Leaving the Party

Nick uses Sensenbrenner’s essay for The Wisconsin Interest to vent a bit on the Republican Party. 

They all start by saying Republicans got their hats handed to them for good reason.  They lament about how “other Republicans” (never themselves) “lost their way”, and how they have to find it again, and return to their roots.  I’m reminded of something I wrote a while back, which compared Republican voters to battered women:

[...]

And here I sit, seeing a lot of Republicans buying it.  They praise these Republicans, and are taking them back already.  Why?  What makes you believe that if given the chance, they won’t do the exact same thing again?  The Republican Party is just as corrupt and abusive as the Democratic Party, and given the chance, will trample on your rights and spend your money like any abusive husband.  It’s time to cut your losses, and move on.  Recycling ideas is not enough.  Brand new people are needed.  A brand new Party is needed.

Conservativism may not be out of gas, but the Republican Party sure is.  You should leave it on the side of the road to rot.

Nick is perpetuating a rather classic misunderstanding of the role of policical parties.  Political parties aren’t corrupt.  The people in them are corrupt.  Which is why his suggestion that the Libertarian Party is somehow immune to this defficiency of human nature is a bit silly. 

Political parties also don’t have philosophies.  They are politicial organizations designed to gain and retain power.  That’s it.  The people within the party determine what policies to enact when those people are in power.  That’s why it is important to not just disengage, take your toys, and go home whenever the political party of your choice advances the wrong ideas or the people within the party are corrupt.  If people abandon their respective parties, then those parties will be controlled by whoever is left in them.  In the political realitites of our times, there are only two viable parties for those who wish to be in power and see their policies enacted, so it is important that good people with good ideas get involved in them.

I, for example, want to see conservative policies enacted.  The Republican Party is my means to that end.  So I will continue to be invloved in the Republican Party because I want to see it support my philosophy instead of Tom Petri’s or Olympia Snow’s.  I won’t get my way all of the time (or even most of the time), but I sure won’t stop trying.  If I withdraw from the party, I am surrendering it to the liberal and the corrupt who want to use the party to gain power and enact policies with which I disagree. 

Some people say they are Conservatives and not Republicans.  As for me… I am both.

1. Normally I might agree with you Owen… but look at the situation.  How often do members of the House turn over?  The party may be all about the people, but there is a serious disconnect between the voters, and the average party member, and those who end up in office and make the party platform.

   The same people from the same parties always end up coming up on the ballots.  The average voter’s choice is either to vote for “their party”, or not vote at all.  Now what kind of choice is that?  And how does that change who ends up on the ballot next time?

   I mean hell… Sensenbrenner doesn’t even have to do anything and he gets elected.  How is he accountable to his constituents any more?  As long as he’s deemed to be a “good Republican”, he’ll be elected as long as he runs.

   Posted by Nick on April 25, 2007 at 1823 hrs




2. Owen,

   Normally I disagree with you on many things.  I continue to read this blog because you cover a lot of issues, you cover them well, and as a Democrat it’s good to get a sense of how other people feel.

   With all that said, I couldn’t agree more with the sentiment I think you’re passing along in this post.  Politicians are just a part of the party to which I belong and support.  The party is what drives the issues I support and believe in.  Unfortunately, and I guess fortunately in some ways, not all leaders in my party strive for my causes or do so in the most honest and open way. 

   Abandoning the party is not the issue.  Finding better people to represent you and your party is the issue.  If people REALLY want change, they should change who they donate to and vote for.

   Posted by on April 25, 2007 at 1830 hrs




3. How often do members of the House turn over?  The party may be all about the people, but there is a serious disconnect between the voters, and the average party member, and those who end up in office and make the party platform.

   I agree, but is the answer to disengage?  Or is the answer to engage with those people?

   The same people from the same parties always end up coming up on the ballots.  The average voter’s choice is either to vote for “their party”, or not vote at all.  Now what kind of choice is that?  And how does that change who ends up on the ballot next time?

   That’s why the real fight is before the primaries.  But you can’t participate that process unless you are willing to show up.

   I mean hell… Sensenbrenner doesn’t even have to do anything and he gets elected.  How is he accountable to his constituents any more?  As long as he’s deemed to be a “good Republican”, he’ll be elected as long as he runs.

   Here’s the dirty little secret of politics… even incumbents are susceptible to personal persuasion.  I don’t mean a letter or an email.  I mean showing up in person and making the case.  If 5 people come up to a politician at an event and bring up the same subject, that politician will listen.  But you can’t so that unless you show up at those events.  Politicians are people too.... sort of.

   Posted by Owen on April 25, 2007 at 1830 hrs




4. I agree with you on very little, Owen, but you are 100% right about this. Anybody who doubts Owen here should read “Before the Storm: the Unmaking of the American Consensus” about the Goldwater campaign in 1964.

   Posted by on April 25, 2007 at 1835 hrs




5. My biggest problem is that we now have what seems like a “ruling class”.  We have the royalty that we never wanted.  Instead of bringing in new people with new ideas, we have to change the thinking of the same people over and over again.

   As times change, and priorities change, the people in government should change.  We shouldn’t have to force the same people to simply vote differently.

   Posted by Nick on April 25, 2007 at 1924 hrs




6. I am sorry I no longer believe you can be a conservative and vote GOP.  The fact the GOP is even considering John McCain for President just shows what a joke the GOP has become.

   If you really want to start making this system work again their is only one real answer Term Limits and short ones at that.  It doesn’t matter which party, the politicos are in they go to Madison or Washington and they go native.  Why else would we have a over a decade of the GOP spending like sailors.

   Posted by Chris SH2 on April 25, 2007 at 1942 hrs




7. Term limits are not the answer. It has been ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court and if it had any legs in legal circles it would have been challenged by now. The answer may be (I said may) at the local level. If your alderman or supervisor or councilman does not support your view you can petition your government (sound familiar, it’s part of the first ammendment) and your chances of succeeding are much higher. You can talk to people at the supermarket, the mall, the townhall, at a ball game or taking a walk and sway their position. If you start there, you can influence a district. That is the start (I failed to mention your house of worship), from there you can begin a movement and work outward. It is not as futile as you think.

   The other term limit candidates, the congress has been so redistricted as to insure re-election again and again.

   You may be able to force candidates to vow term limits as part and parcel of election but that only works if they are GOP, see J.C. Watts as an example. No examples are available for the leftists, for there god is power.

   Posted by on April 25, 2007 at 2018 hrs




8. Well, I was a ”I’m a Conservative but not all that Republican” until this Dem Congress took power.  I’ve suddenly realized that I was wrong, and that if it means standing strong with the GOP to stop things like the arbitrary come hell or high water withdrawal deadline, then so be it.

   The Repubs aren’t perfect.  They aren’t even particularly good.  But they’re light years ahead of the competition and splitting from them only helps the competition at this point.

   Posted by Murdoc on April 25, 2007 at 2029 hrs




9. If they can amend the Constitution to put in term limits for the President they can amend it to put term limits for the Congress

   The GOP had over a decade to prove they were the party to support and all they did was get fat on their power

   Instead of actually doing the right thing they keep saying we suck but if you don’t support us the Libs will suck even worse.

   Screw that line of thinking I am done taking the lesser of two evils

   From now on I am voting the Man/Woman on a case by case basis.  If they are a real conservative they will get my vote if not I will write in my own name and not a dime to the National,State or County GOP. 

   When they drop the fluff issues like Gay Marriage and start tackling real problems like Taxes, Spending, Taxes, Border Control, entitlement etc and actually get some results then maybe I will give them a second chance until then not a chance.

   Posted by Chris SH2 on April 25, 2007 at 2132 hrs




10. Chris,

    You can still vote for the person and support a party.  In my case, I fight like hell to push good conservatives behind the scenes and in the primaries, but that doesn’t mean that I have to support every Republican.  But in the end, every election is about a choice.  And almost always, my ideal candidate isn’t on the ballot.  So I have to choose the one that is closest to my ideal.  Such is life.

    Posted by Owen on April 25, 2007 at 2136 hrs




11. I got a “live person” phone call tonight from Wis Repub. Party asking me to renew my membership.  The caller started by telling me it was important to renew because they turned out over 200,000 new Republican voters last fall.
    I did not renew and stated that if they had actually turned out over 200,000 new voters we wouldn’t have Diamond Jim for 4 more years.

    Posted by on April 25, 2007 at 2215 hrs




12. Perhaps then you could stop trying to paint all Democrats with the same brush. The actions of, say, William Jefferson, shouldn’t be used to condemn all Democrats any more than the actions of Duke Cunningham or Bob Ney should be used on Republicans.

    Posted by on April 26, 2007 at 0120 hrs




13. Chris wrote:
    Instead of actually doing the right thing they keep saying we suck but if you don’t support us the Libs will suck even worse.

    Screw that line of thinking I am done taking the lesser of two evils

    From now on I am voting the Man/Woman on a case by case basis.  If they are a real conservative they will get my vote if not I will write in my own name and not a dime to the National,State or County GOP. 

    You said exactly what I have been thinking for quite some time.

    I’m not saying I will never again vote for a GOP candidate, but this BS about voting for “the party” is just that: BS.

    The whole “lesser of two evils” still gets you someone evil.  And yes, once they are there it is damn near impossible to get rid of them.  Term limits really are the answer.  There is a ruling class in this country.  And now that they’re entranched, good f*ing luck getting them to pass an amendment to place limits on their power.  Only another Civil war will get that done…

    Posted by David Svendsen on April 26, 2007 at 1100 hrs




14. Term limits are a terrible idea. They give more control to special interests, who remain the constant while legislators rotate out.

    Posted by on April 26, 2007 at 1153 hrs




15. Yeah the special interest are not in control now, what was I thinking I would not want that to happen.

    Posted by Chris SH2 on April 26, 2007 at 1704 hrs




16. People vote for Democrats and Republicans for the same reason Eskimos eat blubber; because it’s the only thing on the arctic fucking buffet (I stole most of that line from Dennis Miller).  Every time you give your time or money to a party or vote for a member of a party based on their affiliation you are saying “I agree with this stupid 2-party system.  Lets keep it going.” I’m actually amazed that anyone can tell the two major parties in this country apart.  So actually you’re right on that point Owen.  Both parties’ “philosophies” are being tweaked by different a-holes in power and they’re each supported by a mass of voting a-holes that want to control one aspect or another of eachother’s lives, whether it’s where we smoke or when we have babies or whether or not we can own certain property or carry that property concealed or whether we can put certain substances into our bodies.  So basically, for the vast majority of us, whether we realize it or not, which party is in power doesn’t affect our every-day lives one iota.  Both of them want to control us.  So we’d be best served by trying to change the system that allows them to do so instead of trying to change either party.

    Sorry about the rant, just got back from happy hour if you know what I mean.

    Posted by on April 26, 2007 at 2034 hrs




17. jesusisjustalrightwithme…

    That was the best post you’ve ever written.  Keep them happy hours coming!

    Posted by David Svendsen on April 27, 2007 at 1105 hrs




18. If we had weighted or “instant-runoff” voting, even if just for primaries, parties might stay truer to their supporters. In a general election it would give parties other than Rep./Dem. more of a chance. Regardless, voters might be more willing participants in the political process if given a chance to rank the evils instead of choosing the lesser of 2.

    USA Today (please, spare us the “liberal media!” rants--they’ve been said already) ran a commentary on the subject just last week:

    “In an instant-runoff election, instead of just placing an “X” beside the name of one candidate, voters have the option of ranking the candidates in order of preference: 1, 2, 3, etc. If no one gets 50% of the first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated from the count and the second-choice votes on those ballots are distributed among the remaining names. The process continues until one candidate with true majority support emerges”

    Here’s the link:
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2007-04-18-better- way-vote_N.htm?csp=34

    Posted by on April 27, 2007 at 1239 hrs