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.
No comments:
Post a Comment