I expected a response to
this post, and I did
get one. So, this post is my response to reader Chris H. I think I need to say now, I'm pretty sure nothing I say here will placate the readers who took that post personally or as an attack on the libertarian wing of the Republican party. That being said, I am committed to defeating liberalism in November as a party activist. I will vote my conscience in the primary, and I do not in any way believe that voting Republican in November will attack my conscience - not the way voting for Bill White or Farouk Shami would, and certainly not the way not voting at all would.
First, Chris asked: Why are you involved in politics? Is it to have your grievances redressed and assert your rights or is it to have your "80%ers" aggress on your inalienable rights?
I am involved in politics to make a difference; I am involved to have my voice heard among the "80%ers." I think that the "certain wing" I was referring to specifically in that post is mostly involved for the same reason. One has to assume that a good portion of Medina supporters in this gubernatorial race are involved because in supporting her, they are trying to get a point across to the other candidates.
I resent the idea that in supporting someone who agrees with me only 80% of the time, I'm somehow letting myself be oppressed. Sounds like the arguments I used to hear from feminists that if I dated men or voted Republican, I was giving up the right to be heard. Ludicrous.
Next, Chris said: It's principles over party. "Your problem" is that you look at it as Republicans versus Democrats. That wing of the party that you're complaining about, correctly, looks at it as those advancing liberty and those trampling on it.
Yes, principle over party - that's what the
primary is for!! And if your candidate loses in the primary? You have two choices in November: choose another candidate, or don't vote. If you don't agree with the Republican or Democrat, you can certainly vote third party or not vote at all. Incidentally, I have a question for the people so disgusted with McCain that they did one of these things in November 2008.
How is
that working out for you? Yeah, I do look at it as "Republicans" versus "Democrats." Again, two-party system, major parties in the country.
Getting back to Texas and the gubernatorial race. Mrs. Medina
polls at about 12% according to the latest from Rasmussen. Which is about right for a relatively unknown candidate who flirts with the fringe vote and isn't competitive in fundraising. I want to say, in case this isn't clear - I do not think badly of Debra Medina. I think she is a refreshing voice, I think she brings important things into the debate. Does that translate into thinking she can win, now or in November? No. Like a third party candidate in a general election, she will simply draw enough votes to push the other candidates into a run-off. Which, again, is fine - politically that is good for Republican voters, to be forced to really vet the frontrunners and make a clear decision. But Medina's supporters who don't choose to support the Republican ticket in November will do more than hurt Rick Perry or Kay Bailey Hutchison. Our down-ballot Republicans - many of whom are good, conservative legislators and candidates - suffer unduly in elections when people choose not to support the Republican at the top of the ticket.
I know that 95% or more of Texas voters don't know who their county commissioner or state representative is, much less how that person votes, but the fact is that a good many of those people show up in November with one candidate in mind, at the top of the ballot. For better or worse, the political reality is that in order to get a conservative county courthouse and a conservative state legislature, we have to rely on a certain percentage of voters who just show up and vote straight ticket. They are less likely to show up in certain situations. So, knowing that it's likely a certain percentage of voters will stay home, the voters who do show up need to be Republican voters.
Whether you like to hear it or not, an 80%-er is much more likely to serve your interests than a 60%-er. And if you agree 80% of the time already? Easier to get to 100% more often.
Chris went on: Why is it that "that wing" has to be a team player, but no one else has to play nice with them? "That wing" is fine advancing the platform of the Republican party, even with parts that it disagrees with to be a team player. It is not fine advancing individuals who refuse to advance that platform.
I guess the first thing I should have done in that post was clarify - I think "that wing" could mean a few different things. In this case, we're talking about the so-called libertarian wing. Most of the time when I have this discussion, we're talking about the moderate wing, or sometimes the social conservative wing. The real problem here? Republicans have no idea how to work together for the greater good. Period. We're too busy labeling people, we're too busy fighting each other over this or that platform plank. Before we know it, the Democrats - the anti-liberty liberals - are running the world.
Would it have made Chris feel better if I'd gone after the numerous KBH supporters who are threatening to stay home in November if Rick Perry is the nominee? Or the Perry supporters who rail about not supporting Kay? The thing is, I'd like everyone to be a team player come March 3 (or April 14, if there is a run-off). Because I guarantee, whatever criticisms we might have about the Democrats in general, there is already reason to believe that they will do this better than we will. United works for them. We know why, I think - they have a mindset that bends naturally toward collectivism and group effort, and conservatives are independent to a fault.
Understand, too, that I'm as big a proponent for the platform as anyone (and have you read this blog? I spent the better part of the legislative session going after Republicans, probably in detriment to my career judging by my take-home pay). Something about the Texas governor, though. That person has far less power than you think. Texas' constitutional framers, post-Reconstruction, favored a decentralized government with most of the power resting in the legislature. Meaning two things for us: one, that the governor really can't just issue executive orders willy-nilly, and the Legislature can rescind his EOs - boy, aren't you glad we had a conservative legislature in 2007? - and furthermore, the constitutionality of that infamous EO could have been challenged at any point (not just by waiting until the next election); and two, that the Legislature is where change must and should happen. Even if she were to win the whole kitty, the hypothetical Governor Medina would need a legislature that agrees with her in order to accomplish radical change. Change can't start at the top (a lesson I am sure reverbrates at the White House these days, come to think of it).
Most Republicans don't agree 100% with the platform. I've heard Medina supporters make impassioned arguments against key provisions. Which is fine - that is the whole reason we recreate the platform every two years!
Finally, Chris said: That's like asking which is worse, those 19 hijackers who never denied being an enemy to America or U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan who put on our uniform.
First of all, no, it's not like that at all.
Second of all, Perry and Hutchison can hardly be compared to Bill White and Farouk Shami. I think Democrats would agree here. Medina supporters are Republicans, liberty-minded folks and all that. So why support White or Shami, whose message is anything but liberty-minded? We can certainly agree, Perry and Hutch ain't perfect specimens, but revisiting earlier points, we simply need a conservative legislature that can stand up to either of them on the issues. I would say likewise for White and Shami, except again revisiting an early point - straight-ticket Democrat voters who turn out in force for White or Shami will get help from people who choose not to vote or vote third party. Leaving us with a likely close majority (and possibly not even that) in the Texas House and a slaughtered down-ballot, giving White or Shami that much more clout and relevance as governor.
The time to address issues within the ranks of a party is during the party's primary. If Medina loses and goes third party in November, or if KBH loses and her supporters stay home, or if Rick Perry loses and his people go third party - the further-reaching consequences vary in each case, and certainly the percentage of disenfrancised vary, but the point is that if Republicans lose the governor's mansion in November, a couple of years from now all conservatives will regret the decision. I know those of us who experienced the down-ballot slaughters in 2006 and 2008 understand this. I'm positive that the full brunt of it will come home to roost if we flub it in November 2010.
