Extremists on the March?On the left, Joseph Lieberman was punished yesterday by Democrats for supporting the Iraq war. On the right, Republican Rep. Joe Schwarz of Michigan was ousted for holding moderate positions on abortion. I’m not too surprised at the voter focus on the Iraq war; I’m hearing a lot about it as I talk with people. I’m more concerned about Schwarz’s defeat by a former minister. I haven’t followed the race closely, but it seems that much of the victor Tim Walberg’s focus was on abortion, gay marriage, and other “values” issues that are driven by religious dogma. This parallels the tone I observed at the Oregon state GOP convention a couple of weeks ago. I attended a caucus intended to review the state platform position on education. It became clear that dubious positions like the display of the Ten Commandments and Intelligent Design as science were overwhelmingly supported. The thing to keep in mind – the people who are motivated to become delegates and attend the state convention are the people with some “fire in their belly” for these issues. These people are convinced that they’re battling for the soul (literally and figuratively) of the Party. Most of those who are turned off by this religious violation of the first amendment have long since learned to avoid the Republican Revival tent. If Republicans ever hope to sway the mass of voters that reside somewhere between the two extremes, they need to pitch a bigger tent. They need to understand that infringements of constitutional separations of church and state may motivate the zealots on the right, but alienate as many as they attract. Republican principles of smaller, less intrusive government should extend broadly to include fewer intrusions into personal matters of faith (or lack thereof), sexual orientation, and civil liberties. Republicans could attract a wider audience, while still honoring the religious values of the right, if they would just stick to principles of conservative (restrained) governance grounded in the Constitution, rather than “conservative” values grounded in self-righteous piety. If they don’t return to more of a “big tent” philosophy they’re likely to fuel recent movements for third-party alternatives. MichaelPrevious: Lessons from the Fair. -- Next: TABOR Dodges Responsibility Comment from Corvallist: I don’t think the Lieberman vote is an example of extremism. Lieberman is the most Republican Democrat out there besides Zell Miller. So really, voting him out was not that big of a surprise. With more than half the country now firmly against the war, clinging to the stance that invading Iraq was right and is still right isn’t going to win many elections, at least not in New England. Posted by Corvallist Aug 9, 10:25 AM # Comment from Michael Smith: Lieberman’s rejection just seems somewhat shortsighted by Democrats. Based on the war issue (Lieberman was not the only Dem to support the war in the early days), Connecticut voters have tossed out a senior Senator who seemed to have represented their interests well over the past several terms. It also reflects a view from within the party that may not translate to the whole electorate. Dems may have been unhappy with Lieberman, but they’ve probably set up the Republicans to win this fall. They’ve let their passion over one issue hobble their ability to deal with the many challenging issues that face government. Posted by Michael Smith Aug 9, 01:27 PM # Comment from chris farrell: Lieberman was just amazingly annoying. I’m so glad he’s gone. It’s hard to see how Lamont could be seen as radical when he’s just reflecting the position of the vast majority of Democrats. I actually found Lieberman to be more annoying than any other politician, Bush included. I hope this is the beginning of a good trend, where Democrats can put together some things they stand for and get some power, and maybe head back toward a government that is responsive to the wishes of the people. What I was agreeing with was Michael’s position on Republicans and Christianity. Posted by chris farrell Aug 9, 03:55 PM # Comment from chris farrell: As far as dealing with challenging issues that face the government, have the Republicans in congress dealt with any this year? They failed on everything: immigration, health care, global warming, etc. All they have done is vote on flag burning amendments and come up with more schemes to cut taxes for the very rich, while the country goes deeper into debt. It is a totally dysfunctional, appallingly corrupt government. I’m not saying Republicans have to be that way, and they certainly have had good ideas in the past, but right now it’s time for a change. Posted by chris farrell Aug 9, 04:08 PM # Comment from chris farrell: Actually, I just read that very few people voted in the Connecticut primary. Maybe the solution is mandatory voting. That way, everybody would vote, and not just the extreme right and left wing. Politics would move more to the center. It seems like a good idea to me. I’m also not impressed with Lamont’s speaking ability, so I hope he doesn’t mess up his opportunity. Posted by chris farrell Aug 9, 06:49 PM # Comment from willCode4Beer: I think the true believers who want to bring religion and government should be worried that they might get what they wish for. Look back at the Roman Empire. When the Romans adopted Christianity, they changed it forever. It was Emperor Constantine who decided what books would be part of the Christian bible, not the religious leaders at the time. Once mixed, it becomes a 2 way street. First religion influences politics, then polititians influence religion (look at the present day middle east). Better to keep these things separate lest we have the Congress deciding what can be said in church. Posted by willCode4Beer Aug 10, 04:35 AM # |
Favorite Posts:
Other Blogs:Links:
Feeds - SFP updates for your homepage:Previous Posts: |
