The Republican Party is in the middle of a one-sided battle for its core. One-sided
because “moderates” are not known for their fighting side. That’s why they are
moderates.
The right wing (let’s call them Tea Partiers because they have no resemblance to the Right Wing that was known for folks like Ronald Reagan) seems to have all the fire power. Sure, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie appears to be taking them on, but he’s also protecting the right wing of his backside by making sure he has enough conservative positions to put up a good front in 2016. And, yes, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has called the GOP the “stupid party,” but I’m not sure that weak twist of phrase was the correct one to make his point but it made a headline, which seemed to be his goal.
Political parties were never intended to be such polarizing bodies. In fact, I’ve read
that George Washington, who never belonged to a party, didn’t want parties to form because they would lead to, get this, conflict and stagnation. Pretty smart guy. But, those Founding Fathers were a pretty prescient bunch.
Not to pound my chest (but if not me, who?), 20 years ago I wrote an op-ed that the Los Angeles Times ran and headed
“Beware a Party of One.” It was written after I had served as head of communications for four consecutive Republican National Chairmen and had a close up view of where the party was heading. My piece primarily was warning against a
takeover of the party by the Religious Right which was seen as the Wing of No – no minorities, no gays, no abortion, no, well, not much of nothing. It’s 1000 percent worse today. All Republicans have a touch of Libertarian in them, but a
touch, not a philosophy. There is a political party for that – the Libertarian Party. It’s a tempting point of view, but not a governing philosophy.
I’d like say there is a battle for the direction of the party, but I really don’t think there is. There is a scuffle for direction, positioning by potential presidential candidates who want the nomination but who don’t necessarily want the mantle of Tea Partier, except during the primary process.
I’m for a Republican who wants to truly take on the Tea Party, someone who’s willing to stand up and say, “The goal of governing America is to lead all Americans to a better way of life for all Americans, not a few on the right, or the left.” If
we wanted to rule by majority, we could hire a pollster to run the country. But that isn’t the way to govern, or lead.
Also, let's have that internal party war and move on not fight it every single day. There are more important things to fight for -- like the economy, or jobs, or true equal rights, or peace.
I know this is pie in the sky, but with the way the culture is going – screaming talking heads from the right and left on cable, web sites that cater to this or that political view but not giving “eyeballs” to all views—someone has to do
something now to stop the extreme slides on both sides. That takes a leader. I don’t see any on the horizon but I’m still
looking.
because “moderates” are not known for their fighting side. That’s why they are
moderates.
The right wing (let’s call them Tea Partiers because they have no resemblance to the Right Wing that was known for folks like Ronald Reagan) seems to have all the fire power. Sure, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie appears to be taking them on, but he’s also protecting the right wing of his backside by making sure he has enough conservative positions to put up a good front in 2016. And, yes, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has called the GOP the “stupid party,” but I’m not sure that weak twist of phrase was the correct one to make his point but it made a headline, which seemed to be his goal.
Political parties were never intended to be such polarizing bodies. In fact, I’ve read
that George Washington, who never belonged to a party, didn’t want parties to form because they would lead to, get this, conflict and stagnation. Pretty smart guy. But, those Founding Fathers were a pretty prescient bunch.
Not to pound my chest (but if not me, who?), 20 years ago I wrote an op-ed that the Los Angeles Times ran and headed
“Beware a Party of One.” It was written after I had served as head of communications for four consecutive Republican National Chairmen and had a close up view of where the party was heading. My piece primarily was warning against a
takeover of the party by the Religious Right which was seen as the Wing of No – no minorities, no gays, no abortion, no, well, not much of nothing. It’s 1000 percent worse today. All Republicans have a touch of Libertarian in them, but a
touch, not a philosophy. There is a political party for that – the Libertarian Party. It’s a tempting point of view, but not a governing philosophy.
I’d like say there is a battle for the direction of the party, but I really don’t think there is. There is a scuffle for direction, positioning by potential presidential candidates who want the nomination but who don’t necessarily want the mantle of Tea Partier, except during the primary process.
I’m for a Republican who wants to truly take on the Tea Party, someone who’s willing to stand up and say, “The goal of governing America is to lead all Americans to a better way of life for all Americans, not a few on the right, or the left.” If
we wanted to rule by majority, we could hire a pollster to run the country. But that isn’t the way to govern, or lead.
Also, let's have that internal party war and move on not fight it every single day. There are more important things to fight for -- like the economy, or jobs, or true equal rights, or peace.
I know this is pie in the sky, but with the way the culture is going – screaming talking heads from the right and left on cable, web sites that cater to this or that political view but not giving “eyeballs” to all views—someone has to do
something now to stop the extreme slides on both sides. That takes a leader. I don’t see any on the horizon but I’m still
looking.
RSS Feed