The Moderate Republican

veau - vegetarienne - verseau - viande - video comique - videos comiques - virus - voiture - voitures - wallpaper - wallpapers - winamp - windows media player - winrar - winzip - zodiac - zodiaque - zone alarm - zone alarme -

Being a member of a party that includes Trent Lott, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Powell, Alan Keyes and Orrin Hatch can only be a misguided choice unless one shares the selfish and immoral views of those individuals. For these dispicable zealots are the rule, not the exception. If you are a reasonable person. If you are a moderate person. If you are a compassionate person. You do not belong in this political party.

dorsano,

Isaac Asimov once wrote a book in which a human society (on another planet) came up with a system like that, of randomly selecting a new leader every year or two years.

The catch was that the system only chose people who had absolutely no desire to be the leader. The thinking was that anyone who actually wanted to be a leader would inevitably abuse that position and its power.

Not surprisingly, of course, that thinking is 100% correct. I cannot name a single world leader in history that has not found some way or multiple ways to abuse their power.

"In four years, the Republican party can figure out why Kerry beat Bush, put up a centrist like McCain (although probably not McCain himself), and take back the White House."

Or we can kick them all out, Democrats and Republicans alike, and choose the next batch by lottery -- and probably get better results.

Don't mind me - the mood will pass eventually.

Mark,

Thanks for clearing that up and it does make sense. I guess I was little mad because it sounded like he was belittling my efforts. I guess I took it too personally.

Your idea does make sense. If the party is to move to center, we have to demand more and not just vote for moderates. I myself will vote for Kerry not because I'm a Democrat, but because I'd rather have Kerry than four more years of these GOP policies.

Thanks.

Dennis,

I'm not sure Stephen was labeling your philosophy as "misguided" or the far-right as misguided. The sentence structure doesn't make it clear.

However, I would have to agree that the idea of reforming a political party from within is... well, maybe not misguided, but overly optimistic. Stephen is right that party leaders have enormous influence to enforce party position voting. If the party position is far to the right, then even moderates are compelled to vote for the far right position even if it violates their own beliefs and views. Politicians may be very passionate about their beliefs and convictions - but in most cases, when it comes to a decision between convictions and career, most choose career. Siding with the party position is good for a political career - it ensures that you continue to receive support from the party.

One of the rare instances of a politician choosing convictions over career was Jim Jeffords. Jeffords, of course, had already suffered for choosing to break ranks with fellow Republicans in the Senate on many occasions, so his choice to leave the party was simply an extension of that process. In the end, Jeffords could not stay with a political party that violated his beliefs and views, even though that relegated him to the undesirable status of "Independent".

Remember the first column I wrote for Moderate Republican? I gave the example there that it is tough to combat the neo-conservative or Fundamentalist Christian influences on the Republican Party without using the same tactics they use, of supporting specific candidates that will advance their agenda and abandoning candidates that won't support that agenda, even if such candidates are nominally from the "proper" party. It does little good to attempt to make reforms from within if your vote is guaranteed to go to Republicans at every election, regardless of how those Republicans have supported or not supported your views and agenda.

It's the same thing Stephen is saying. It does little good to vote for moderate Republicans versus conservative Republicans if, in the end, they support the party position during every legislative vote. Moderates can talk all they want, urge reform all they want, but in the end what matters is the almighty vote. It's the same with any other party. It does little good to vote for centrist Democrats versus liberal Democrats if, in the end, the centrists always align with the liberal party position.

On the other hand, if moderate Republicans choose to oust neo-conservative Republicans by voting for their opponents, the party will listen and the politicians will shift toward the center. If centrist Democrats abandon liberal Democrats by voting for their opponents, the party again will listen and shift toward the center.

Of course, that's already happened by and large with the Democratic party. Bill Clinton was a good example of that, and that's part of the reason he enjoyed his successes in office. It's also part of the reason he was so loathed by the hard-core right wing of the Republican party - because he appealed to the moderate, centrist Republicans.

And that needs to happen with the Republican party as well. Bush must be ousted, there is no question of that. If that means four years of status quo under Kerry, so be it. In four years, the Republican party can figure out why Kerry beat Bush, put up a centrist like McCain (although probably not McCain himself), and take back the White House.

Stephen,

I don't understand why you think my viewpoints are considered misguided. You might want to check www.moderaterepublican.net to see what we believe in. It is hardly misguided and I take offense in your viewpoint.

Having been born and raised in Wisconsin, I've known my share of "moderate Republicans". They were good people of course - as are many right wing conservatives in both parties. But being a good person is no justification for a misguided political philosophy.

From 1978 to 1983 I worked in the Wisconsin legislature as a research clerk for the Assembly Judiciary committee. Over those years I saw first hand the ill effects of moderate Republicanism. The problem - then as it is now - is that when it comes time to cast a vote in a legislative body, the party leaders have considerable power to compel compliance with the "party position". A vote for a moderate Republican to serve in a legislative body, for the most part, is no better than a vote for a conservative Republican. In the end, trying to change the party from within, is far less likely to have an effect than to vote for a "moderate or conservative Democrat" of which there are many. The fight for control is almost always for the middle. If the middle ground shifts to the Democrats, far more Republicans will be inclined to become moderates, and you will have achieved your desired objective.