Skip to main content

Republican Insurgency

So have you been following the primaries at all?

If you're like most of America, the answer is no. If you aren't a candidate, working for a candidate, or a political junkie like me, watching either party play the game of deciding who they will put up in the general election is about as exciting as watching mold develop on those bananas your kids swore they'd eat if you bought them.

However this primary season is a little different, particularly for me and my interest in the long term health of Conservative politics in America*. This season, we are seeing the disintegration of the ability of the Republican National Convention to control the kind of candidates that get nominated. Throughout the nation, the RNC has supported the kind of candidates they normally do, but the voters, ever more rightest these days, have instead nominated an entirely different breed of Conservative. Marco Rubio, Ron Paul, and Sharon Angle are just a few examples of Republican nominations that present a serious risk in the general election of alienating... well...nearly anyone.

In my August 5th post 'What Tea Leaves' I talked about the possibility that the Republican party would lose the ability to nominate electable candidates. That the radical elements within the party would become the only voters in primaries and would pick people that spoke to them, but not really to the American conservative. This risk seems to be playing out. Classic conservative candidates are being forced out, forced to run independent, or ignored as ridiculously out of touch replacements spout position like abolishing the constitutional church/state separation entirely, or removing the Department of Education, or using 2nd Amendment remedies on congress members they disagree with. (Yes, Sharon Angle essentially suggested armed insurrection or shooting a congressman was a viable alternative to political discourse.)

So today's Political Kick is a bit of an odd one for me. It involves me asking voters to NOT vote ticket. Do NOT vote for a Republican just because they have an elephant next to their name. The environment of the current 2010 elections has made party voting a serious mistake. But what makes it odd isn't that, it's that I'm also going to advocate that voters, if they face a candidate like Angle on their ticket and can't abide the opposition's candidate, that they refrain from voting.

That's right, I'm coming out in favor of abdicating your political power in cases where you find yourself between a radical and a platform with whim you disagree. My reasons are somewhat unique to the current political situation. The Republicans, after their defeat in 2008, should have gone through a period of vetting and reorganization and loss where they rebuilt from within. But they were granted a windfall in that the economic situation was not so easy to turn around on a dime, and as a result, they have been able to gain political momentum in 2010 without having actually developed a new platform, approach, or even internal control over their own party.

This makes some of the current Republican candidates downright dangerous. They do not represent the mainstream conservative view, they hold positions that are destructive to the American way of life, and they might just win if people say "Well I'd rather have a conservative in office" and ignore some of the fanatical ideas and methods considered acceptable by some of these people.

Now I will never ask people to vote against their interest or ethics. But I can and will, at least in this limited case, suggest that those faced with a radical do not contribute to identifying or associating their party with such individuals.

I'll revisit this later, but just to get it on paper, be careful out there. Conservative politics are in flux, and NEED good, thinking, rational men and women to help rebuild what conservative politics SHOULD be. That might require some time of loss and lack of power - something the Republicans have never been terribly good at.

Conservatives: Get involved. Speak out. Provide an alternative view to the radicals that are infesting your party. And whatever you do, don't sail with a boat of fools just because it has a familiar or nostalgic feel.

Be careful out there, come November.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What a Pain: Married to a Public School Teacher

I wanted to write briefly about how hard it is to be married to a public school teacher. Particularly in recent months, with all the protests and bitter battles over benefits and state salaries, I thought I'd chime in and really let you see how much of a pain in the ass it is to have a teacher as a wife. It's hard to do my taxes at the end of the year and realize just how much of our income was spent on school supplies and specific tools for student needs that the district couldn't or wouldn't provide. It's equally hard to keep my mouth shut about it because I know she will defend those expenses to her last breath. It's hard to watch her leave every morning at 6:30am and know that if I'm lucky I'll see her at 7pm that night. Once in a while she's out by 4pm, but usually I don't see her until after dark, and there are times – frequently – that I get that call from school saying 'go ahead and eat, I won't be back until after 10.'

Why do YOU vote Republican?

With the incoming Republican controlled house in the new year, I thought I would take a shot at the party that put them there and see what my readers think. Yea, I know, surprise surprise, I'm taking a stab at the Republican party again. The way I'll structure this is a simple question posed to my hypothetical Republican reader. Why do you vote Republican? I vote Republican because I believe in small government and fiscal responsibility. Once upon a time Republicans believed these things, but those days seem long gone. No matter what you think the role of government should be, Republican administration has done nothing but increase the size and cost of government since Ronald Reagan. Conservatives tend to get lost in this truth by trying to make distinctions between military and domestic policy, the allocation of tax dollars to 'necessary' and 'unnecessary' projects and over-reach, but at the end of the day, government has ended up bigger and more expensive on R

Mosque Anyone?

So let's be clear about the New York Islamic Cultural Center including a mosque being proposed for central New York. 1.The proposed site about 2 blocks away from ground zero. 2.There is at least one Jewish synagogue and one Christian church within that distance. 3.Over 650,000 Muslims live in New York State. 4.Muslims were killed in the 911 attacks. So a foreign radical fringe group of a religion widely practiced in the United States effectively attacks and kills thousands of Americans on US soil in 2001. The emotional impact of this attack cannot be overstated, nor should the grief of those who lost loved ones be underestimated. Now New York Muslims were no more a part of the 911 attacks then New York Christians were a part of the Northern Ireland terrorist bombings of the 80's and 90's. There simply is nothing to suggest that the religion of Islam is to blame for the violence that some of its radical members inflicted on our nation. However there is an argument to be made