Understandable, because the John McCains and Lindsey Grahams of this world are, well, they dress like Republicans but few are really sure who they are.
Future candidates may have a litmus test to determine where they're coming from, and the gold standard by which Republicans may be judged is none other than Ronald Reagan. The party drafted 10 questions to ask each candidate during the vetting process, and a failing grade (in this case fewer than eight out the 10 questions) is likely to cost them funding and endorsements.
Guys like McCain and Graham (who represents South Carolina in the Senate) are sure failures in the political quiz. As are a majority of the party's office holders, I'll wager. But Graham in particular is being branded as a RINO, Republican In Name Only, for his stances on health care and illegal immigration.
Which makes sense on the surface, but the party may be shooting itself in the foot here. Columnist Kathleen Parker calls the litmus test a "suicide pact."
The ultralib Daily Kos is having fun with this one, and one of its writers, in a tongue-in-cheek article, suggested its own litmus test for Democrats:
... out of pure bullet-point envy, I propose that Democrats must also have their own list. Ten litmus tests which every potential Democratic candidate should be able to ace before they ever hope to put (D) after their names. In fact, I'll go so far as to be more pure than the Republicans. If you can't pass every one of these tests, don't bother to sign on ...
Some of the Kos points include:
... (1) We support the rights extended to Americans extended under the Constitution. All the rights. For all Americans ...
I can't say I recollect the Democrats ever being all fired-up over the Constitution, but that's a separate rant. Let's move on:
... (5) We support American business, and recognize that an unregulated market is an unfair market, an unstable market, and a market doomed to failure ...
I'm trying to ignore the contradiction in that statement. To continue:
... (9) We believe that access to our government is not for sale. Not in the courthouse, not in the White House, and not in the legislature ...
Two words for y'all: BILL CLINTON! As in, Lincoln Bedroom. Remember?
To be sure, the conservative (Reagan) wing of the party really didn't have any muscles to flex until 1980. Before that, Barry Goldwater was the lone "real" conservative in a party that would surely flunk the litmus test today. And Goldwater was considered dangerous, a bomb-thrower, and not politically correct anyway. But after Reagan, there were few "real" conservatives to be had in the party -- surely not Bush Sr. or Jr. You'd have to drill deep among the also-rans in the 2008 primary to find one in Mike Huckabee, and even he's a little suspect.
To look at the GOP's history over the past 50 years, Reagan was the aberration. The party itself, well, it was hard to tell them from the other guys a lot of the time.
While it's nice to develop some sense of unity and identity, it's a real mistake to treat the party as a private club. In all its attempts to seek definition, the party will completely kiss off all the independents who are a better fit on that side of the two-party system. While they're about it, they might as well save time and concede the 2010 and 2012 elections right now. The party's in serious trouble right now; you don't fix that by narrowing your scope.
Let's say (purely hypothetical here; there's no way I'd even consider doing such a thing -- I'm already considered a loose cannon in some circles) I decided to run for Congress. Let's say it'll be in one of those nonexistent districts that were created by the recovery.gov website in the stimulus. There's no way I'm gonna pass that litmus test, though my politics are certainly closer to the Republicans than the Democrats. So I might as well forget about funding, endorsements, etc. The GOP wants a Reagan clone, and that ain't me.
See, I told you this is a stupid scenario.
More intelligent (now that's a stretch) voters are more likely to look at the candidate instead of the party. Anyone who goes into the booth on election day and chooses his candidate solely by the presence of a "D" or "R" beside the name isn't smart enough to vote anyway.
I've suggested this before. The two-party system is one of those things that was a real good idea at the time, outlived its usefulness, and is still hanging around searching for relevance. Sort of like the electoral college.
OK. So who's an elephant these days? And who's a RINO?
Eleph-ino.
###
No comments:
Post a Comment