Monday, December 05, 2005
On Party Loyalty
Sometimes Hugh Hewitt guest host Carol Platt Liebau blogged yesterday about the Kindergraten Governor's lack of party loyalty. (I'm still working on a nickname)
Political parties are a means to an end. They are the mechanisms necessary to get elected and therefore to govern. Few politicians have ever existed that could be bigger than their party, and thus get elected without one. Very shrewd politicians can control their party, but leave, never.
Arnold is probably correct that California Republicans need to be far more moderate than say, Indiana Republicans, but he is very, very wrong if he thinks they need to stop being Republicans. Arnold is failing in this sense -- He must lead the party as much as he leads the state. If, as Arnold obviously feels, Republicanism is the problem, he needs to reform the party, not leave it behind. Why? Because he won't get re-elected without it - and then he won't be able to govern at all.
As to Armey's comments, this path of eating our own seems to be what Republicans do best. We stand so firmly on "principle" that we sacrifice the ability to govern (because we blow the party apart) on a cyclical basis.
I counsel patience for my Republican bretheren. Let's beat the self-destructive cycle once and get ourselves firmly entrenched in power. Then let's move slowly towards our goals, at a pace that allows us to maintain our ability to govern. We have the vision, but we have proven ourselves incapable of realizing it. We want to leap instead of walk, and so we take one step forward and two steps back.
To our leaders, your job is to expand our vision -- to help us see not just the destination, but the road. Let us know when you have to make the necessary compromise what the next step will be. We're almost there, let's not blow it.
To me, this is offensive and disloyal. Arnold Schwarzenegger is, apparently, proud enough to be a Republican to be willing to bask in the limelight at the party convention, take party money, and use grassroots and fundraising skills to his advantage. Yet he is so ashamed of his party and his fellow Republican governors that he won't even appear in public with them (or with the President)?Dick Armey was in the OpinionJournal on party loyalty in general.
In all my years in politics, I've never sensed such anger and frustration from our volunteers--those who do the hard work of door-to-door mobilization that Republican candidates depend on to get elected. Across the nation, wherever I go to speak with them, their refrain is the same: "I can't tell a dime's worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats." Our base rightly expects Republicans to govern by the principles--lower taxes, less government and more freedom--that got them elected. Today, with Republicans controlling both the legislative and executive branches of the federal government, there is a widening credibility gap between their political rhetoric and their public policies.I'm not sure I agree entirely with Armey's small government thesis. The party core is committed to that, but you have to remember elections are swung by the center, and, unfortunately, the center wants their pork. But the sentence I highlighted is what I really want to talk about.
Political parties are a means to an end. They are the mechanisms necessary to get elected and therefore to govern. Few politicians have ever existed that could be bigger than their party, and thus get elected without one. Very shrewd politicians can control their party, but leave, never.
Arnold is probably correct that California Republicans need to be far more moderate than say, Indiana Republicans, but he is very, very wrong if he thinks they need to stop being Republicans. Arnold is failing in this sense -- He must lead the party as much as he leads the state. If, as Arnold obviously feels, Republicanism is the problem, he needs to reform the party, not leave it behind. Why? Because he won't get re-elected without it - and then he won't be able to govern at all.
As to Armey's comments, this path of eating our own seems to be what Republicans do best. We stand so firmly on "principle" that we sacrifice the ability to govern (because we blow the party apart) on a cyclical basis.
I counsel patience for my Republican bretheren. Let's beat the self-destructive cycle once and get ourselves firmly entrenched in power. Then let's move slowly towards our goals, at a pace that allows us to maintain our ability to govern. We have the vision, but we have proven ourselves incapable of realizing it. We want to leap instead of walk, and so we take one step forward and two steps back.
To our leaders, your job is to expand our vision -- to help us see not just the destination, but the road. Let us know when you have to make the necessary compromise what the next step will be. We're almost there, let's not blow it.
