“STAY AT HOME” REPUBLICANS
Are you going to be a “stay at home” Republican this November?
Those of us who have had nasty fantasies about stringing up some Republican leaders by their feet and slowly lowering them into a vat of boiling oil have found that idea more than a little tempting. D.J. Drummond argues strenuously against it:
If the Democrats gain control of the House of Representatives, their stated policies and intentions leave no doubt that they would harass Vice-President Cheney and President Bush, with a near-absolute likelihood that they would impeach President Bush, regardless of the fact that there are no valid grounds for such an action. If the Democrats gained control of the Senate, you could expect the end of any confirmation of any justice in the mold of Scalia, Roberts, or Alito. There can be no doubt that should the Democrats gain control of both bodies, they would work relentlessly to remove both Bush and Cheney.
A Democrat-controlled House would not only deny making the Bush tax cuts permanent, but would unquestionably increase taxes, as is the historical model. A Democrat-controlled Senate would demand the immediate retreat from Iraq and Afghanistan, while making sure to punish any nation brash enough to support American efforts in the past half-decade. A Democrat-controlled body, whether House or Senate, will immediately move to both make citizenship for illegal Hispanic aliens easier, and to grant voting rights to undeserving demographic groups, including convited felons and illegals who don’t even desire citizenship.
I agree to a certain extent with DJ, although I think the Democrats will be so busy investigating Bush they won’t have time to do much of anything else. All that pent up rage and hate carried around by the liberals for 6 years is more than likely to dominate every committee in the House and the Senate as various committee chairmen and sub-committee chairmen vie with each other to see which of them can generate the most anti-Bush, headline grabbing revelations in the shortest possible time. And since Republicans haven’t seen fit to practice any oversight on such matters as post war contracts in Iraq, Katrina relief funds, the role of the mercs in Iraq, the Pentagon’s post war planning, and on, and on, and on…Democrats should be able to keep themselves so busy that becoming a danger to the republic will be an afterthought.
That said, I think DJ loses me here:
And don’t think that we will just make things right in 2008. A Democrat-controlled legislative body can be sure to press for return of the “Fairness Doctrineâ€, which in practical application will be used to shut down effective Republican communication avenues, like Talk Radio and Conservative blogs. A clue to how this would be done can be found in a 2005 initiative from Google, which wanted to designate any blog which regularly linked to other blogs or its supporting evidence as a “spammerâ€, and thereby shut it down. Also, like taxation, the historical model for the Democrats’ desire to control information mediums is well-established.
Democrats may be expected to create yet another version of “campaign finance reformâ€, to maintain the control they hold and more, if the MSM can create the illusion of corruption in the GOP while covering up crimes by the Left, the resulting vacuum from shutting down Conservative sources would be filled as it was in the 1960s, by the sitting networks. This would be worth at least twenty points in the 2008 Presidential Election, which would be more than sufficient to place a Donkey in the Oval Office again. The results of adding illegals and felons to voting rolls can only strengthen the Democrat’s hold, and since we already know they will do anything to keep hold of power, there will doubtless be additional nasty tricks played to keep control once they have it.
That’s a tall order for Democrats to fill. Even if Democrats were serious about re-establishing the “Fairness Doctrine,” there’s no guarantee their caucus would be united in such an effort. Any attempt to shut down Rush Limbaugh et. al. would be met with extraordinarily serious opposition. The giant corporations that own talk radio stations would have something to say about it as well as both liberal and conservative bloggers. I daresay campaign finance reforms would meet a similar fate.
DJ has an excellent point about the issue of judicial nominees, however. But even if Republicans maintain control of one or both houses of Congress, judges will have a hard time getting confirmed as Democrats drag their heels even more than at present as they try to draw the process out through 2008 when they hope that a Democratic president would be able to reverse many of those nominations.
But “shutting down Conservative sources would be filled as it was in the 1960s, by the sitting networks?’ Sorry, that’s not in the cards. To say that network news (or even the cable outlets) will somehow gain massive numbers of viewers is wrong. For better or worse, TV news is going the way of the dinosaur and nothing and nobody can reverse that trend. They have been hemorrhaging viewers for 25 years both with the Fairness Doctrine and without it. It’s hard to see that changing what with the explosion of alternative media sources (unrelated to blogs) as well as a declining market for straight news to begin with.
However, I wanted to address DJ’s main thesis; that Republican voters who stay at home have only themselves to blame if Democrats take over the Congress in 2006. This goes to the very essence of what it means to live in a democracy and what an individual vote actually represents.
John Adams said “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” I wholeheartedly agree. There is no such thing as a “wasted” vote. A vote is a statement of one’s innermost and most passionately held beliefs. It cannot be “wasted” anymore than getting up at a PTA meeting to speak against an overwhelmingly popular motion is a wasted exercise. Being heard even if you are a lone advocate is what is important. And the fact that this right to be heard is protected and cherished in our republic is a true blessing, something we take for granted far too often.
If expressing opinions is the essence of democratic governance then casting a vote is the ultimate manifestation of the concept of free will; individuals make a choice on who they wish to represent their personal interests. By choosing someone who they believe reflects their personal opinions about issues important to them in a very personal way, voters seek to influence the course of events in their society in as direct a way as possible, given the enormous size of the United States. And in practical terms, living in a two party state has the advantage of maximizing the influence of a single voter by making one’s preference an either/or proposition.
But is influence the goal of voting? Or self-expression? I would argue that given that we live in a representative democracy, voting as a civic act is expressing a preference. Like a piano tuner wearing boxing gloves, a voter cannot fine tune his society by casting a ballot. He can, however, make noise like the piano tuner, pounding on either the higher register or lower sounding keys, making a generalized statement of being satisfied with the status quo or agitating for a change.
So if voting is a statement and you disagree with the way Republicans are running the country, why not just vote for the Democrat?
If you believe that the only way to express a preference is by voting, then casting a ballot for a Democrat is your only option. Thankfully, our Constitution didn’t make that necessary. No one is forcing you to vote. There is no Constitutional requirement that you express a preference at all. The reason is that despite all the cries of “dictatorship” and “fascism” by the left when railing against Bush and the Republicans, the Constitution was written in such a way that such an eventuality is well nigh impossible.
Remember all the cries against “gridlock” in the 1990’s? Many people believed that divided government - two parties controlling separate branches of government - was a catastrophe. George Will didn’t think so:
What is the worst outcome of politics? Tyranny. To what form of tyranny are democracies prey? Tyranny of the majority. Solution? Minimize the likelihood of durable oppressive majorities by maximizing the number of minorities — factions — that will coalesce only into unstable, transitory majorities.
Hence the revolution James Madison wrought in democratic theory: Democracy, far from requiring a small, homogeneous, faction-free society, will flourish in an “extensive” society with a saving multiplicity of factions. Hence government’s first duty (Federalist 10) is to protect the seedbed of factions, the “different and unequal faculties of acquiring property.” Furthermore, the Constitution’s separation of powers created a government of checks and balances, replete with blocking mechanisms, including supermajorities, vetoes, veto overrides, judicial review (it turns out) and, not least important, bicameralism.
The fact is, the “seedbed of factions” is missing today not because one party controls both houses of Congress and the Presidency but because many Republican legislators refuse to act in accordance with their beliefs and the beliefs of their constituents and instead act to maintain their influence and feather their own nests. They have lost touch with the people who elected them. In this respect, I prefer not to enable them further by casting my vote to encourage their profligacy nor to continue standby by idly watching them hand out my money to special interests in hundreds of projects that benefit the few while ignoring the many.
I have been a Republican since 1976 and have never contemplated voting for a member of any other party. But if voting is ultimately making a statement then not voting is making a statement as well. I know what Mr. Drummond is trying to say about the catastrophic consequences of a Democratic majority. In this, he may be correct. But at the moment, the Republican party from top to bottom is a broken instrument for reflecting the people’s will. And if the only way to fix it is to throw the rascals out by either casting your vote for another candidate or staying home, then it may be time to start thinking about those options.
What makes anyone think that the Democrats will be any more successful in raping America than the Republicans have been in doing the things we elected them to do?
As a conservative, what I am hearing from the GOP loyalists this year is, “If you will please give us more nmoney and support our candidates this year, we will really do all the stuff we have been telling you we were going to do for the last six years.â€
While I cannot vote for a Democrat, the GOP has to earn my support. On the most of the issues that I care about — immigration, tax reform, entitlement reform, reducing the size and scope of government, judicial nominations — it has not done so. I’ve not abandoned the Republican Party — it has abandoned me.
Comment by Diffus — 4/17/2006 @ 8:25 am
I’ve considered not voting or voting independent or Green just so I’d not have to vote for some of the clowns we have now. But if the Democrats win it’s going to be a nonstop impeachment circus, with grandstanding politicians and the attendant media circus.
The situations in Iraq and Iran are far to serious for that kind of nonsense now.
Comment by Santay — 4/17/2006 @ 8:45 am
I agree that not voting is an equally valid form of expression in a democracy!
On impeachment I think it would be stillborn. Bush’s incompetence is not an impeachable offense and although the Dems could get a trial going, i think it would be diaster for them. There’s no way they could get a supermajority to convict and the public, although disillusioned with Bush, would likely grow tired of such childishness quickly.
The Dems have much less of a case then the Reeps did w.r.t. Clinton’s impeachment and I think their memory is fresh enough that they would probably focus on other things anyway.
Comment by Non-Fat Latte Liberal — 4/17/2006 @ 8:56 am
I agree with Santay — if the Democrats take the House we’re going to go into Full Impeachment Media-Circus Mode. Even if the only way to fix the Republican party is to throw the current office-holders out and start over, I think 2006 is not the time to do it.
Comment by Robin Munn — 4/17/2006 @ 8:57 am
I too am frustated with the GOP, but I haven’t contemplated not voting or voting Dem/Indie. I believe that would be ceding victory to the other side, and I just don’t trust them to do any better than the GOP. I sincerely believe they would worsen things for us. However, I am ready to march down to the county courthouse and change my party affiliation from Republican to Independent, depending on the Immigration bill results. And as for giving money to the GOP, that will have to wait until I see some sort of change going on, or things start to look REALLY fatal for us in November. I believe this country needs the President to have majority support in Congress, even if some of them don’t act like the majority on occasion. Our country’s security is too precarious to turn over to the Dems at this point in history.
Comment by Mitzi — 4/17/2006 @ 9:08 am
Maybe if we all go to the courthouse and change our party affiliation, the message we’re trying to send may make some impact…..Or not.
Comment by Mitzi — 4/17/2006 @ 9:11 am
You’ve exposed the big flaw of the two-party system - Democracy in America has come to the point where the party that gets the most active, excited voters out and to the polls is the party that wins, because there isn’t true competition in our political system. Instead of the choice between a party you could never support (Democrats), and one that has lost its way (Republicans), wouldn’t you rather have other options? It’s sad that instead of deciding which candidate to vote for, you are forced to decide whether to vote or not. Is it any wonder that a substantial portion of the population eligible to vote doesn’t bother? Both parties know that defection to the other side is rare, so they know that people like Rick really only have the choice to vote for their traditional party or not vote. How would things be different if there were other candidates that could compete for Rick’s vote? Competition is what America is all about, but with only two national parties to choose from there’s hardly any competition at all. To give a little bit of a stretched analogy, imagine if the only two fast food restaurants were McDonald’s and Burger King, and those chains worked to ensure they remained the only two national chains. Sure, you’d have “choice,†but only in the most limited way. We’d never allow collusion to limit our fast-food choices like that, but we tolerate and even perpetuate it in our political system.
I really hope you see this as a bigger issue that you indicated in your article Rick. The reason the Republicans in Congress are violating their so-called beliefs and values and are running rampant is because they know that people like you (and me, to a lesser extent) don’t have anywhere else to go. They take you for granted and as the mid-terms come around, they will start soft-talking you back into the fold. If Republicans knew there was real competition for your vote, it would restrain them significantly once in office, and force them to stick to what they campaigned on.
Comment by Andrew — 4/17/2006 @ 9:21 am
Andrew,
I’m a beleiver in the two party system allow me elaborate. To take your analogy, let’s say the two parties are McD’s and BK and I want tacos. Well, I have the same $1 everyone else has and, if enough people also want tacos like me, taco bell, hitherto meaningless chain, will rise in promience and start taking customers from the big two. They’ll realize this and start serving tacos.
On the other hand, let’s say I want something really extreme like Bug Salad. There’re is probably some people out there who also want Bug Salad but it’s not a mainstream dish, so it won’t take any real money away from McD’s and BK and they won’t waste their time serving bug salad.
What I’m getting at here is in a two party system, if there are good ideas being ignored by a party, a third party rises, stings one of the major parties, has it’s ideas co-opted, and dies. It’s happened repeatedly throughout our history. Witness the greens in 2000. But the Two Big player hover around the center of national politics.
Take a look across the pond, ever wonder why the Neo-Nazi’s have a living party in Germany, or Anti-Semites are commonly elected to office? Because they’re over there subsidizing bug salad! Bottomline, Multi-party syatems encourge extremeism and obstinance and two party systems encourage comprimise and moderation. Maybe McD’s taco doesn’t taste as good to you as Taco Bell’s but it tastes, on average, better to everybody else.
Comment by Non-Fat Latte Liberal — 4/17/2006 @ 9:41 am
I’m familiar with the feeling of watching my party abandon me- it happened circa 1972. I’ve been waiting ever since for the Dems to come around. Fortunately, I didn’t hold my breath.
Comment by kreiz — 4/17/2006 @ 9:45 am
[...] VINCE AUT MORIRE VODKAPUNDIT WALLO WORLD WHAT ATTITUDE PROBLEM? WIDE AWAKES WIZBANG WUZZADEM ALL POLITICS ARE LOCAL? DON’T TELL THE DEMS THAT “STAY AT HOME” REPUBLICANS ANTI-AMERICAN? OR ANTI-BUSH? BILMON: A VERY SILLY PERSONSHOULD’VE FIRED RUMSFELD - AND THE GENERALS - LONG AGO RUMSFELD: LONG PAST TIME FOR A CHANGE RANDOM THOUGHTS ON IRAN: HOW ABOUT A QUID PRO QUO? THE COUNCIL HAS SPOKEN DISHEARTENING WORDS FROM BILL KRISTOL IRAN: EVERYBODY PLEASE RELAX AND TAKE A DEEP BREATH FLIGHT 93 PASSENGERS MAY HAVE MADE IT INTO THE COCKPIT BEFORE CRASH CARNIVAL OF THE CLUELESS #40: THE SPRING FEVER EDITION FITZY “CORRECTS THE RECORD” 5 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT DIEBOLD STRIKES AGAIN! BIG TROUBLE FOR BUSH A MILLION REASONS TO CELEBRATE CIA VS. THE WHITE HOUSE: MISSING THE “BIG STORY” THE IRANIANS RESPOND: “YOU’RE BLUFFING…WE THINK” WHY I STILL LOVE THE POST AFTER ALL THESE YEARS THE MEDIA AND THE LEFT GO NUCLEAR LOST: THE TRUTH ABOUT SADDAM AND NIGER URANIUM LOOKING FOR HATE IN ALL THE WRONG PLACES INCOMPETENCE PILED ON TOP OF INCOHERENCE FLOGGING DEAD HORSES “24″ (53) ABLE DANGER (10) Bird Flu (5) Blogging (77) Books (7) CARNIVAL OF THE CLUELESS (65) CHICAGO BEARS (9) CIA VS. THE WHITE HOUSE (7) Cindy Sheehan (11) Ethics (52) General (272) Government (32) History (51) IMMIGRATION REFORM (5) Iran (19) KATRINA (26) Katrina Timeline (4) Marvin Moonbat (14) Media (77) Middle East (24) Moonbats (44) Open House (1) Politics (162) Science (14) Space (12) Supreme Court (19) War on Terror (104) WATCHER’S COUNCIL (40) WORLD POLITICS (39) WORLD SERIES (14) Admin Login Register Valid XHTML XFN [...]
Pingback by Right Wing Nut House » ALL POLITICS ARE LOCAL? DON’T TELL THE DEMS THAT — 4/17/2006 @ 10:17 am
Latte Liberal, I understand your analogy, but let me take it further:
If I was a “one issue” man, for instance, and only cared about tacos, then I bet one of the two would start making tacos (provided enough people wanted them), or maybe I might be able to find them at a very small local chain.
But let’s say I don’t just limit myself to tacos. Let’s say I want tacos, but I also want Diet Dr. Pepper, and a Hot Apple Pie. A side salad with ranch dressing would be nice, but not as important as the big three. Now, my problem is one chain carries the Dr. P. The other chain has the apple pie and they have salad, but only with blue cheese. Neither chain carries tacos. Where should I go? And keep in mind that I only get to choose a single restaurant every four years and I have to eat three meals a day there.
Let’s assume I choose the chain that offers Dr. Pepper because they say the will start offering tacos in the future. I get my Dr. Pepper and find out 1/2 through it that there is a nice piece of cat poo at the bottom! This is like the Republicans who claim to be for small, limited government, but then cut taxes and raise spending through the roof, while expanding government and increasing its power over individual Americans. So now I’m reluctant to go back there and spend my money on another Dr. P for fear I’ll be given another dose of cat feces, but I have to because I can’t choose another restaurant for 4 years.
That’s about how I feel about things if politics were transformed into fast food.
Furthermore, if I make a decision and go for the Taco’s and Dr. Pepper, I find out 1/2 through the meal after I’ve already paid that there is a nice piece of cat poo at the botom of my Dr. Pepper! This is like the Republicans who claim to be for small, limited government, but then cut taxes and raise spending through the roof, while expanding government and increasing its power over individual Americans. So now I’m reluctant to go back there and spend my money on another Dr. P for fear I’ll be given another dose of cat feces.
Comment by Andrew — 4/17/2006 @ 10:21 am
Whoops, scratch the last paragraph on my last comment, it snuck in there twice somehow
Comment by Andrew — 4/17/2006 @ 10:24 am
You people that are thinking about throwing a snitty fit and not supporting Republicans are fools of the first class. It would be an umitigated disaster for our country if Democrats got control of Congress in 2006. I can’t believe any conservative would even comptemplate walking away from 2006 and giving the election to Democrats.
Yes, you folks are unhappy about some of the Republican failings, but it is unbelievable to me that you would want the Democratic party, as currently exists, to take up the reins of government. They would certainly try to do everyting mentioned in the Drummond article. Our government would cease to function for two years while they played politics of the nastiest sort. Iraq would almost surely become a completely wasted effort. Iran would feel completely free to work undisturbed on their nuclear weapons. We could expect a full assault on every conservative institution by any means possible. The Democrats especially the far left is mad as Hell now, and their agenda would be to rig politics to the best of their ability so that no conservative could ever be elected President again.
Of course if it makes you feel better to pull your little protest stunt of not voting and giving the country to the Democrats because things haven’t gone perfectly under Republicans, then go right ahead and make your point. Maybe in another 10 or 12 years conservatives can try again after Democrats have had their turn and wrecked the country.
Comment by Marion Berryman — 4/17/2006 @ 10:39 am
Marion Berryman,
How, in our current system, are republicans supposed to keep the congressional republicans in check? How do we make them accountable? How do we correct their failings? If not at the ballot box, then where and how?
Comment by Andrew — 4/17/2006 @ 10:49 am
Of course if it makes you feel better to pull your little protest stunt of not voting and giving the country to the Democrats because things haven’t gone perfectly under Republicans, then go right ahead and make your point.
You’re kidding, right? “Things haven’t gone perfectly?”
I would say they couldn’t get much worse. And it’s not the fault of the Dems or the MSM, but of the people in charge in the House and Senate.
Comment by Rick Moran — 4/17/2006 @ 10:57 am
[...] Right Wing Nuthouse talks about “stay at home Republicans.” [...]
Pingback by Capitol Annex » From The Blogs: April 17, 2006 — 4/17/2006 @ 12:32 pm
Rick: Good discussion and comments, thanks.
Marion Berryman Said:”Of course if it makes you feel better to pull your little protest stunt of not voting and giving the country to the Democrats because things haven’t gone perfectly under Republicans, then go right ahead and make your point. Maybe in another 10 or 12 years conservatives can try again after Democrats have had their turn and wrecked the country.”
This is wishful thinking. If the GOP president and senate get the blanket amnesty-citizenship legislaton passed and/or if they don’t control the border the changes will be irreversable. When millions of illegals vote for the Dems and 10’s of millions more pour across the border to get their rights, America will move to a one party system. Demagogues will grant so many new rights that the system will accelerate left and never look back. Can representative democracy survive in a one party state?
Come the 2006 elections, if blanket amnesty-citizenship has been granted it won’t make any difference what Republicans do.
Comment by LomaAlta — 4/17/2006 @ 2:13 pm
“But at the moment, the Republican party from top to bottom is a broken instrument for reflecting the people’s will.”
You are surely exaggerating when you say this. They may have disappointed you in myriads of ways, but they have done much good as well (such as confirming two conservative members of the Supreme Court) - especially when you consider the alternative.
If Republican voters like you would stop making the best the enemy of the good, we could consign the Democrat party to permanent minority status.
Comment by Casey — 4/18/2006 @ 7:42 am
[...] More…. [...]
Pingback by The Absurd Report » “STAY AT HOME†REPUBLICANS From Right Wing Nuthouse — 4/21/2006 @ 9:29 am