Are we beginning to see a change in our political parties?

One of the things I've been paying a little bit of attention to recently is what seems to be an inordinately large focus on a small number of races this year. Not only is it an off-year election, but it's also one year since the Democrats basically won both Congress and the White House. There seem to be two main themes that are starting to play out: one is that after almost a year, people are starting to be dissatisfied with those currently in charge. The second thing, which is seeming to be focused in the congressional election in New York, is that the movement begun with the 'tea parties' is starting to potentially begin to change at least the Republican party.

The New York election is a unique situation, in that there were two candidates (one has since dropped out) running which could very plausibly be called Republicans. However, the views of the two candidates are very different. One, Dede Scozzafava (I apologize in advance for spelling), is a candidate who appears to be very comfortable with expanding government, and how much influence that government has in our lives. The other, Doug Hoffman, is more of a small government, non-intrusive, candidate. The Republican party in New York chose Scozzafava as their candidate, with the national party sticking behind her as well. Hoffman is running under the Conservative Party, and initially, bloggers and other 'ground level movement' types were the only ones willing to endorse Hoffman. The tide has turned dramatically, with Hoffman now almost tied (or some polls show him ahead) with the Democrat, and Scozzafava almost always being shown in third place. Also, other prominent members of the Republican party are coming out in support of Hoffman. Since I originally started working on this post, Scozzafava has dropped out.

All things being equal, this might be an interesting race, but not mean much in the overall scheme of things. However, to borrow a Star Trek quote 'things are not equal'. Many bloggers, to include Red State, have been pointing to this race as 'a hill to die on'. Meaning this is a fight in which principles need to win out over compromise and expediency. It is also being pointed to as a situation where the 'base' is attempting to send a message to the national party, and this is where I am starting to wonder if there is a change coming. Looking back in political history, the Republican Party has been in a struggle, if you will, for over 40 years, between the liberal and conservative wings of the party. Influence in the party has swung back and forth during that time, depending on who you think of as 'liberal' or 'conservative' in the Republican party. There seems to be a real possibility of the Republican party becoming known as the 'conservative party'. With the 'republican' dropping out, this is significant in that there is no 'republican' (brand name) in the race, and it is truly a liberal versus a conservative.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing? The wonderful thing known as 'conventional wisdom' says that if people in one particular political party attempt to make the party 'pure', more often than not that party ends up losing, both members and elections. However, with the country becoming more and more polarized (and both sides I believe are at fault), it does not seem to be out of the realm of possibility for there to be a realignment of at least the Republican party, to where it is truly a conservative party. The Democratic party seems to be continuing its' movement as a liberal party, and so the end will be polarization. And those who don't fit into those will be 'stuck in the middle' with who? Most likely the dissatisfied and disaffected.

What are you for?

I was motivated to write about this topic based on a discussion I had this morning with my wife. We were talking about being ‘anti-’ certain things over the years. It got me to thinking about how ‘what we’re against, or anti’ seems to permeate more of the discussion than what people stand for.

One of the big things I have noticed recently is that, when you talk to someone about their individual beliefs, whether moral, political, or spiritual, what you’ll get is what they’re against. While this provides somewhat of a picture of what that person is like, it’s incomplete. It’s wonderful that people will take a stand against certain things, but you also need to be willing to support things as well.

Today’s society here in the United States more and more are considering many different things in life in polar terms, what I mean is topics of interest/discussion/disagreement turn are categorized by those involved as an either or proposition. I have found in my few years that kind of thinking just doesn’t work. There are far too many different positions on too many different issues. Putting things in an either/or statement is a great oversimplification, and the more you do that, the more people get offended, hurt, and then just decide to give up on the whole situation. In other words, if you’re not zealous for one of those two ‘poles’ you end up being apathetic.

Another result of people turning topics into either/or is: you start ‘hating’ the other side. This is too easy to see in the ‘blood sport’ of politics. Especially in the last 20 years or so, those one identifies as on the ‘other side’ of the political spectrum have been slowly made into ‘sub-human’ categories. Think I’m kidding? Just take a short ‘stroll’ through the many different political blogs out there and sometimes you’ll feel ‘dirty’ enough to want a shower. And that’s just what people are willing to say in public.

There are two different comments that I think of that can apply to this kind of situation. One is ‘if you don’t stand for anything, you won’t stand for anything’ (meaning that if you don’t believe in anything (apathetic), you have no tolerance and will not listen to anyone who does believe in something (anything really). The second has to do with history. Winston Churchill was commenting to a friend of Hitler about Hitler’s appeals to anti-Semitism, ‘anti-Semitism may be a good starter, but it is a bad sticker’. Put just about any ‘anti-x’ in for ‘anti-Semitism’ and it fits. The hatred of ‘x’ may be good to help get people on your side for a beginning, but sooner or later you’re going to be challenged by ‘Okay, so what are you for?’ If you don’t have an answer other than ‘well not what those people over there are for’, you have bigger issues than you think.