Sound Politics: Exit Question

June 03, 2008

Exit Question

News reporters often seem fascinated with the degree to which a party's candidates don't necessarily line-up in unison with the platform passed by the party's grassroots activists. Crosscut's coverage of the recent GOP platform accentuates this twist, closing with:

Why is the state GOP adopting such an aggressively conservative stance -- one that's significantly more aggressive than the presumed Republican presidential nominee -- in a year when all signs indicate a possible liberal landslide?

The answer there is fairly obvious to anyone familiar with the grassroots of either party. They are much more apt to be concerned with perceived ideological consistency than with political practicality. In some sense that commitment is a strength, in some sense it is a weakness. Either way, that's why the state GOP has a strongly conservative platform that will not align completely with its national counterpart and in some cases won't be emphasized at all by more local candidates who can only run on a limited number of issues.

That's also why Democratic platforms usually contain similar nuggets that the general public doesn't quite embrace, such as the Washington State Democrats' call for a Department of Peace; a laughable approach to dealing with foreign adversaries if ever there was one.

Curious why a party platform is out in left or right field compared to John or Jane Q. Voter? Look around at party conventions. There are many good, well-meaning people there. That doesn't mean, however, that they're a representative slice of the electorate. Never have been, never will be.

Posted by Eric Earling at June 03, 2008 07:32 AM | Email This

Comments

1.
Sure, everyone is saying "Liberal Landslide" but lets see what happened in the past. In 2006, when the war was at its worst, Democrats were able to eek bare parity in the Congress. Hillary was supposed to glide to victory on an anti-war, socialized medicine campaign. She didn't.

So, I think Washington Republicans may have some advanced thinkers who are seeing the reaction of the public to things like Climate Taxes coupled with laws that push the price of energy onto the middle class and thinking, hey, we have a message too.

Posted by: John Bailo on June 3, 2008 08:19 AM

2. Yeah, you are right, but no one is putting it out there. In this state, the elites are Rs who have to live in the shadow of Ds, and as such, become useful puppets to the liberal causes.

Even Dino isn't really out there on your or the party's platform to a great extent.

Posted by: swatter on June 3, 2008 08:35 AM

3. "Department of Peace; a laughable approach to dealing with foreign adversaries if ever there was one"

If there ever was one? More laughable than invading Iraq to be greeted as beloved liberators?

No one suggested abolishing the Defense Department (which used to be called the Department of War, incidentally), nor did they suggest that the Department of Peace would deal with every adversary -- just that it would be helpful. I have no idea whether elevating this function to cabinet-level makes sense, but it already exists within the State Department, so why would you call it "laughable"?

Posted by: Bruce on June 3, 2008 08:54 AM

4. This State is property of the Democrats, period! Any and all rhetoric about Republicans having a chance is simply superfluous and a waste of time. Re-group, re-form and enter the 21st century or suffer your fate. RIP.

Posted by: Truthfully on June 3, 2008 08:57 AM

5. Gezz Bruce. The State dept is the so called (peace dept).

Typical government fools. Let's grow gov it even bigger, but never better.

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 3, 2008 09:12 AM

6. Yes Bruce, those terrible things called "facts" are coming to bite you again:

See this picture. Or this picture. Or this picture. Or this picture.

Need I go on? The FACT is we were welcomed as liberators by the VAST majority of Iraqis, and now - with casualties at an all time low - it seems that the occupation is winding down.

But keep beating that "We're losing the Iraq War! Get out of Iraq Now!" drum - it just shows you're out of touch with reality and marginalizes you even more.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 3, 2008 09:32 AM

7. I listen to the podcasts of KKOL1300. Hewitt and Prager are still getting calls where the callers automatically and nonchalantly talk about the mess we are in in Iraq. It is like they are in dreamland. When the hosts (very politely and respectfully, BTW) ask for data or facts, the poor people sputter and mutter and obfuscate. They don't have a clue (ED.NOTE: the writings of Michael Yon are mandatory reading) on what is on the ground now.

Just like the DalaiBama.

Crosscut has just reiterated their bonafides as a nonserious web site. Rather than spend a couple of extra minutes to ridicule some of the D platform they choose to cherry-pick the R platform.

Posted by: swatter on June 3, 2008 10:05 AM

8. Posted by Truthfully at June 3, 2008 08:57 AM

I had to laugh. At not just his/her silly post.

Scroll over the link in its sig.

Quite the theological scholar we've got here.

Posted by: jimg on June 3, 2008 11:32 AM

9. I just wonder what would have happened if we had people like Obama or Bruce running our gov during WWII or even Korea!

Crazy.

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on June 3, 2008 11:34 AM

10. The platform truly does little more than take the temperature of your base. A successful candidate has 3 major issues that he/she can run on and they must be timely, relavent, and make a distinction from the opponent. Any candidate that really follows the platform is treated as a paper candidate and not supported by the party...no matter what party it is. Why the press finds this fascinating year after year is ridiculous...and when was the last Democrat candidate in this state you've ever heard asked about their position on the Dept. of Peace?

Posted by: Tracy on June 3, 2008 11:38 AM

11. AMV,

We actually did have people like them in the early days of WWII and it was a complete failure. It wasn't until Frank Knox was brought in as Secretary of the Navy and Henry Stimson as Secretary of War (both republicans) that they did a complete turnaround of the armed forces.

Stimson expanded the army to a force of ove 12 million soldiers, expanded the navy in order to fight wars in the Atlantic and Pacific at the same time, was able to purchase and transport 30% of the nation's industrial output to the battlefield and was also responsible for the building and decision to use the atomic bomb.

Then, as now, socialists got us into a mess and have to have conservatives come in and tidy up after them. But they call us war mongers when we do the dirty work.

Posted by: Ken on June 3, 2008 12:13 PM

12. Army Medic/Vet @ 9:

They probably would have become a counter-intelligence espionage objective and had an accident.

Posted by: The Pirate on June 3, 2008 12:21 PM

13. Boy, I disagree with the idea that the GOP should reflect the stance of McCain. Conservatism will win the day only when we bring candidates up through the ranks who are committed to conservative principles and not to the kind of garbage that President Bush and McCain have been about. That is exactly why Bush is so unpopular. Out of contol spending, confused foreign policy, no energy policy to speak of, and poor performances on easy slam dunks like Katrina response.
Guided by conservative principles, future Republicans can win back seats in 2010. If the GOP is perceived as being "democrat light" then it will be more of the same. Screw trying to be like McCain. I may not even vote for the guy. Why the hell wouuld I want to adopt his ideaology?

Posted by: Scott on June 3, 2008 12:43 PM

14. ...and when was the last Democrat candidate in this state you've ever heard asked about their position on the Dept. of Peace?

Should be called "The Department of Getting your Ass Kicked".

Posted by: scott on June 3, 2008 12:48 PM

15. I'm a Ron Paul and Dino Rossi supporter. I have contributed financially to both and plan to ultimately contribute the limit to Dino before the election.

I have lost faith in the National Republican Party. It has become the new liberal party. I could never support McCain and I regret my votes for Bush.In my view, fear and war mongering have never been virtues and never will be.

I pray that we conservatives can regain a foothold at least in our own state by electing conservatives like Dino. Dino, you can't be too conservative for me! God speed in your efforts to defeat leviathan.

Posted by: Small Government Steve on June 3, 2008 12:54 PM

16. As a delegate to the WSRP convention in Spokane, I can tell you that some (many?) of us saw a distinction between the PLATFORM and the 67 or so RESOLUTIONS that were passed. The PLATFORM was nowhere near as conservative as is represented and it received at least some discussion. It represented the core beliefs of the party.

The RESOLUTIONS were a different matter. They actually didn't get much discussion, but primarily because of parilamentary moves that, unfortunately, ended up having the "do pass" ones accepted in toto. Perhaps if there had been more time set aside for the resolutions, we could've fine-tuned them. Most seemed to be knee-jerk and written emotionally. Prof. Manweller, the chair of the platform committee, said only about 3 of the resolutions were well-written.

Posted by: The Real Mark on June 3, 2008 03:58 PM

17. Health care for all cries the Democrats. Read and weep the Democrat's platform. Ir reads like a book from the Communist's school of Socialism for Dummies. And yes, their candidates respect the platform and support the special interests which in turn support the candidates. No secret there. Global Warming, Health Care, Unions and other goodies are openly espoused. And they are extreme left by any measurement.

So conservatives are to be considered extreme? That may be true when compared to Hillary and Obama. Not true when compared to Reagan or even Truman. We are engaged in a cultural war and its winner take all. All of your money, all of your property and all opportunities. If the socialist trend continues, Russia during the 1950's will look like paradise. What say you, comrade.

Posted by: Snuffy on June 3, 2008 06:36 PM

18. John Bailo:

The Gop was not looking too far out it appears. The problems you mention with energy prices and climate taxes are not looking to be improved with a McCain election. In fact I would say it would be worse because we would probably get less GOP resistance from congress to McCains carbon taxes and energy mandates than we would an obama plan.

Posted by: Lysander on June 3, 2008 10:10 PM