Principals over Partisanship
By Doug Edelman (02/20/06)
I have received some interesting responses to recent articles, suggesting that Republicans should close ranks and lock arms in unity behind the Administration and Republican legislators. The responses implied that Republicans are too often guilty of "eating their own". The complaint was made that Conservatives are being too hard on President Bush, decrying that they are hesitant to give him their full trust and loyalty.
I found the suggestion somewhat distastefully analogous to the universal defense of their own that the Dems seem to apply when one of their party has made a mis-step and is under fire. I'm all for unity of purpose. But blind partisanship and lockstep conformity is NOT a desireable trait.
The issue here seems to come down to which is more important, the advancement of principals, ideas and values - or the advancement of the party.
Once upon a time, both parties had a positive agenda of things they wanted to promote and accomplish. People voted for one or the other based on which party put forth a platform they agred with.But this has devolved.
Conservatives tend toward the Republican party not because the Republican Party IS conservative... but because the Democratic Party is the antithesis of Conservatism, and there is no viable alternative. The Republicans are the default party of the Conservatives.
Conversely, the Democrats don't have a positive agenda to put forth, but they are the default party of everyone who rejects conservatism. Thus, both major parties have descended from parties of principals and values to simply two opposing groups formed on the basis of "we're not THEM"!
The result is that the Republican party has become diluted in its principals and values. While we still have our Tancredos and Pences and our Shaddigs and Allens... we also have our McCains, Specters,Chafees and Snowes. The RINO faction has more than once prevented the Party from accomplishing the goals of a conservative agenda... sometimes more effectively than the unified assault of the opposing Democrats.
This dilution of principal will bring about the decline of the Party. While the US has historically had a 2 party system… remember that they haven't always been the Democrats and the Republicans! What happened to the Whigs? The Federalists? The Prohibition Party? The Know-Nothing (American) Party? Did you know there was even once a "Democratic-Republican" Party?
Which brings me to GW. I'm the first to acknowledge his positive accomplishments. If he were running again today, he'd have my vote. On defending our interests abroad, I give him an A. Tax reform, A. Modernizing our military, an A. On his judicial appointments, I'd give him a B. Would have been an A but the Meiers debacle must be factored in. But his report card is not all A's and B's.
Bush is NOT a Reagan Conservative. He does not uphold the conservative value of limiting the size, scope and cost of government. He's NEVER VETOED ANYTHING. Not even a symbolic act which would be overridden. He lets the congress run roughshod over him despite bloated budgets, pork-filled transportation appropriation, etc. He STILL to this day supports guest worker programs and won't secure the borders. Even when he's right he fails to communicate effectively to gain the support of the public. When his popularity is down, he proposes massive new programs and expenditures. Conservatives are often disappointed in the directions GW chooses to steer the ship of state.
Most recently, the bone-headed proposal to turn over 6 of our cities ports to interests in Dubai has somehow managed to unite left and right in UNIVERSAL opposition, and Bush and his cohorts DEFEND it.
Should we, as good partisan robots, quietly applaud such a move just because our Republican President signs off on it? Is it REALLY a good thing to blindly support a politician based only on the letter after his name?
No, Conservatives will stand for CONSERVATIVE principals over party unity, for as long as the Party fails to have a unity of principals.
Copyright © 2006 by Doug Edelman
(Printer friendly version) Email: Doug Edelman
