Armed Liberal has a very nice piece over on Winds of Change about loyalty to the Democratic Party. Like my buddy Ara, Armed Liberal is a real liberal, as opposed to the narrow-minded, mouth-frothing lefties like Sid Blumenthal who've hijacked the word.
I agree that it is absolutely vital that the country have a functioning Democratic Party. As much as their leadership appals me these days, and as much as I hope for major change at the top, we do need that party. It's part of why I'm registered as a Democrat: I want to vote in the primaries and, in some small way, nudge the party in more healthy directions. Make no mistake about it, though, if a Howard Dean is the nominee you can bet your ass I'll be voting and campaigning for Bush again in 2000.
I think if the Democrats had a decent message, the electoral successes of the Republicans would be easily swept away.
I'm a hard core conservative, but just about every friend I have in the world is a tepid Bush supporter. They're dying to have someone to vote for other than Bush and the current Republican leadership - but they just can't support the current party.
I would modify Dean's sentiment to "we need a functioning loyal oppostition party", it need not always remain Republicans and Democrats. Lately the Democrats don't seem very functional or loyal to the interests of America as a whole, merely power hungry and unprincipled.
I'm a (relatively) new Republican, but I came to them from the right. In New York I was a Conservative Party guy, a dedicated Buckley (Wm.F. Jr. and James), Burnham, and National Review supporter.
Then, when I moved out of New York, I registered Democratic because they seemed at the time (1970s) to be the party best able to defend America. Think Scoop Jackson.
Republicans at the time seemed too busy keeping Jews and blacks out of their country clubs. On foreign policy, they were the ultimate realpolitikniks; disgusting, in other words, no policy other than expediency. And Nixon going to China? The worst human rights abuser on the planet in terms of scale, and we play ping-pong with them. Jane Fonda and the rest of the hate-America crowd just sat back and grinned. They'd won. Feh.
Things change, however. Over the next 20 years, the Dems became the party of groups over individuals, collective over individual responsibility, and a foul racialist approach that posited the artificial construct of "race" as trumping ability and common sense.
The Republicans seem to have evolved into the party of a strong national defense, although there are, as always, troubling signs of civil liberties getting short shrift.
George W. is hardly perfect; but he has shown steel as a leader and risen to the job. And, whether or not you care for his policies, he has a good character, in stark contrast to He Who Must Not Be Mentioned.
I'd have preferred John McCain, but he's far from perfect in matters of civil liberties (there should be no limit on political speech, period).
For now, I'll stay Republican, and at this point gladly support W. in '04 against any Democrat that has announced.
Let's try it from this angle: Who can support any political party that considers Carol Braun and Al Sharpton as credible presidential candidates?
And if, as seems most likely, the Dems nominate John Kerry? What then?
Howard Dean's policy agenda would revert us straight back to the Carter-era, but at least he's honest about it.
Defintion of the word "Liberal" as it relates to political orientation:
Please see Steven Den Beste's take on this subject, a couple of days ago.
dsl angebot dsl dsl dsl tarife dsl flatrate isdn xxl dsl bestellen dsl dsl flatrate dsl dsl dsl angebote 1&1
I enjoyed reading this thoughtful article. Great work.
Interesting, well researched and informative, but I'm not sure I totally agree