Reset Reason #2: It’s Time to Help Save the Country

This essay is part of the Bay Area Republican Reset Project, an ongoing series focused on rebuilding a credible, solutions-oriented Republican Party in the Bay Area.

Back in the late 1790s, just ten years after the ratification of the Constitution, things were not looking good for the fledgling United States of America. Farmers in Pennsylvania and other states were in open rebellion against the Federal government. One party, the Federalists, had passed legislation that, in practice, muzzled the speech of the other party. And the upcoming election of 1800 was viewed by both sides as existential; both sides believed the other’s victory could mean the end of republican government.

In western Pennsylvania, resistance to federal authority boiled over when farmers, enraged by a federal excise tax on distilled spirits, intimidated tax collectors and organized armed resistance. After negotiations failed, President Washington mobilized 13,000 troops to suppress the uprising—the first major test of whether the new federal government could enforce its own laws. The episode revealed how fragile national unity remained: many Americans still felt greater loyalty to their state or region than to the federal government in Philadelphia.

At the same time, partisan conflict in Congress was hardening into open hostility. In 1798, Federalists passed the Sedition Act, making it a crime to publish “false, scandalous, and malicious” statements about the federal government. Though framed as a national security measure, the law was enforced almost exclusively against editors and allies of Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party. Newspapers were fined and opposition politicians were jailed. To Jeffersonians, the Act confirmed their worst fears: Federalists would use the machinery of government to silence critics and entrench themselves in power.

As the election of 1800 approached, both sides believed the survival of the Republic depended on the outcome. Federalists warned that a Jefferson victory would unleash mob rule, empower radical French-style revolutionaries, and destroy religion and property rights. Democratic-Republicans countered that Federalists were erecting a quasi-monarchical regime that threatened the liberties won in the Revolution. The question was not merely who would win—but whether the constitutional system could survive the transfer of power if the “wrong” side prevailed.

Sound familiar?

Today, fortunately, we don’t have federal troops marching against regional militias. But the war of words is intense and corrosive. On one side, we hear political opponents described as “fascists,” “authoritarians,” and “enemies of the people.” On the other, we hear talk of “traitors,” “vermin,” and shadowy bureaucratic cabals that must be purged, along with warnings that the country is being “invaded” from within. The more we describe one another as monsters, the harder it becomes to remember that we share a common inheritance—and a common responsibility—to preserve republican government.

As in the 1790s, the law is being used as a political weapon by both Democrats and Republicans. Whatever you think about Donald Trump, some of those lawsuits against him were baseless, naked political prosecutions—we know because some of those prosecutors told us so. And whatever you think of James Comey and Leticia James, Donald Trump’s efforts to indict them are substantially driven by a desire for political retribution—we know because he told us so.

Now, as then, the stakes are described in apocalyptic terms. Voices on the left tell us that the country is living under an emerging authoritarian regime and constitutional government is hanging by a thread. Voices on the right tell us that Democrats are engaged in treasonous sabotage, and that only sweeping purges can “take the country back.” The language on both sides assumes not just disagreement, but moral illegitimacy.

Like in 1800, we are not in a good place. But what should Bay Area Republicans do about it? After all, we are bit players in a huge party and country. How could we possibly help?

I believe we can—and must—help in three ways.

First, we should completely flip the prevailing cultural script and begin practicing deliberate expressions of goodwill toward our political opponents. This does not mean surrendering our convictions or soft-pedaling our arguments. Rather, as Arthur Brooks says, we simply need to recognize that the progressive down the street wants our city and country to thrive just as we do, that we can disagree without being disagreeable, and that warmth is not a weakness but a strength.

To put this into practice, those of us who are religious can make a point of praying for our political opponents—thanking God for their presence as fellow citizens in our communities and for their love for our country. At Central Committee meetings, we can reserve a brief period to recognize and appreciate Democrats who are making our cities and region better. When prominent national Republicans engage in particularly unhelpful demonization, we can respond with a short tweet from our accounts: “Nah, we’re not into that.”

Beyond these initial steps, as we operate in public, we can choose curiosity over caricature, ask what problem our opponents are trying to solve, affirm what is true before contesting what is not, and refuse to feed the outrage machine with our clicks and applause. In a culture fueled by contempt, this will feel countercultural—even naïve. But if we want to lower the temperature and preserve the Republic, someone has to model a better way. Why not us?

Second, we should model pursuit of the common good by not only proposing solutions, but challenging our Democratic colleagues to work with us to come up with compromise solutions to problems we all agree on. Take housing, for example. A broad majority of Bay Area voters—Democrats and Republicans alike—want housing to be more affordable so middle-class families can remain here. In 2024, Democrats proposed a $20B Bay Area Housing Bond, claiming it would help build and preserve more than 70,000 affordable homes in the Bay Area. We Republicans made a compelling argument that the proponents’ projections were unrealistic and that the benefits were not worth the cost.

But what is our housing proposal? We have some local scholars beating the drum for permit reform, zoning deregulation and relaxation of rules around the use of union labor, but we don’t have a well-developed alternative plan that we can sell to Bay Area voters. Once we do, we could negotiate with Democrats to see if we can find common ground for more effective approaches. While our registration numbers are lower than the Democrats, we’d have leverage in this kind of negotiation: it’s hard to pass bond measures that require ⅔ voter approval.

The same principle applies to transportation: the vast majority of Republicans will oppose the proposed new regionwide transit taxes—and for good reason—but what is our solution to saving BART and regional services like Muni and VTA? If Bay Area Republicans become known as the adults in the room—serious about results, open to partnership, and focused on outcomes rather than outrage—we will not only help save important institutions, we will also earn the credibility required to compete and win again.

Third and finally, we should defend the constitutional order, no matter who is challenging it. Of course, we should object when Democrats disrespect or weaponize the rule of law, fail to respect the separation of powers, or abuse the powers of the presidency to quell free speech and silence dissent. We should do the same when a Republican President threatens to shut down speech he disagrees with, seeks to leverage the power of the Department of Justice to prosecute political enemies, and abuses the power of the pardon. We can do this with brief statements on social media. “Nah, we’re not into that” when we see these kinds of transgressions.

This may strike some of you as overreach. Should county central committees really be speaking up on national issues like this? My answer: ordinarily, no. Today, yes. When the basic guardrails of our constitutional system are under strain, silence from local leaders looks like consent. If we want voters to trust us with local power, we have to show that our commitment to the rule of law and constitutional norms is consistent—regardless of which party happens to be testing them.

Finally, I want to emphasize: We can do all of these things while continuing to pursue the substantive priorities we care about. We should continue to focus primarily on local priorities like public safety, homelessness, and education. We should continue to advocate for smaller and more efficient government. We should continue to push for voter ID, an issue where 75% of Americans (including 61% of Democrats) agree with us. We should continue to advocate for strong border enforcement and for immigration policy that respects both the rule of law and that treats people and communities with dignity.

The path I’m describing is not easy, and it won’t produce instant victories. But it is a path that could restore credibility, rebuild trust, and help steady the Republic at a moment when it badly needs steady hands. If you believe Bay Area Republicans can model something better—more competent, more ethical, and more committed to ordered liberty—I invite you to learn more about the Bay Area Republican Reset Project. Please reach out to me at bill@republicanreset.org to challenge these ideas, help refine them, sign up to attend an upcoming gathering, or offer your time or resources.