Swing and a Miss
Salon.com runs a regular feature called "Right Hook," in which Mark Follman compiles conservative commentary. In today's article, Follman described various Republicans' reactions to the election as "nasty rhetoric and full-throated gloating." While much of the round-up did demonstrate the nastiness that seems to permeate the blogosphere, some comments of Grover Nordquist were thrown in there that didn't deserve to be.
Nordquist's comments were positive, optimistic statements of Republican values and policy objectives. Mr. Nordquist is quoted by Follman as writing: "The next four years are a wonderful opportunity for the GOP. They're a chance for the party to see what its governors and senators can achieve in lowering and simplifying taxes, offering parents school choice, ending abusive lawsuits, protecting gun rights and other liberties, and furthering decent, limited government. The next Republican candidates for President will have to make their case not through 'shoulda, coulda, woulda' speeches, but rather by enacting real legislation and pointing to concrete results. And all eyes will be on this virtuous competition within the Republican Party. Why would anyone pay attention to the Democratic Party nomination process? Hillary Clinton cannot be defeated for the nomination, and she can't win the Presidency. Boring."
Now, as a liberal Democrat, I don't agree with most of those policy goals. (Or more accurately, I DO agree with most of those goals as stated, but I don't agree with how I know they will be enacted to favor the rich at the expense of the poor, minorities and the environment. It is hard to be opposed to "decent, limited government." It is easy to be opposed to gutting the EPA.) But there is nothing mean-spirited about suggesting the party in power should pursue its agenda. We'd be clamoring for the same thing from the left had we won. We'd want to see real movement on issues important to us.
The Republican primary process in 2007 WILL be virtuous. They are smarter and better than us at campaigning - and they keep getting better. They WILL send up a raft of primary contenders who have experience and who have gotten results. There is no shortage of Republicans in positions to achieve a lot in the next four years. And they WILL rally behind one candidate early in the process to keep the in-fighting to a minimum. They are already setting the tone of the next election by suggesting Hillary Clinton is our inevitable candidate. And we are doing nothing to dissuade them.
So disagree with Mr. Nordquist all you want. But even if you disagree with his objectives, give the guy credit for speaking reasonably and sensibly about what the future holds for Republicans. If we on the left are going to make gains politically, we have to stop treating all Republicans as the enemy. Elections are about choices, and Mr. Nordquist was able to sum up in 22 words what his party stands for: “lowering and simplifying taxes, offering parents school choice, ending abusive lawsuits, protecting gun rights and other liberties, and furthering decent, limited government.” In clear, concise language, he laid out the most important issues in the Republican party’s platform. Can we do the same? Until we can, how can we hope to offer a viable alternative?
Nordquist's comments were positive, optimistic statements of Republican values and policy objectives. Mr. Nordquist is quoted by Follman as writing: "The next four years are a wonderful opportunity for the GOP. They're a chance for the party to see what its governors and senators can achieve in lowering and simplifying taxes, offering parents school choice, ending abusive lawsuits, protecting gun rights and other liberties, and furthering decent, limited government. The next Republican candidates for President will have to make their case not through 'shoulda, coulda, woulda' speeches, but rather by enacting real legislation and pointing to concrete results. And all eyes will be on this virtuous competition within the Republican Party. Why would anyone pay attention to the Democratic Party nomination process? Hillary Clinton cannot be defeated for the nomination, and she can't win the Presidency. Boring."
Now, as a liberal Democrat, I don't agree with most of those policy goals. (Or more accurately, I DO agree with most of those goals as stated, but I don't agree with how I know they will be enacted to favor the rich at the expense of the poor, minorities and the environment. It is hard to be opposed to "decent, limited government." It is easy to be opposed to gutting the EPA.) But there is nothing mean-spirited about suggesting the party in power should pursue its agenda. We'd be clamoring for the same thing from the left had we won. We'd want to see real movement on issues important to us.
The Republican primary process in 2007 WILL be virtuous. They are smarter and better than us at campaigning - and they keep getting better. They WILL send up a raft of primary contenders who have experience and who have gotten results. There is no shortage of Republicans in positions to achieve a lot in the next four years. And they WILL rally behind one candidate early in the process to keep the in-fighting to a minimum. They are already setting the tone of the next election by suggesting Hillary Clinton is our inevitable candidate. And we are doing nothing to dissuade them.
So disagree with Mr. Nordquist all you want. But even if you disagree with his objectives, give the guy credit for speaking reasonably and sensibly about what the future holds for Republicans. If we on the left are going to make gains politically, we have to stop treating all Republicans as the enemy. Elections are about choices, and Mr. Nordquist was able to sum up in 22 words what his party stands for: “lowering and simplifying taxes, offering parents school choice, ending abusive lawsuits, protecting gun rights and other liberties, and furthering decent, limited government.” In clear, concise language, he laid out the most important issues in the Republican party’s platform. Can we do the same? Until we can, how can we hope to offer a viable alternative?
posted by Charles S. Russell at 1:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home