The Republican Party has recently drafted a Purity Resolution. If passed, any candidate seeking support from the Republican National Committee would be required to support at least eight of the 10 resolutions named by the committee.
This is a bad idea no matter what is written. If this proposal is accepted, it will be the culmination of the complete takeover by Southern conservatives of the Republican Party.
Political parties exist to get elected. Once you get elected, then you can worry about governing. To see the advantages of a diverse assortment of candidates, look at the 2006 election.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, headed by Rahm Emanuel, recruited candidates that reflect their district and, as a result, the Democrats took control of Congress.
That obviously wasn’t the only factor, but if you are a conservative independent, it is a lot easier to support a conservative Democrat than a liberal Democrat.
Looking at this resolution, the first thing that strikes me is how vague the wording is. Point six is: “We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges.” This creates a classic strawman that holds an unpopular position that the audience will automatically oppose because no one supports defeat. Of course everyone wants our military to be victorious.
But which military leader are we supposed to listen to? Gen. Stanley McChrystal submitted an initial recommendation for 40,000 additional troops. But there are also recommendations for smaller surges. Then there are some military personnel, specifically retired senior generals, who are arguing we need to begin our withdrawal from Afghanistan. Which military do Republicans support?
There is a reason the founding fathers placed the military under civilian control, and we should not be so ready to abandon this protection. If we hadn’t overruled our military leaders in Vietnam, we would still be there.
Then, there is the issue of what is victory in Afghanistan. Is victory a strong central government or simply denying terrorists a safe haven? This point sounds great but says nothing.
Point eight says: “We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act.” This point is not surprising, but again limits their ability to recruit candidates in liberal districts. It is as if the Republican Party doesn’t want to compete in New England.
Some of the other positions include: opposition to amnesty for illegal immigrants, opposition to the Obama-style “stimulus” bill, opposition to government-run health care, opposition to cap and trade, opposition to health care rationing and government funding of abortion, and opposition to government restrictions on gun ownership.
The word opposition, or some form of it, is found in seven of the 10 points. The Republican Party is trying to define itself by what it opposes. This is not a strategy for good governance.
Then there is the plethora of code words. Amnesty. Obama’s stimulus. Surges. Government-run health care. Card Check. This is red meat to Republican supporters. Oh, and just in case you didn’t know, the health care plan for the Republican Party covers elective abortions.
The nomination of John McCain may have seriously crippled the Republican Party because his loss discredited moderate conservatives. You cannot be a national party by demanding uniformity. The United States is not uniform.
It is only logical that candidate positions should reflect their constituents. Look at the NY-23 special election this year. This was a moderate Republican seat that had not been held by a Democrat in more than 100 years. Not during FDR. Not after Watergate.
The local Republican Party nominated a moderate, Dierdre Scozzafava, to run against the Democratic party’s nomination, Bill Owens. Scozzafava supported tax cuts and opposed gun control, but her great crime was supporting gay rights and being pro-choice. “True” conservatives revolted and ran a third candidate, Doug Hoffman, who did not reflect local constituents.
The end result is a Democrat now holds the seat for the first time since the 1870s. All politics are local. The Democrats know this, and it is no coincidence that they control the White House and both chambers of Congress.
Nick Miner is a UF political science graduate student.
