|
|
|
January 20, 2010
"the strident, purist base"
From Bill Clinton's former White House special counsel Lanny J. Davis comes a good question: The question is, will we stop listening to the strident, purist base of our party who seem to prefer defeat to winning elections and no change at all if they don't get all the change they want.As someone who hopes the Democrats lose, naturally I hope they don't wise up -- and that the strident, purist base of their party gets its way. But if I were a Democrat I would also hope that the strident, purist base of the Republican party gets its way. What I hope does not happen is to see America having to choose between a strident, purist base and a strident, purist base. But hey, I admit that I'm not strident enough or pure enough to stand it. If that is a selfish thought on my part, then what would be more selfish? To stand the heat or get the hell out of the kitchen? MORE: An important point that should not be forgotten is that last night's victory was not a triumph of the "strident, purist base." Far from it. It was a defeat for the Democrats' strident, purist base. Interestingly, though (and most encouraging from my viewpoint) is that the "strident, purist base" of the GOP was quite willing to swallow their pride a little and help a guy who was decidedly not part of their strident purist base! Which is pretty amazing, if you think about it. AND MORE: While I would hesitate to call the Tea Party Movement the Republican "base," Glenn Reynolds notes, the Tea Partiers have shown wisdom and pragmatism: on the third-party front, the Tea Party enthusiasm for Scott Brown bespeaks considerable pragmatism. Republicans who are seen as sellouts may face third-party challenges -- or primary challenges, or both -- but support for Brown indicates that people aren't in a "take your marbles and go home" mode yet. Throwing a monkey-wrench into the ObamaCare works was seen as more important than getting the perfect candidate in, and that was a very wise move. I suspect that we'll see similar pragmatism between now and November, but the GOP should also remember -- as was shown in NY-23 -- that making an example to encourage the others can be pragmatic, too.The Tea Party people I saw struck me more as small-l libertarians who are fed up with big government than as ideological purists. They don't seem especially enamored with the litmus test ideologues who insist on being the base. But what do I know? I can't even offer a good definition of the base, much less one we can all agree on. MORE: Not to promote impurity, but would it be out of line to propose this as a lowest common denominator definition of "base"? Republicans who share core values on fiscal policy that can actually win elections.The Tea Party Movement seems cool with it. So are a lot of people, and so am I. People have every right to strive for stridency and purity in ideology, but does that give them the right to order everyone else around? LINGERING QUESTION: Just what is the base? Is it the lowest common ideological denominator? Or the hardest ideological core? (The bottom line, or the hardest core?) posted by Eric on 01.20.10 at 01:45 PM
Comments
It is not just fiscal policy - Brown voted for RomneyCare, after all. We know from the various initiatives throughout the states that moral issues can cross boundaries as well - witness same-sex marriage going down in flames state after state. The Republicans are not stupid (the voters, not the party leadership). In Mass, Scott Brown had a decent chance of winning because he was liberal *enough* for Democrats to swallow... and pull the lever for him. If he had been fielded in a red state like Texas, for instance, it might not have gone off so well. It's a question of the possible and the probable. Gregory · January 20, 2010 08:20 PM Speaking as a Texas Tea-Partier, our group was enthusiastic about Brown: I am sure that a lot of our people donated to him. His was just the first election in the year. Our own are ramping up, now. There is a lot of interest in first-time candidates, people who at least appear that they will do what is right for their constituencies and the country as a whole - not just do what they need to do to get elected again. Sgt. Mom · January 21, 2010 09:54 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
January 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
January 2010
December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• My beautiful "new" rice cooker
• Cratering • Sex, murder, it's all the same, right? • I know! Let's Talk About Sex! • Not by PC alone! • It Is Official • auf wiedersehen to hope? • "the strident, purist base" • Monkeying around with compromise • Tower Of Power
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Eric, we don't agree on everything, but I'm with you on this one.
Finding the center is as American as apple pie. Why? Because the will to look for the center is grounded in the belief that *everyone* has some gift to offer. It's putting legs on "all men are created equal."