasizes recruiting moderates to run in races where more conservative candidates could be successful is a failure to learn the lessons of recent history and a recipe for the big tent’s eventual collapse. The GOP must return to core conservative principles and provide a clear alternative to Democratic policies if it is to ever indulge the hope of regaining a lasting majority.