RNC Chairman Michael Steele came to town recently. As part of his discussion, he said “We have the attention of the American people, something we haven’t had for a long time.” He went on to ask “Did you ever think that the arrogance of power would lead to the empowerment of the grassroots and the knowledge that ‘we the people’ have a say?”
However, Chairman Steele has made a fundamental mistake if he assumes that the “empowerment of the grassroots”, the tea parties, the 9-12 groups and all the people who are now “awake” means voters are flowing to the Republican party. In many cases – most, even – those folks are just as disenchanted with the Republican party as they are with the Democrats. Why? Because too many in the Republican party do not stand on principle! Too many are not willing to lose because they take a stand – they seem far too busy protecting their own personal interests. In the town hall meeting, a mom from Vernal – Joni Crane – stood up and said that even though she has been active in the Republican party – and even serves in county party leadership – she has been embarrassed to call herself a Republican lately. When newbies go to Washington and start trading votes for office space, or it seems that too many Republicans are there to protect their own incumbencies at all costs, it makes us wonder why we ARE Republicans.
Even though there was some talk of accountability (much needed), when Chairman Steele promoted a “don’t ask, don’t tell” position of unity within the Republican party, he lost me. He gave the example of 4 people all wearing the GOP hat. It doesn’t matter how they were the hat, or why they wear the hat, it only matters that they wear the hat. It’s that attitude – and yes, Reagan’s 11th commandment – that has created the good old boy system, patronage and the aggregation of power in the hands of a few.
The real message of unity, in my opinion, is “This is what we stand for – if you agree, come on in, the tent is plenty big”. It is NOT THE SAME as saying that as long as someone puts an R behind their name, they get our support and are immune from criticism.
What happens if you have a party that doesn’t emphasize standing on principle? Or is unwilling to address “Republicans” who consistently vote AGAINST party principles and the party platform? This IS an ideal time to re-emphasize the conservative values the Republican party is supposed to represent. The current discontent CAN be used to point out the clear differences between the Republican party and the Democrat party and to welcome in people who stand for the same values. But – unity at all costs – with no accountability – will NOT draw folks to the Grand Ole Party. Just sayin’…
October 21, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Holly, you are right on. I’m still a registered Republican only so I have a say in which candidates make it to the November ballot. My heart left the GOP several years ago, precisely for the reasons you cite here.
Heard yesterday, or possibly this morning, about a GOP candidate running for office in New York state. If you heard how she has voted in the past, or even considered her current stated positions on important issues, without seeing the “R” behind her name, you would undoubtedly identify her as a member of the other party. And the RNC is supporting her!!!!
I will support individual candidates whom I have researched and whom I know are true conservatives, those who will not trade votes or compromise our principles. Right now, there aren’t too many with the “R” behind their names that fit that description. In Utah, or elsewhere.
October 21, 2009 at 12:31 pm
I know too many people that would vote for Granato than Bennett, that would normally vote republican – even if Granato voted for Reid.
Bennett might be a republican, and can call him self, one, but he is part of the problem and not the solution.
That is why I am glad there are other choices, such as Eagar. I don’t have to vote for the democrat.
October 21, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Well said. Party unity at all costs is the wrong approach. Party unity is important, and we should allow for some wiggle room but to say that anything goes as long as we all wear an “R” is destructive.
The administration has, at times, tried to paint the Tea Parties and similar movements as Republican Party gimmicks. Apparently the Republican Party leadership believes this (except they don’t call them gimmicks).
Anyone who claims to believe the principles of the party is welcome in the tent, but if their actions in office oppose those principles with any consistency then they are not welcome to party support for further time in office.
October 21, 2009 at 12:42 pm
NY-23 Special Congressional Election is a good example. There are a lot of people that do not want either the republican or democrat candidate to win, and the 3rd party promises to caucus and work with the republican’s if they win. It would be fun to see what happens.
October 21, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Keep shrinking the tent Holly. You go girl. That’s just what the Democrats want and need at this point. The GOP will soon stand for the Genuinely Obsolete Party. Elect Rush Limbaugh the party chairman. Kick out the liberals like John McCain and get Glen Beck to run for President with Sara Palin as vice president.
History tells us that the extremes of either party have never had the best solutions for our nation’s problems. The truth lies somewhere in between and that is the great advantage of our two party system. Too bad Utah will never find out how well this works.
October 21, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Holly et al – I will say the same thing that I have said at other places (like HA, Michele Malkin and my own blog). If you don’t like who the local party is putting up then get involved in the local party and change it because LIKE IT OR NOT, the National Republican Party’s NUMBER ONE JOB is to get locally nominated Republicans elected. If the NY23 GOP Congressional Committee wants to put up Mao Tse Tung as their nominee to Congress there is NOTHING that you or I here in Utah can do about it. All withholding your funding from the RNC and NRCC does is it hurts YOUR LOCAL GUY!
LL
October 21, 2009 at 1:24 pm
I wish national politics were a little more like local politics. On a local level, people know the candidates and vote for or against them based on who they are as people and how they’ve served in the past in their communities. I can’t imagine not considering myself a Repbulican, but I haven’t even asked about the political affiliation of the candidates for Mayor and City Council in my town. I’m choosing to vote for people I know and trust. I wish integrity mattered more and politics didn’t enter into the picture at all – but that’s not the world we’re living in. We’ll all just have to use our inner compasses to navigate as best we can until we can come up with better solutions…
October 21, 2009 at 1:34 pm
So LL, are you saying that we should just go along to get along? Or that it doesn’t matter what happens with the national party? I am pretty sure you are NOT saying that, btw. And, as you know, I am very involved in local politics…
October 21, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Lady Logician, I differ with you on your last statement. My withholding donations does not hurt my local guy. I donate to the candidates personally. Nothing withheld for admin at the Nat’l level, etc. Help me see where I’m wrong and I’ll reconsider. I can do my homework and donate individually to candidates I know and trust. That goes for good candidates in other states. I’ve been contributing to good conservative candidates outside of Utah as well. Why should I send money to the RNC and NRCC when they give money to the likes of Charlie Crist and Arlen Spector (last time around) over good conservatives?
October 21, 2009 at 4:03 pm
I’m still a registered Republican (out of inertia, I drifted away after Bush beat McCain in 2000). Where were the principled Republicans when President Bush was violating the Constitution and doubling the National Debt? Even my former idol Senator McCain in the end caved to the demands for unthinking Bush loyalty.
If the GOP is going to make a comeback, then they need a message people want to hear. The Party of NO is a non-starter. Something else.
October 21, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Lady Logician, I don’t think so. I choose not to support the RNC because they do NOT represent me. I certainly didn’t want to vote for McCain and I was vastly upset about that choice. I am not putting any money towards a committee I can not trust. They want my money they are going to have to prove to me they understand what capitalism is and means, what a republic is and uphold the values I believe this nation was founded on. I can support the local guy, putting out fliers, calling, and donating directly.
Can you prove otherwise, that my money directly hurts those I choose to donate to directly when I don’t also give to the RNC?
October 21, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Find me a time in history when an ideological purity litmus test for membership brought a party back from minority status.
I’ll wait…
October 21, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Holly – I am saying nothing of the kind, but what I am saying is that we have to realize that there are things that are beyond our control here. We CAN’T control the idiots who nominated Dede Scozzafava. It’s that simple. We have to learn that there are things in life we simply can not control.
The less money the RNC or NRCC has in their coffers, the less they have to dole out to candidates across the board – it’s that simple. That said I don’t donate to the national parties because my local guys spend it better. But I do also realize that there is a need for the national parties.
The people want a choice, Jason, JB and richard. Ignore that desire at YOUR peril…..
LL
October 21, 2009 at 9:28 pm
JBTalcott and jasonthe,
Are you suggesting that the only principle that Democratic party stands for is including everyone? By the that definition, the best politician is the politician with no principles and the best party is the party that stands for nothing. Hmm, perhaps that explains a few things…
October 21, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Thought so – thanks for clarifying….
I must say, I find it odd that those who love to attack the Republican party and conservative values ALSO dislike it when I say Republicans must stand on principle….so which part do you not like? The part where we have principles? Or the part where I say the Republican party needs to get better? Sometimes ya’ll astonish even me….
October 22, 2009 at 8:50 am
HH: “The part where we have principles?”
Yeah HH, enlighten us on your conservative priciples, and show us how your party has stuck to them.
October 22, 2009 at 9:06 am
First of all Greg, if you are going to pose a question to me please learn how to spell my name and the name of my party correctly. Your assumption is ludicrous to say the least. The Democratic Party is and always has been the party of “inclusion” rather than “exclusion”. Just like the United States as a whole, people of all different races, creeds, nationalities, walks of life, etc. are welcome. My party stands for a strong middle class in America, that everyone has a right to affordable health care, that government can and should help people who are suffering, that everyone’s rights are important even if they don’t look, think, and act the same as we do.
The problem with conservative republican principles and values as I see it is that those folks believe that their values and principles are the only ones, or the only CORRECT ones. The conservatives cry for less governmental control and regulation in people’s lives unless it has to do with what two consenting adults do in their bedrooms and then government control suddenly becomes ok. That’s hypocracy, folks. You can’t have it both ways. The principles of the Democratic Party do not include trying to legislate ones moral values upon everyone else. Some would call that a free society.
The dichotomous thinking of the far right that things either good or bad, right or wrong. correct principles or incorrect principles, etc. gets a bit tiring from my perspective here in Happy Valley. I realize it is a convenient way to not actually have to think about something and weight all of the factors involved and come to an informed point of view. The problem with that as I see it is that in the real world issues are rarely if ever black and white. Those who claim to have the only correct principles in effect have closed their minds and completely shut down the possibility of having a meaningful give and take discourse with those who have different views.
In Utah County especially this phenomenon is prevalent in not only religion, but politics, and social issues as well. The result is a “us” and them” divisiveness and an ever present paranoia that “they” are out to take some of the power “we” have always enjoyed and must be stopped at all costs, because the principles and values “we” have are true and virtuous and theirs are false and corrupt.
October 22, 2009 at 11:37 am
JB, you write “My party stands for…”
Sounds like you have an ideological purity test.
If there’s a Democrat on this board who has ever spoken out against Jim Matheson, please shut up. From what I’ve read on your blogs, that’s all of you.
October 22, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Holly, this in an interesting discussion, and I explained my point much better on David’s related post (apologies for not keeping the conversation here… and I’m far too lazy to cut and paste):
http://www.pursuit-of-liberty.com/2009/in-search-of-banzai-republicans/#comment-13935
October 22, 2009 at 12:39 pm
I believe you are right Cameron. If someone should come to the Democratic party and insist that all members share the same “idealogical purity” we would tell that person they would be a lot more comfortable in the Republican Party.
October 22, 2009 at 6:54 pm
John Talcott,
My sincere apologies for typos. I did not intentionally misspell your name or the name of the Democratic party.
I did not claim that the Democratic party had no principles. The comments you and jasonthe made gave me impression that you felt that holding to principles was a bad thing. I was echoing your position, not stating my own. My apologies if I misrepresented your position. You re-iterate this position in your subsequent post:
(Please note John that I do not deride your typos)
There are principles that I believe in that I don’t need to continually re-evaluate. For example, murder, rape, child abuse, and fraud are bad things. There are things that are absolutely right or wrong and no discussion is needed to determine that they are right or wrong. I believe this is part of what the founding fathers meant when they talked about inalienable rights. Please don’t mistake “there exists a case” for “in all cases”. There are, of course, many issues that are not so easily determined.
I must admit I am still confused at your position. You claim:
Yet you also make the claim in your comments from September 23, 2009 in response to the post “The dictionary is wrong”:
While we all know that Obama does not trust dictionary definitions, you have quoted the dictionary in the past so I feel comfortable quoting it now.
Now let’s connect the dots. You claim that the Democratic party does not “legislate ones moral values” but does “do those things that are for the benefit of the common good of all of us”. I’m struggling just a bit with how it is wrong to legislate morality, which is defined as “the distinction between right and wrong” with your desire for the government to work for the common “good”, as defined, of course, by the Democrats. Which is it?
Your statements give the impression that doing what YOU think is good is selfless, virtuous and good-intentioned, while those who believe differently are selfish, paranoid, close minded bigots. Ironically, the very same accusation you make of those who do not share your political views.
October 22, 2009 at 7:00 pm
John, then explain to me why Jim Matheson, by all accounts an extremely popular multi-term representative, gets no love from the “ideological purists” in the Democratic party.
October 22, 2009 at 7:00 pm
John,
Apparently your time as a school teacher did not include teaching history.
The Democratic party has not always
The Republican party split from the Democratic party over the issue of slavery. It was the Democratic party that supported slavery and the Republican party that opposed it.
Perhaps you’ve heard of the Jim Crow laws? They were an invention of the Democratic party.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_org_democratic.html
http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/owens/02/racism.html
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=101760
October 23, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Legislating one’s morality is taking those things that one group of people would not choose to do themselves and prohibiting everyone else from doing so because they believe their moral beliefs and values are the “correct” ones. Some common examples include:
1. Denying gays the right to marry or have a civil union that affords them the same rights (see Utah Constitution).
2. Tightly controlling the sale of liquor. Prohibiting the sale of liquor on Sunday (and Arbor Day for god’s sake).
3. Refusing to include sexual orientation in hate crimes legislation.
4. Not allowing gambling in any form. (Utah and Hawaii are the only states to do so)
5. Passing Sunday closing laws—cities and counties.
6. Prohibiting nude dancing.
7. Refusing to pass laws against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
8. Working to deny women the right to choose what they do with their own bodies.
Greg I’m sorry you wasted all that time and effort on such a frivolous argument. I’m not going to make the same mistake trying to rebut the same. You are confusing doing things for the common good of society—sheltering the homeless, feeding the hungry, caring for the ill with enforcing one’s moral values such as—homosexuality is a sin, abortion is a sin, drinking liquor is a sin, gambling is a sin, sex outside marriage is a sin, nudity is a sin, etc.
The problem with morals and values, Greg is that we all don’t have the same ones in common. They are only YOUR eternal truths if that is what you believe. They are not necessarily mine or those of other people.
Thinking in terms of: Good/Evil, Right/Wrong, moral/immoral are examples of dichotomous thinking that leaves no room for judgment or discretion. Abortion is wrong. Well, usually it is—except in the case of rape, incest, or if the mother’s life is in danger. Killing is immoral. Well usually it is—except in self defense, in combat, to protect one’s family and property. Lying is wrong. Well, it usually is—except for when your wife says do these pants make my butt look big, or when the police use it in a sting operation. A man who does not temper his principles with reason and good judgment is just a dogma driven robot.
For those who might want more than Greg’s Greeting Card version of the development of political parties in the United State I have provided a link that is a good source of detailed information for grown ups.
http://everything2.com/title/Evolution+of+American+political+parties+from+the+Revolution+to+the+Reconstruction
Cameron, I didn’t even know Utah had representative who was a Democrat. That is news to me.
October 23, 2009 at 11:04 pm
John,
I appreciate the link to additional information about the formation of US political parties. Although it provides only a cursory overview of the time period surrounding the Civil War compared with the the links I provided, it provide the same description of the role Democratic party with regard to slavery. The following quuote comes from the site you reference.
Note that a pro-slavery position or a position that states, not the federal government had the right to determine slave laws, were fundamental the Democratic party platform.
Your link supports my assertion that your statement:
is demonstrably false.
An inconvenient truth, isn’t it?
October 24, 2009 at 9:16 am
At that time in our history slaves, of course were not allowed to vote. Therefore any discussion linking slavery with who was or was not welcome in any political party at that time in history is a specious argument. The political parties in the early years of our nation’s history were undergoing a rapid metamorphosis in response to the critical issues of the time. There was no “Democratic” or “Republican” party back them as we know them today. Am I making myself clear?
Perhaps my statement on its face was overly broad as evidenced by the fact that it gave someone with a nit to pick an opportunity to misconstrue its meaning by putting a term into a wholly inappropriate and illogical historical context.
To help untwist ones knickers, allow me to rephrase my words to more accurately convey my original meaning: The Democratic Party as we know it today and throughout my lifetime (60 + years) has been the party of inclusion rather than exclusion. There is that more convenient?
The links provided above show a very biased representation of the Democratic Party focusing only on that time in history that it represented almost entirely the southern states prior to the civil rights movement.
Racism is an ugly part of our nation’s past as is the treatment of Native Americans and our wars of expansion. These are reflections the shortcomings of our nation as a whole, not upon individual political parties.
October 26, 2009 at 7:40 am
[...] has a great post/discussion about why Unity at all costs is the wrong message for the GOP today. Within her post was one small statement that I had been thinking about for weeks: Too many are not [...]
October 26, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Congratulations, John!
You actually admitted something you said was inaccurate. Well done.
December 16, 2009 at 9:23 am
[...] a previous blog, I wrote: Chairman Steele has made a fundamental mistake if he assumes that the “empowerment of [...]
December 18, 2009 at 7:47 am
[...] a previous blog, I wrote: Chairman Steele has made a fundamental mistake if he assumes that the “empowerment of [...]