Why do Republicans continue surrendering the high ground to the Democrats? They express constant moral outrage over any attempt to control the ever-growing appetite for government spending — the federal deficit is now projected to exceed a staggering $9 trillion. Democrats’ open mockery inaccurately attempts to justify entitlement spending under the cover of the social safety net.

The inconvenient fact that is being ignored is the moral line that they are crossing by advocating unsustainable spending that is on track to bankrupt multiple levels of government. Such actions threaten to effectively destroy the social safety net, not strengthen it! The general public instinctively understands that piling another expensive program on top of the bankrupt Social Security and Medicare programs is probably a bad idea. This realism is more likely driving the recent town-hall, populist outrage than a mistrust of government.

As Republicans, we need to express the need for a strong and sustainable safety net. Where are the “Safety Net Republicans” that can articulate the need for a hand up, not a hand out? Republicans must express compassion for those in need and express disgust for those attempting to gain entitlements under the banner of the social safety net.

Unfortunately, we are not articulating this message, nor openly recruiting candidates who can. Running a candidate that shows an increased level of compassion during tough economic times just makes good sense. After all, more people are either relying on government support or at least are worried that they may need government support in the coming years. Tough talk may satisfy ideologues looking for endorsements, but certainly does not make people feel secure and can easily be perceived as being mean-spirited.

During the fabled “Republican Revolution” ushered in by the Contract for America, general public dissatisfaction with the government was at an all-time high of 70 percent, compared with 57 percent now.

Of further interest in today’s new political climate, younger voters and independents are much less skeptical of government and believe that the government is run for the benefit of all people. The same is true for independents, Hispanics and other minority voters. These overall trends indicate the unlikelihood of a non-presidential election repeat of the Contract for America scenario that many die-hard Republicans are preaching.

Unfortunately, too much of our current Republican “message” operates under the government-is-bad banner. The current platform still references “requiring all able-bodied welfare recipients to work as a condition of receiving benefits” and a strong statement that the safety net should be privatized and removed from the government domain.

While these planks are laudable goals, they were written in a time of apparent endless prosperity. At that time, there was a dream that the economic growth engine alone would lead the world out of poverty. Unfortunately, prosperity alone did not solve the world’s problems. An exclusively private social safety net is not on the current horizon.

Our party has generally supported the concept of supporting those in need and some candidates are on message. Unfortunately, in today’s charged climate, many Republicans feel that they need to express disgust for welfare recipients first and then reluctantly acknowledge that those who cannot help themselves may need some help.

I support an expression of compassion first and reform second. Most recently, the party attempted to take a step in the right direction by creating its new “Health Care Coalition.” Ultimately a great messaging opportunity — yet, they still got it backward: “The goals of the coalition are to help prevent a government takeover of the American health care system and to promote positive alternatives which put doctors and patients in charge.”

Articulating what we support first and what we would change second is a simple, but effective, way to attract voters. I support cleaner water — to be achieved in a reasonable manner. I support classrooms first and reform second. I support immigrants pursuing the American dream — provided they follow the law.

A “Safety Net Republican” is no different. Our candidates should express compassion for those truly in need. Only then, will our leaders have the moral high ground necessary to accomplish real reform.

Exploring this new messaging should yield a new breed of candidates, sorely needed in purple swing districts. Quality candidates supporting the old ideological anti-government premise are a declining breed. I see very little “new blood” in any of the Republican camps. I frequently hear the question, “Why can’t we get more young people involved in the party?” They need a cause, and the one being presented does not work for them.

We need more than just tough talk to win elections. We need a better message that acknowledges the concern in people’s hearts. It feels good to help people and having candidates that can openly discuss that they care about people can only be a good thing. As we begin to turn the tide toward more common sense and realism, good candidates need to get elected and then they need to lead. Safety Net Republicans, it’s time to speak up.

Matt Benda is an Albert Lea attorney, community advocate and lifetime member of the Republican Party.