A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
October 29, 2006Party DisciplineArizona has a large and growing number of independant votes. They're even worthy of a recent NYT article. You could, therefore, comfortably assume that fact would "encourage" party leaders to "give a bit" at the edges in the hopes of pulling in the independant voters to your candidates come election time. With that in mind, I find this recent action on the part of the AZ Republican Party a little baffling. As outlined in a recent Arizona Republic article GOP leaders from Legislative District 4 on Friday called for the resignations of three West Valley mayors, all registered Republicans, because of their endorsement of Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat. A little background: Napolitano, a moderate Democrat, after a successful and popular first term, is seeking re-election. Potential, well known Republican candidates (i.e. conservative Rep. J.D. Hayworth, moderate former Attorney Aeneral Grant Woods) opted not to run due to the Governor's high approval ratings. The state party chair, Matt Salmon, a conservative Republican not known for his "big tent" viewpoint, lost to Napolitano in the last election. The present Republican candidate, Len Munsil, made his name as a conservative Christian/cultural warrior. Everyone assumed he'd appeal to that wing of the party but have little chance of appealing to the broader, more moderate Arizona electorate. So far the polls bear out that wisdom. Friday's move by GOP activists underscores deep fissures in the Republican Party, political observers said. Conservative members hope to pressure those holding more moderate views to remain silent in deference to Len Munsil, Napolitano's Republican challenger. City council, school board and other local elected offices traditionally are nonpartisan. But District 4 party leaders said they followed orders from Arizona Republican Party Chairman Matt Salmon in demanding the resignation of any GOP elected official who endorsed a candidate from another party. On Friday, District 4 GOP leaders hand-delivered letters to the offices of Mayors Elaine Scruggs of Glendale, Joan Shafer of Surprise and Ron Badowski of Wickenburg, demanding that they step down for publicly supporting Napolitano What does party discipline mean in a ever more independant electorate? To use an analogy from a previous post, are the present homeowners better off enforcing the strict rules of the group or are they better off playing a little loose with the association rules in the hopes of attracting an ever wider number of members? UPDATE It just go nastier. Posted by c3 at October 29, 2006 09:39 AMComments
Is it really accurate to say that the electorate is "ever more independent," or is it possible that the reality is that the electorate is sick of the conduct of the present GOP majority in Congress, but equally recoil from what they perceive to be the Democratic party's agenda? That is, are they independent or just alienated? On the answer to that question may turn whether what seems likely to be a Democratic 110th House has more than a two year life. Certainly I know that there are a lot of Republicans who are mad as all get out about the way the present majority has conducted itself, and actually want for them to get a good thrasing next month, but they cannot really be said to have gone "independent." Posted by: Simon at October 29, 2006 07:52 PMActually, I guess I shouldn't confine that commentto just the GOP majority, because of course it becomes more clear every day that this election is about one thing and only one thing: the electorate is sick ofthe way the war is going, and they want to send Bush a message by way of the only channel available, viz., the midterm. The people who were against the war from the beginning are, naturally, still mad about it, and even among the people who were FOR the war, there is a sizable contingent who thinks that the Bush administration in general, and Bush and Rumsfeld in particular, have totally messed up a worthy enterprise. You put those two groups together and you've probably got about three fifths of the electorate. So it isn't just about Congress, but that would actually tend to oppose the "increasingly independent" thesis too. Posted by: Simon at October 29, 2006 07:56 PMSimon, GOP leaders from Legislative District 4 on Friday called for the resignations of three West Valley mayors, all registered Republicans, because of their endorsement of Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat. Perhaps someone should tell those GOP leaders, "Without the freedom to criticize, praise is meaningless." Posted by: Scott Smith at October 29, 2006 09:09 PMWell, I don't think the party leaders can actually kick these folks out. It makes a lot of sense for a moderate Republican in an independent and moderate state (Which Arizona seems to be) to simply say, "no thank-you, I won't be resigning, I'll be sticking with the party and continuing to stand up for the values of the people of Arizona. Most of the people don't support Leo Munsil, and neither do I. My first duty as leader is to the people, not my party." This might irritate the zealous faithful of the party, but it's a good thing to be independent and moderate if your state is independent and moderate. Of course there might be a price to pay when you go to get re-elected and partisan grudge-holders work hard to boot you out in favor of a fringier loyalist. But that's going to lead to a pyrrhic victory 99 times out of 100, as the arch-partisan goes on to get drubbed in the general. Arch-partsians actually tend to insist on such pyrrhic victories, because they care more about winning the right way than they do about simply winning. The party loyalists looking to force resignation upon moderates are looking at reality and learning the wrong lesson. The fact of moderate Republicans supporting a moderate democrat should speak volumes to everyone about how VERY unappealing a candidate the GOP is fielding, but partisan loyalists are focusing on toeing the line. IMO, they're failing a stupidity test. Posted by: bk at October 30, 2006 09:19 AMMeanwhile, on the Democratic side, always shrill Atrios calls Rep Ellen Tauscher of the New Democrat Coalition the "Wanker of the Day" because the NYTimes quoted as as saying she doesn't want the party to drive off the left-side cliff. Same problem, different party label. Posted by: Oberon at October 30, 2006 09:41 AMBrian; no thank-you, I won't be resigningI don't think those who called for these guys to resign even waited for any response. Just high theater. Posted by: c3 at October 30, 2006 04:39 PM That is, are they independent or just alienated? If you become alienated from your tribe, aren't you choosing independence by default, unless you pick a new tribe? Likely the newer independent voters aren't independent by choice, character, or innate disposition. Maybe such folks are ready to come home to their tribe and forgive all, if the right tune is sung. Or maybe a few more election cycles will pass that will re-lnforce the rectitude of their bailing. Time will tell. Posted by: bk at October 31, 2006 09:17 AMThe other side? Try Joe Lieberman. I've said it before and I'll say it often and always. Any party that demands that elected officials who are members must put party loyalty over their duty to their constituents deserves to lose. Once elected, the primary loyalty and duty of those officials is NOT to their party, but to the best interests of their constituents. The elected official has the responsibility and sworn duty to make that call for themselves. Parties are free to insist on party loyalty. They're also free to have their candidates lose a lot. And if they insist, their candidates should lose a lot. When you're elected and take that oath of office, you don't swear to support your party. You swear to do faithfully fulfill the duties of your office on behalf of the entire body politic. Posted by: Tully at October 31, 2006 10:46 AMWhen you're elected and take that oath of office, you don't swear to support your party. You swear to do faithfully fulfill the duties of your office on behalf of the entire body politicMaybe we should call that the "Lieberman Principle" Posted by: c3 at October 31, 2006 05:57 PM We used to just call it "basic civics." Posted by: Tully at October 31, 2006 09:44 PM |
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Some Smart Surging
Democratic Disgrace Obama: Tastes Great or Less Filling Should United States Attorneys be Professionalized? Don't you dare change your mind! Erin Go Open Thread NCAA tournament thread Blog that Brouhaha to death, AMIIGAF! Why Communism Grew Big: WWI Mythology Part 1 of 3 (LONG) The Right Immigration Questions
|
