Tuesday, June 01, 2010
CONCERN FOR LOSING REPUBLICANS
This topic is a strange one for some of us who may not be known for great concern about republicans losing elections. Question: What is worse than a republican? Answer: A bad republican. There is a movement in the Republican Party which should concern every American, both republican and democrat. The Republican Party has taken a hard turn to the right, up to the edge of darkness.
The banishment of Senator Arlen Specter was a prelude, followed this year by other disturbing events. Charlie Crisp, a moderate leader and a promising national figure, has had to leave the party in Florida. Bob Bennett, a well-known conservative leader within the party and the senate, was demonized for two votes cast to save the country from a disaster and then defeated in the Utah state caucus. Dr. Rand Paul, a libertarian and the “tea party” candidate in Kentucky, trounced his mainstream republican opponent.
Dr. Paul is already in trouble, finding that one cannot be a true libertarian, demanding a non-regulating laissez faire government, without being offensive to people in the rational mainstream. This kind of thing comes out in general elections that attract press coverage.
It has become clear that the “tea party” fringe has moved into the driver’s seat within the Republican Party, winning their primaries. This is akin to putting a drunk on Prozac behind the wheel of the bus carrying all of our valuables, plus the originals of the Magna Charta, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of the United States. These are not people to trust with running the country or the world.
Since the last general election in 2008, after which the Republican Party was left in shambles without a leader, this ultra-conservative element has emerged as dominant. They are not a new party at all, although they have taken up the “tea party” name as a form of pseudo-populism.
Unlike this rude and disorderly crowd, most Republican Party leaders in the Congress and in the intellectual community have traditionally been civil, courteous, respectful toward others, and were often both eloquent and erudite. William F. Buckley was for years the philosophical leader of conservatives and a leading intellectual of his day. Although harsh campaigners, latter twentieth century republican political leaders were mostly “gentlemen (ladies) of the old school,” not given to excesses in speech or behavior.
Libertarians tend to believe in non-regulatory government, limited to the necessaries -- such as protection of person and property, national defense, infrastructure, and assuring individual and corporate liberties. Libertarians have tended to be either professional people or wealthy, corporate people.
Libertarians believe in limited government and limited taxes. They would do away with most present departments of government and substitute private company contractors for most of the rest of government work. Social agencies would go, and privately supported charities would assume really needed services. Libertarian views and “tea party” slogans are NOT congruent, although they may overlap.
A right wing fringe has always been present in the Republican Party. There has always been something of a rabid element straining to cut loose. The “tea party” has become their vehicle for doing so. Their anti-tax stance has drawn a wealthy class of sponsors. But they do not demonstrate the traditional savoir faire of the mainstream Republican Party, which they have succeeded in intimidating.
The right wing Christian group has been attracted to republicans through deference to their anti-abortion, school prayer, evolution and similar issues. These are joined by rowdy “tea party” types, ideological conservatives, and corporate, business, and wealth interests, to make up the party “base” to which candidates have always had to appeal to be elected. The raucous element has taken over.
A number of pundits have concluded that the current de facto leader of the Republican Party is Rush Limbaugh. His daily inflammatory anti-government, anti-democrat, anti-Obama tirades have unfortunately galvanized a majority of gullible republicans into a frenzied, unprincipled opposition to everything either proposed or done by government. This reaches back into the latter Bush months when a frenetic effort was being made by that administration and congressional democrats to prevent the economy from utter disaster.
Since then Rush Limbaugh has wielded the whip that has kept rank and file republican congresspersons in line with the party. Even their titular leaders quake in fear of Limbaugh’s wrath. Aided by the Fox News channel, Limbaugh has by intimidation enforced the discipline of the party of “NO,” and those who have dared to deviate just a little have felt the wrath of his “ditto-heads.” Any signs of bi-partisanship are exorcised.
This is why we are concerned about the losing republicans in the party’s primaries. The more that party becomes dominated by those with an angry, unreasoning, unprincipled, mob mentality, the more inhibiting it will be to bi-partisanship and democratic processes. These people demonstrate no sense of propriety, follow no rules of courtesy, tend to be uncouth and anti-intellectual, and trash everyone who dares to differ.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
The banishment of Senator Arlen Specter was a prelude, followed this year by other disturbing events. Charlie Crisp, a moderate leader and a promising national figure, has had to leave the party in Florida. Bob Bennett, a well-known conservative leader within the party and the senate, was demonized for two votes cast to save the country from a disaster and then defeated in the Utah state caucus. Dr. Rand Paul, a libertarian and the “tea party” candidate in Kentucky, trounced his mainstream republican opponent.
Dr. Paul is already in trouble, finding that one cannot be a true libertarian, demanding a non-regulating laissez faire government, without being offensive to people in the rational mainstream. This kind of thing comes out in general elections that attract press coverage.
It has become clear that the “tea party” fringe has moved into the driver’s seat within the Republican Party, winning their primaries. This is akin to putting a drunk on Prozac behind the wheel of the bus carrying all of our valuables, plus the originals of the Magna Charta, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of the United States. These are not people to trust with running the country or the world.
Since the last general election in 2008, after which the Republican Party was left in shambles without a leader, this ultra-conservative element has emerged as dominant. They are not a new party at all, although they have taken up the “tea party” name as a form of pseudo-populism.
Unlike this rude and disorderly crowd, most Republican Party leaders in the Congress and in the intellectual community have traditionally been civil, courteous, respectful toward others, and were often both eloquent and erudite. William F. Buckley was for years the philosophical leader of conservatives and a leading intellectual of his day. Although harsh campaigners, latter twentieth century republican political leaders were mostly “gentlemen (ladies) of the old school,” not given to excesses in speech or behavior.
Libertarians tend to believe in non-regulatory government, limited to the necessaries -- such as protection of person and property, national defense, infrastructure, and assuring individual and corporate liberties. Libertarians have tended to be either professional people or wealthy, corporate people.
Libertarians believe in limited government and limited taxes. They would do away with most present departments of government and substitute private company contractors for most of the rest of government work. Social agencies would go, and privately supported charities would assume really needed services. Libertarian views and “tea party” slogans are NOT congruent, although they may overlap.
A right wing fringe has always been present in the Republican Party. There has always been something of a rabid element straining to cut loose. The “tea party” has become their vehicle for doing so. Their anti-tax stance has drawn a wealthy class of sponsors. But they do not demonstrate the traditional savoir faire of the mainstream Republican Party, which they have succeeded in intimidating.
The right wing Christian group has been attracted to republicans through deference to their anti-abortion, school prayer, evolution and similar issues. These are joined by rowdy “tea party” types, ideological conservatives, and corporate, business, and wealth interests, to make up the party “base” to which candidates have always had to appeal to be elected. The raucous element has taken over.
A number of pundits have concluded that the current de facto leader of the Republican Party is Rush Limbaugh. His daily inflammatory anti-government, anti-democrat, anti-Obama tirades have unfortunately galvanized a majority of gullible republicans into a frenzied, unprincipled opposition to everything either proposed or done by government. This reaches back into the latter Bush months when a frenetic effort was being made by that administration and congressional democrats to prevent the economy from utter disaster.
Since then Rush Limbaugh has wielded the whip that has kept rank and file republican congresspersons in line with the party. Even their titular leaders quake in fear of Limbaugh’s wrath. Aided by the Fox News channel, Limbaugh has by intimidation enforced the discipline of the party of “NO,” and those who have dared to deviate just a little have felt the wrath of his “ditto-heads.” Any signs of bi-partisanship are exorcised.
This is why we are concerned about the losing republicans in the party’s primaries. The more that party becomes dominated by those with an angry, unreasoning, unprincipled, mob mentality, the more inhibiting it will be to bi-partisanship and democratic processes. These people demonstrate no sense of propriety, follow no rules of courtesy, tend to be uncouth and anti-intellectual, and trash everyone who dares to differ.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
