Simple Math
Given our love for reducing everything to a simple winner and loser, it is no surprise that many people believe Liberalism is in the dominant force in this Nation. Certainly on the surface Liberals seem to win about as often as Conservatives, but this fails to take to account the fact that by World standards, most of our Liberals ARE Conservative!
Take Hillary. Please. She is what we call a LIBERAL. A complete and total liberal. 15 years ago she was considered a borderline radical. Due to the requirements of American politics even she has steadily tacked to the Right ever since, but a Liberal she remains. Yet in a World where most of our European "allies" never wanted us to go into Iraq, Hillary voted FOR the Iraq War. The "Conservative" Party in Britain was and is AGAINST the Iraq War. Using this gauge the Party of Winston Churchill is more "liberal" than Hillary Clinton.
In reality, Conservatism has been the dominant political ideology in this Nation since its founding. While the political cycle sees the pendulum swing over to the left on a regular basis, with the exception of 1933-1980, Conservatives have never long been out of power. Even during those dark years conservatives won the White House 4 out of 12 times and lost 3 times by small to tiny margins ('48, '60, '76).
Be that as it may however, the fact remains that part of this Nation is utterly and irredeemably Liberal, and if the GOP is to be a true majority party, it must find a way to snag a few of those liberal leaning districts. Some conservatives don't understand this and they throw tantrums when moderate Republicans take positions that are to the left of the GOP base.
Principle is a fine thing and I recommend it to all my friends, but "principle" has to get along with some other words such as "reality" and "practicality". The Founders ( I feel vaguely as though I'm a mindless drone on an episode of Star Trek when I use that term) set our government up in such a way so that people who have all the answers don't get to implement them without convincing a lot of other people first.
Many on the Right and Left, get very impatient with people who disagree with them. This is a human frailty to be sure, but political people toward the extremes tend to have it in larger doses than the rest of us.
My polemic is inspired by another that I read on PoliPundit this morning. Michael Illions, aka A. J. Sparxx, unloads on Rep. Mike Ferguson (NJ7) because Ferguson has been insufficiently conservative. Ferguson is now expressing some reservations about the President's handling of Iraq, and he (Ferguson) wants to see some results, and soon.
Quoted in a piece on NJ.com from the Star Ledger, Ferguson rather mildly states:
"I am beyond frustrated, either we get good news by September, or something radical has to change. And it's tough to imagine a scenario where they will meet the benchmarks by then."
The quote follows this factoid:
"Republican Rep. Mike Ferguson has supported President Bush on every vote over the Iraq war, from the invasion to the surge."
Hardly sounds like a RINO does he? Yet that is what Illions/Sparxx proceeds to call him as he huffs:
"His support of the Union intimidation bill, the wage increase and voting against drilling in ANWR and the Jeff Flake amendments from last year to curtail spending, how could he be anything else but a RINO. Let’s not forget his poor ratings with the NRA, Club for Growth and NumbersUSA. "
So there. You're only a Republican if you vote our way 100% of the time AND get good ratings from a bunch of organizations all of whom have their own (sometimes quite honorable) axes to grind. And no, we don't care that you only won your district in a "blue state" by 1% in the last election
If we dumped every Republican who doesn't meet Illions/Sparxx's criteria, the GOP caucus will be able to meet in the coat closet and none of this will matter because the Democrat/Liberals will be running the entire gummint.
But at least we would be pure and wouldn't have to worry about lugging around that Big Tent anymore.
