Drastic times call for drastic measures - even if they create animus among my readers. So here goes:

To observe that what was once the Republican Party is in tatters should come as no surprise to anyone with half a brain and a modicum of awareness (coincidently, both qualities seem distinctly absent in the "leaders" of said political party). When the your political platform is roundly dismissed by the majority of voters at all levels - city, state and national - in favor of your opposition’s ideology, it is time for a in-depth revision of that platform. It has happened before with great success for both the Democrats and Republicans and, if ever there was a time for the Grand Old Party to huddle for a group rethink, this is the time.

I say this not because a long-time Republican Senator has summarily "jumped ship" or because a thoroughly annoying, quasi-comedian has managed to win election to the Senate from Minnesota (after all, the Gopher State did once elect Jesse "The Body" Ventura, feather boa and all, as its governor) or that some Republicans people actually still consider the current governor of Alaska as a viable candidate for President in 2012. I am lately arrived at this opinion because, for the first time in my lifetime, the party of my youth has little more than a gaggle of quacking, annoying talking heads, each saying much but signifying nothing as their figureheads. Not actual office holders, mind you, but (cough, cough) "television personalities". Think Paris Hilton outlining national political policy and you can get a good idea of the direction things are headed.

The pantheon of Republican "thought leaders" (is that an oxymoron?) should be familiar to you. They are (in my personal ranking scale of annoyance factors): Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly and Glen Beck. If these are the men to set the tone of debate and the issues of importance for the next 4 years, the GOP is not only on life support but anyone with a sufficient level of compassion for the suffering should be reaching for the plug.

Issues the Republican Party relied on in the past - charisma, appeals to patriotism, strong national defense and fiscal restraint in government - have either been usurped by the Democrats or have become trivialized in the minds of the American voter. In an age when reflection, insight, intellect and a return to tried-and-true, workable principles should be preeminent in anyone who would aspire to lead a resurgence of a Party, the best the Republicans can summon up are loud-mouthed, shoot-from-the-hip-and-sort-the-dead-out-later caricatures of political thinkers. In brief, we have Moe, Larry and Curly when we desperately need Abe, Teddy and Ronald (Reagan, not Albright).

In the last decade, the Republican Party has managed to alienate just about everyone because of rudderless, vacillating and downright inept policies. Wars have been started (and never finished) against strawman dictators who posed no threat to national security (Iraq) and an actual enemy that is too ephemeral to defeat with any numbers of "boots on the ground" (Afghanistan/Pakistan’s fanatical Taliban). Solutions to illegal immigration flowed from the City on the Potomac like wine but nothing substantive was ever actually done. The economy slid into a morass without anyone in power so much as firing off a bottle rocket of alarm. American citizens - homosexuals, blacks, Hispanics - were dismissed as merely "inconvenient truths", their grievances left unheard much less addressed. Is it any wonder the Party of Lincoln has become a disjointed, noisy fraternity party?

Clearly, what is needed is to rachet down the distemper and start listening - really listening - to what Americans of all persuasions consider important. It is time to start making some unpopular compromises - not because they will appease a block of voters but because they are the right thing to do. Prudent politics strives for conciliation, not alienation. The sooner the Republicans figure this out, the faster they can return to be a contenting political party. This will never occur when it is driven (I hesitate to say "led" as that some how seems to be the wrong word) by ideologues more concerned with their own television ratings than with the actual viability of the Party to which they claim allegiance.

American has become far too diverse to cling to the dogma of the past. Inflexibility on any issue - particularly those which do not undermine the inviolable core principles that our nation has lived under for 2 centuries - will no longer be acceptable to the majority of our citizens. While I hesitate to use specific examples as they, undoubtedly, will alienate some readers, I will take my own advice and suggest some areas in which compromise might be fruitful.

First, there needs to be a return to liberty. Not a liberty based on Biblical "Thou shalt not’s..." but an individual liberty. In this day and time, Those who believe in the Bible as the absolute truth of how man should live his life on earth are almost equally balanced by those who either think it is a noble philosophical guide or less. Just as those misguided believers in the Koran can find phrases that justify their violence, Christians quote Biblical passages that justify their rejection of homosexual marriage, abortion, stem cell research and, for some fanatics, even racial inequality. The Founding Fathers were not theologians and made sure that Christian theology would not and could not set secular policy. We should respect their wishes. To whit: If two homosexuals desire to have a marriage to unite them, how, precisely, does that effect my individual liberty? [Ideally, government should not be in the business of regulating or defining what constitutes marriage in the first place but that is a blog for another time]. If a woman carries a fetus in her womb that she does not wish to bring to term, I believe it should be her individual decision. I might add that I reject the argument that abortion cheapens human life and moves us all one step closer to the slippery slope of genocide, human cloning and unregulated euthanasia and all the other bogey men abortion opponents bring to the table. It comes down to a matter of personal liberty and, that, gentle reader, I do strongly believe in.

Minorities and the poor still (despite the protestations of the radical right) have legitimate grievances. They also have responsibilities. The conundrum is to bring the two into some workable resolution. One solution comes to mind: I remember how work-study programs got me through college and believe the same system can work in other sectors as well. Urban centers should be developed (abandoned inner-city real estate certainly could be had on the cheap) where the recipients of welfare benefits can come - and bring their dependent children for in-house child care - to be educated in some marketable skill. Job fairs can be held at the same facility to match employers with those seeking work. Pre-school programs for nutrition and education can be carried out while the parents are in class, all under the same roof.

This is the carrot. The stick would have to be that those who receive benefits are obligated to the program and meaningful participation is mandatory. If you receive government assistance in the form of welfare, aid to dependent children, unemployment or any other subsidy, you are required - by law - to show up for retraining and seriously work on continuing your education. Furthermore, when a suitable job opportunity is available to you at your skill-level, you are obliged to take the job. If the job happens to be working as a window washer, janitor, housekeeping or working half-days in the facility’s daycare while you attend classes for the other half-day - whatever - you are compelled to work in that capacity. But, to be fair, you only are required to do so if you intend to keep getting government subsidy. If you opt out of government support, you are free to do whatever you care to do (within the law, of course) to feed your family. See? Simple programs for complex issues. As an aside, I suppose the question of whether such a common sense program could ever be implemented nationwide would be the answer to the bumper sticker-worthy: "What would Jesse and Al say?". But that is another matter, altogether.

The question of illegal and legal immigration is a truly complex issue. Liberals recite the pedantic "This nation was built on and by immigrants and it is what has made us great". Conservatives lament "We must protect the nation from terrorists for national security reasons and prevent mass immigration to secure American employment". What is a nation to do? One imperfect solution is to abandon the inane project of building a fence to protect our entire southern border. It is impracticable, cost-ineffective and unworkable. Motivated immigrants - legitimate seekers of the "American Dream" and those who wish us ill will always defeat mechanical barriers to their purposes. Always. Furthermore, we cannot afford enough border patrol guards to effectively enforce a "fence of men" to preserve the border.

My proposal is two pronged: First, we should facilitate legitimate immigration by making the process accessible to those truly seeking a better life while, at the same time, making it more rigorous in its screening. All applications for visas should be thoroughly scrutinized and verified. This will require a better working relationship with the Government of Mexico with whom we should be virtual partners in the process. As complete a background check as can be obtained and full biometric data - face recognition software, fingerprints, et cetera - should be required of each visa processed. Just as with any privilege (and a U.S. visa is a privilege, not a right), there are certain responsibilities that are required. But the process should be respectful, expeditious and accessible to all seeking American citizenship. When examined with a realistic view, this is the only logical answer to the prevailing situation. Immigration, as time as proven, cannot be stopped; it can only be made as safe and secure as possible.

Secondly, border security should be revised to take advantage of what America is still good at: technological development. The same Predator MQ-1 unmanned aircraft, so effective in a war setting, could be modified for duty as implements to aid in border security. An aerial "fence" cannot be breached, cut or tunneled under. Rapid response manned units can be stationed to respond to major breeches in the border integrity. If we can put a man on the moon, we can surely surveil a land border.

Finally, talk of mass exportations of all the illegal immigrants in this country is counterproductive, polarizing and completely impracticable. Instead, we should endeavor to better assimilate those gainfully working in the U.S. economy so that they can fully contribute to our tax base and feel to be part of America instead of criminals awaiting the next INS raid. Conversely, those who have elected a criminal life should be dealt with harshly, swiftly and mercilessly. Agreements should be negotiated with the Mexican government to rapidly take possession of these outlaws at the border expeditiously and deal with them in their penal system. The message should be: America will take your tired, your poor and your downtrodden if they are willing to follow our laws but we will, without remorse, run those who seek a life of crime out of the country using every means at our disposal. In brief, no visa = free bus ride south.

Of course, there are other pressing issues (the economy, health care, the environment, et cetera) that will require the same sort of compromise and negotiation. But, since space is limited and I do not seek to alienate every reader, I will stop for now. The prickling point remains that if the Republican Party (or what is left of it) does not change tact, we will be a one-party nation for the foreseeable future. And that is not a healthy situation. Despotism follows on the heels of an impotent opposition party.

And, as it stands, the "loyal opposition" is suffering a severe case of ED (Enormously Dysfunctional).