Those Traitorous Moderates and Independents
A great cry has gone up from the political Right, spurred by talk radio, and it goes like this: The true base of the Republican party has yet to be heard, and the only reason where talking about phony so-called "conservatives" like McCain and Huckabee is because the states that have voted, thus far, allow independents and moderates to participate. And until that happens these charlatans are going to strut around the stage, with the media's encouragement.
There's a problem with that scenario, and it's one that might not be noticed by folks who merely pump their fist in the air and go with the received AM radio wisdom without stopping to think.
One question to ask might be - why would the GOP officials in these states bother to set up their primaries and caucuses so that independents and moderates can vote? Were people back then stupid?
And the answer, I submit to you, is that no, they certainly weren't stupid. They simply lived in a time when the Republican message had broader appeal, and it was easier for a candidate to target their message in such a way that people from the "middle" of the political spectrum could easily join the GOP tent. The middle, in other words, was much closer to the Right, and a candidate could easily supplement their electoral support by picking up a healthy swath of folks who were Republican-leaning, but not registered.
So then the argument becomes - gee, is the average American more liberal than their counterpart from 20 or 30 years ago? Who left who behind - did the conservatives stay in place while America shuffled leftward, or has the Right become increasingly ideological, to the point where they have left mainstream America behind?
It's a provocative question, and the answer may be unknowable. But the actual implication is the same, if you follow the AM radio host's logic. The ideal conservative Republican will only win by appealing to a more narrow swath of the voting population than ever before. And somehow, once the litmus test candidate has been selected, we're expected to believe that they will go on to win the presidency with a majority vote - despite the razor thin margins of the past two elections and the 2006 midterms.
Maybe the received talk-radio wisdom goes unquestioned for a good reason.
posted by Superfly @ 11:23 AM
3 Comments
3 Comments:
Not Independents and moderates, Independent and Democrats. Most Republicans are centrists; conservatives are in the minority of the Republican Party. However, why should people that aren't in the party decide our nominee? Most Independents aren't "moderate." Sixty percent are Democrat-leaning. It's not that we think that they are stupid, but it raises a conflict of interest. If they want to vote in the Republican or Democrat primary, then they should be registered as such before the primary, not strategically the day of. If they are registered Independents, then they should put forth Independent nominees to vote on.
You're mixing up a couple of things, I think. One is 'open primaries/caucuses' - which have been around a very long time, and which, I am arguing are evidence that the Republican Party once had much broader appeal.
The other two things are: One, voting strategically - in other words voting to make a point, possibly for someone who you may not even want for president, but who you would like to see "in the game". (New Hampshire, hyper-aware of their part of the process, has always done this. Now the age of mass information has made it a factor in other races.) And two, voting for no other reason than pure mischief, which is what the Kos crowd is advocating with their last-minute scheme of registering. That's actually borderline illegal.
Again, my point is only that it used to be advantageous to Republicans to simply have open primaries. In elections past there were zillions of independents and Reagan Democrats who found the conservative agenda wasn't far off from where they stand.
No longer. And furthermore, those that are willing to get behind Republicans aren't even wanted.
I understand the cry to throw down with a particular party BUT... what does one call oneself when one is, say, socially liberal, pro-small government, pro-strong international policy, for promoting a global economy and all about aid dollars getting places they need to go? I would argue that one calls oneself "practical," "in tune with the times," and things of this nature. But please, oh wise one, with which party would such a one throw down?
I suppose one must prioritize, which I do. But this seems such an unsatisfactory solution.
Post a Comment
<< Home