-

October 10, 2003

Texas Republicans & Dissent

Kevin Drum over at CalPundit posted a detailed analysis of the current Texas Republican Party platform. According to Kevin's reading, the platform includes support for creationism and the gold standard, opposition to abortion, gays, the UN, social security and the income tax.

I should point out that Kevin's blog is a pretty mainstream Democrat/center-left site, having only rare moments in common with the lunatic left. As such his view from the outside merits attention. His conclusion is:

If this were just a lunatic fringe we could all have a good laugh over their manifesto and then go out for a beer. But you can't dismiss it so easily. Texas-style conservatism has already put George Bush, Tom DeLay, and Karl Rove in charge of the country, and it is very much the future of the Republican party. And for all the conservatives reading this: I know this doesn't necessarily represent what you believe. But whether you like it or not, this kind of thinking does represent a very strong, very fast growing segment of the leadership of your party, and this is why liberals think the Republican party is just plain scary these days. We know that this is their agenda, we know that they really truly want to do this stuff, and we know that they are steadily gaining influence.
Now, do all Republicans or even most Republicans agree with this platform? Income taxes, possibly; reform [not abolition, KD] of social security, probably; dislike for the UN, almost certainly. The social issues? Google "McClintock, Tom, vote totals".

But that's not the point. The point is whether a state party should (or should be allowed to) take positions that strain the consensus in the national Party. Should there be limits on debate -- should certain topics be off limits to avoid offending people like Mr Drum? Or is the lack of healthy debate -- as is the case in the Democrat Party regarding abortion and school choice -- more to worry about?

I would be more concerned if the party was adopting the political correctness attitudes of the other side. Like the country, the party is a federal system with state parties doing all kinds of different things. Some of these things are stupid, but the catch is: which ones? Disagreement leads to discussion which leads back to consensus. Beats dogma every time.

In California we have Arnold, which annoys a LOT of eastern Republicans. George Will, for example. Rockefeller annoyed the heck out of Goldwater's folks, and vice versa. BUT THE ONLY TIME we've really run into problems is when we told "those people" to shut up or get out.

The party will sort it out. Sure, the creationists and the goldbugs will try to get their way at the national level. They've been trying for years. Even some people who have no truck with the religious right are for the gold standard -- Jack Kemp, for example. The issue lately with the UN has more to do with the UN accepting the US Republican Party than the other way around.

TOLERANCE means putting up with disagreeable people and stupid ideas. In the other party, toleration is only for things on the officially approved list. Hopefully we can do better. Even if it means allowing those folks in Texas to act out.

The day that the Republican Party imposes political correctness is the day I leave.

Adapted from a comment on Calblog

Posted by Kevin Murphy at October 10, 2003 10:04 AM | TrackBack
Comments

Bingo! Tolerance is something that is lacking from many political debates, and something I continually fight between being both gay and Republican. Actually, the Republicans have been more tolerant of my point of view than the gay community. In places like West Hollywood, I am continually oppressed for believing in lower taxes and less government... But I choose to be on the fringes of both communities because I agree with the Schwarzenegger government is about providing *opportunity* for all philosophy and well, there are other things about me I cannot change...

Posted by: BoiFromTroy at October 10, 2003 01:32 PM

You've got a point about the lack of discussion of vouchers on the Democratic side of the aisle. If implemented correctly, vouchers - like the earned income tax credit - are a perfect example of how the tools of the market can be used to implement social democratic goals. But there has been little to no serious discussion of that point.

Thank you, also, for the observation that center-left Democrats have only rare moments in common with the lunatics. :)

Posted by: aphrael at October 10, 2003 02:34 PM

BoiFromTroy - I think a lot of the dislike felt in the gay community towards Republicans comes from a caricature of Republicans as the party of bible-thumping social conservative zealots. That stereotype is *incredibly* strong in the bay area, and makes it difficult to convince anyone that some Republican ideas might possibly be good; like the belief that all democrats are communists, this stereotype effectively strangles political debate.

Posted by: aphrael at October 10, 2003 02:36 PM

I think that the Christian interest groups are as much a problem to the Republicans as public employee unions are to the Democrats. Both groups are diverting their captive parties from the wishes of the general population.

Now, who is going to break free first?

Posted by: Kevin Murphy at October 10, 2003 03:31 PM

Let it be we!

Posted by: boifromtroy at October 10, 2003 04:24 PM


The trick is to morph the support -- Clinton did a masterful job of this with his so called "Sister Souljah Moment." By tell her she should go pound sand, he signaled to his African-American consistutency "I will go here. But no further."

At some point, as an issue gets tougher -- and this one is for the Republicans -- the breakthrough candidate will find a high profile Christian Right figure (Pat Robertson would do nicely with his Nuke Foggy Bottom silliness, or Jerry Falwell on 9/14/01) to single out to get stuffed.


Posted by: Andrew at October 10, 2003 04:27 PM

Excellent post Kevin. I agree with your point about tolerance. Its funny that all too often those who talk the most about tolerance and being tolerant are the least likely to demonstrate it. BoifromTroy's case being a good example.

Posted by: Steve at October 11, 2003 10:07 AM