There is no shortage of those who can attest to my being a slow learner. I was 46 before I understood that being a registered Independent in the District of Columbia is about as stupid as a voter could be. This is a district where one has to be a party member to vote in that party’s primary. This also is a district full of Democrats, and the results of that party’s primaries make our general elections seem redundant. The concern that the democratic process alone might create a Democratic Party monopoly here was so great that Congress mandated some city council seats be reserved for members who do not belong to the majority party. Seeking one of those seats is the only time it makes sense not to be a registered Democrat. Anyone with even a dim hope of having their vote matter, however, had better be able to vote in the Democratic primary. I would be a registered member of the Communist Party or the Taliban if either were running the show here and making that the only way I could have a say about the caliber of candidates for office.

In 1998, ready for a new ward representative, I changed my affiliation from Independent to Democrat, voted in the primary, and was happy when the longtime incumbent was defeated. The winner, of course, went on to win in the general election. That council member is still serving, but is now under an ethical cloud that threatens his chances in the next primary. Imagine: his success or defeat could be determined by nothing more than a few voters changing their registration.

So, it is only in a spirit of love that I say this: if you live in a place where Republicans rule and you can’t vote in Republican primaries, you’re stupid, and my advice is to stop being stupid and start being a Republican – bearing in mind that you can be whatever you want to be later on in the general election. Just think about what would happen if candidates in Republican primaries had to court a slew of new voters not interested in the usual stump speeches or the views that formed them. Think about the quality of elected officials who would emerge from that process. How many self-declared non-witches, birthers, communist hunters, homophobes, climate change-deniers and men confused about rape would we have to endure?

Some might see this as political mischief, as meddling in the affairs of others when, in fact, it is nothing more than plain political activism that’s good for the country. Some might caution that the same might be done by Republicans in deep-blue states, but that would be good as well.

Much is being made of the Republican establishment versus Tea Party Republicans, a schism worsened by November’s defeat. Ironically, in their struggle for party control, the two sides are closer in thinking than they realize.

Republican political strategist Karl Rove, Mr. Establishment himself, talks about the need to expand the party’s base by attracting more minority voters. “Minority” does not include “black.” Since November, there has been no dearth of Republican pundits holding forth about what a natural fit the Republicans would be for the Hispanic community, but almost no mention of a need to acquire more black voters. The day after the November election, Mr. Rove began honing the message. When speaking about Hispanics, he stated, “This ought to be our vote. They are socially, economically conservative, patriotic, church-going, family-oriented people who are very entrepreneurial and they ought to be a part of our coalition.” It might seem unfair to indict a man based on the offensive implications of things left unsaid, but this is Karl Rove. For him to speak so blithely means he is either more audacious than we imagined or not as sophisticated as he believes.

Mr. Rove might be surprised to learn that his thinking mirrors that of his perceived competitors among the Tea Party. Norman Hughes, a member of the Tea Party Patriots, recently coined a phrase while speaking at a forum in Michigan. Apparently, some poor American families are “ethnically challenged.” I’m not sure even God knows what Mr. Hughes means, but I’ll bet you Mr. Rove does.

Republicans who would be characterized as rational by most standards also seem to see no need to capture more of the votes of black citizens. Michael Gerson, a policy adviser and speechwriter for President George W. Bush, co-authored (with Peter Wehner) the article “How to Save the Republican Party” in this month’s issue of Commentary. The writers do an admirable job of enumerating the Party’s problems and their solutions, but they failed to make a single mention of the lack of black support or the need to rectify it. For an idea of just how clueless they appear to be on that subject, here is what they write about conservative critics of immigration reforms:
“Conservative critics of such reforms sometimes express the conviction that Hispanic voters are inherently favorable to bigger government and thus more or less permanently immune to Republican appeals. It is a view that combines an off-putting sense of ideological superiority – apparently ‘those people’ are not persuadable – with a pessimism about the drawing power of conservative ideals. Such attitudes are the prerogative of a sectarian faction. They are not an option for a political party, which cannot afford to lose the ambition to convince.”
Now, substitute the word “black” for the word “Hispanic” in the cited passage and ask yourself how the writers could miss the undermining of their own premise by the exclusion of blacks from their analysis.

Karl Rove has turned his attention to fending off an assault from the party’s right flank. If Democrats and Independents in solidly Republican districts would re-register en masse as Republicans (if that’s what it takes to vote in the primaries), it would force Mr. Rove and his party to turn their attention to an awakening on their left. These new members should bear in mind that joining the party would be an act of altruism, an attempt to help save a once-great party that formerly did so much for this country but that now has written off a significant percentage of the populace.

Republican Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana had it only partially right when he caused a stir by saying his party needed to stop being stupid. That’s good advice for so many more of us.