EMAIL THIS PAGE       PRINT       RSS      

The Road and Ultra-Purity? Republicans consuming each other.

The new film “The Road” is coming out this week. Viggo Mortensen plays a desperate father in post-apocalyptic America, walking south through the rubble as he tries to take his son to safety. It’s an amazingly gripping work, depicting survival in a lifeless landscape of ash and cold. It’s also a bit of a horror story, as some survivors succumb to cannibalism, as all other food (animal or vegetable) is dead and gone. 

I wonder how many Republican’s will see this film. And as they watch it, will they look at each other with raised eyebrows? For nearly one year now, the Republican Party has been journeying through the post-Bush rubble, searching for the America of the past. As they sift through the remains of Newt Gingrich’s conservative revolution, they have begun to starve.

A battle has emerged for the heart of the “true Republicans.” Some believe a more centrist approach is essential to winning back the White House. Others believe the only way to regain American trust is to become even more conservative, clearing distinguishing themselves from Democrats. In the heat of the battle, they are turning against each other, using Karl Rove’s politics of division against their own kind.

Cannibalism was on display last month during an election in New York, as the Republican nominee, Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, was deemed “too liberal” to run as a Republican by a group of ultra-conservatives. The Ultras supported a third candidate, Douglas Hoffman, who apparently lives on a cul-de-sac, collects Ronald Reagan ties, and only eats beef hotdogs for dinner.

After quite a battle, Mrs. Scozzafava dropped out, sick of the infighting that distracted the campaign. Then she surprised the Ultras by throwing her support behind the Democratic nominee, Bill Owens. At it turned out, the Democrat won the race, becoming the first Democrat to win the seat in more than 100 years. So much for ultra-conservative curb appeal.

So you can imagine my surprise when the New York Times ran an article this week on the new “Purity Test” being devised by a group of Ultras. According to the Times, “the proposal would require the party to withhold campaign money and endorsements from candidates who do not adhere to at least seven principles on the checklist.” A “purity check list?” Really?

The list includes things like “We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges,” which apparently removes the President from his role as Commander in Chief and relegates power to the Generals the President is supposed to supervise. Quite a shift from the historic American distinction of a civilian led military that protects our nation from being taken over by the Army. Is there room to discuss this, or is “Ultra purity” like ivory soap, just kind of one thing, no compartmentalizing?

There are also other more complicated purity promises, like one that opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants, something President George W. Bush supported, a man I always considered conservatively purer than fresh driven snow blown across a cattle ranch in Texas. I guess they’ll work that out.

Some of it is, quite frankly, hilarious. The first item states that Ultras will “support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill.” I mean, wow! Can it be true that the policies enforced over eight years by the Ultras, which got us into this mess, are what they want to return to? Do these white males have the memory span of a black lab which just saw a squirrel? Remember with me: Disastrous economic policy + enormous wars + lower taxes = The Great Recession + Bush supported “Stimulus Bill.”  Guys, it was less than a year ago. Really.

The list goes on, but you can read it for yourself at the end of the post. I have no doubt that the Republican Party will be back. America functions on a two party system, and Democrats will only be kept honest when they have a vigorous opposition. But the Republicans need to catch up to the present day. America is no longer a white, protestant nation that cherishes such things as “Conservative purity” We now live in a brown, religiously diverse, and evolving society that is asking different questions and not trying to return America to an idealized 1950s Doo Wop concert. The cannibalism created by the Ultras is not going to help Republicans catch up to the present, but creates a defeating distraction.   

The complete “Ultra Purity Pledge:”

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check; 

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing, denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership

What do you think?

Comments

The "Ultra Purity Pledge" platform seems very temporal. I don't see any long term needs for the party being met. Additionally, it seems primarily reactionary, which isn't conducive to bringing new people to the fold. People are drawn to new ideas, even if they don't agree them, because it spurs their own thought. Well, there is a niche for this, and they will have some success with this pledge. Who knows, maybe this is what's need to kick the Democratic Party into a release of their cowardice...although I've given up on them years ago. Interesting topic to say the least.

Hi Mark,

I hope you are well. Why do you hate Republicans? I am not a Republican, but you seem to always rail against Republicans. There is so much supposition in this post, it is hard to start.

First, it is mind blowing that you see Bush as a true conservative. First, he expanded the role of government through Education Reform with Kennedy and Medicare Reform with a multitude of liberals. I wonder if you know what a true conservative is? I am not being condescending, but asking a question.

Second, Dede was MORE liberal than the democrat Bill Owens. That is the campaign he ran. Why are you surprised that a party would turn on someone that does not represent the party. It is clearly false that Dede's exodus is an example of conservatives eating their own. She agrees with just about everything a left wing person would agree with from higher taxes to the anti-democratic card check to pro death for unborn babies to gay marriage. This has nothing to do with conservatives eating their own and more to do with a party defining itself.

Third, you are quite negative on Rove. That is fine, but he is in no way polarizing except to liberals! He created a coalition to get Bush elected that spanned across racial lines. Before the deomcrats re took the house, Bush had gotten more and more african american and hispanic american votes. He was a party expander.

If you were being fair in your observations, what do you think President Obama is? What do you think Nancy Pelosi is? What do you think Rahm Emmanuel is? They are the ultimately divisive (moreso than even Bush) political characters in a generation.

Also, you should be fair to note that the vast majority of this mess is due to liberals! They were the ones that pushed "fairness" in housing and were quite responsible for this whole meltdown. It is impossible to intelligently argue against this based upon the facts.

I would be happy to be asounding board for you, but you really seem to know very little about the conservative movement. The conservative movement would chuckle at the observation that Bush was a conservative!

Heya Mark;

Another scintillating post- thank you! haha.

I want to echo what Guest wrote above regarding Bush. I personally thought Bush Term 1 was cool- Cowboy goes to Washington, we're gonna get em, I don't care what y'all think Bush. I liked that. Buuuut... TARP? Prescription Drug program expansions? Bush may be a republican, but no conservative. So, if someone who is actually well read such as yourself, follows politics, current events, etc., could put someone like GWB in a "conservative" category, then I think maybe a "Purity Check" isn't a bad idea. I have two problems with a purity check:
1. As stated above, it is very relevant to NOW. Are we going to have to wikipedia whatever bill they're mentioning in 5 years? A check like this should last longer than one election cycle.
2. A check list lets you check your brain at the door. It defines the brand "Republican", which I think is a GREAT thing- "Republican" means so much it means nothing nowadays. You can have ANY position and be a Republican. But once you make that checklist, you don't have to do your own background checking, and people can just walk into the booth and look for the little "R"s next to people's names.

A battle DOES need to exist for the heart of true republicans. What the HECK do they stand for?!? Do they JUST exist to say no to democratic ideas? Are they the "No party"? You know what the biggest part of the budget of the democratic party is? MARKETING. And Mark, if you're still calling Republicans old white guys- holy COW they have got to do better than just push up some token black guy as the leader of their party. Get on gear with marketing the brand! And that starts with some self-evaluation, like a purity list.

I think the Republican Party supporting a 3rd candidate is great, as in NY. Let it be a shot across the bow of everyone else in the party. However, they had better figure out what they stand for before they start shooting the opposition. Here is my short list of ideals, Republican or otherwise:
I want a candidate who:

1. Votes conservatively in matters of economy and society;
2. Actively works to remove the US from foreign dependence. This includes borrowing money from China and buying Money from Saudi Arabia.
4. Votes for life in every application. This is euthanasia, abortion, death penalty
4. Recognizes small business as the backbone of this economy;
4. Recognizes the family unit as the backbone of societyl
5. Can number a list sequentially;
6. Supports a MASSIVE complete rewrite of the tax code to the point that it is fair, just, and even, and impossible to use as a tool for punishment;
7. Promotes US National pride

Last, I smiled when I read your line regarding the surge (...which apparently removes the President from this role", or something to that affect). I hope we have ideas and opinions greater than our own station in life.

ok, time for someone else to jump in. Good piece, Mark.

-Dave

»  Become a Fan or Friend of this Blogger
About
Mark has been working in higher education for over 15 years. He has served as a professor, a dean, and a college president. He has consulted and taught in over thirty-five countries.


Media