And I'll expect to see some action after the last decade - not just words and a lot of new programs that grow government when all is said and done.
The gist of the post is the debate over appealing to centrists to enlarge the Republican tent. The problem is one of appealing to the center, risking the wrath of the base of secular-conservatives who were historically the majority of the party, as well as special interest voters (often single issue voters, such as abortion or gun rights) on the right of the aisle.
As is discussed in Riehl's comments, many feel that McCain was the moderate candidate, and the argument goes, since he lost, why does the Party continue to nominate centrists like McCain.
It is important to note that the Party did not nominate McCain, in the sense of a back-room selection of a candidate. The voters, those who either voted in primaries as Republicans or in open primaries where they wanted their voice heard, voted for McCain.
The majority of people voting in the primaries chose McCain. The Republican Party aparatchiks did not choose him.
That is where it gets interesting. We can't know all the reasons why McCain was the name chosen by the majority of voters, but we can reasonably assume that the primary reason for voting for him was because they wanted him to represent the Republican Party and to be President. Voters may have thought, also, that he was the best candidate to run against the Democrats, was the least objectionable from the list of more objectionable candidates, or some other dozen reasons. Those are secondary reasons for an individual's vote.
It is wonderful and intoxicating to read and hear people debating these sorts of topics. The most interesting aspect is the idea that there are a group of Republicans somewhere, in some undisclosed location, that decided to run McCain as the Party representative. That thinking persists, despite the fact that there were primaries where voters, not a secret cabal of Republican Party lever controllers, made the decision... and it was on the news, and everything.
If the self-described and interested members of the Party citizenry decided that McCain was their guy, what does that say about the make-up of those in the Republican Party?
Is the base really a base?
If the base is truly the rah-rah band of principled secular-conservatives many want it to be, then why didn't a secular-conservative, rather than an issue-pandering-centrist candidate win the nomination?
The math on this is not difficult. The answer may not be one that people want, but it is the reason why the Party has trended toward the middle.
Wishy-hopey that those who choose to consider themselves Republicans are secular-conservators who care about things like limited government, low-taxes, and protecting established institutions, is not a rational way to approach nor dissect the problem. Wishy-hopey is what got a fascist elected.
Newsflash: The majority in the Republican tent are not secular-conservatives. We've been usurped, i.e., outnumbered by conservative-leaning centrists, and we are irrelevent.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is not the basis for a system of government, but it is better than wishy-hopey.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."- Unattributed
Our 15 minutes 200 years is up.
Posts
