Identity crisis
Meanwhile, here is an article about the relationship between the two major parties and ideology which will drive the Republican (or at least "right of center") equivalent of the Lamont crowd wild.
Salena Zito's argument: that the Democrats, on one hand, are confused about who they are- whereas the Republicans, all things considered, have their ideological ducks in a row.
Obviously, given the opinions of the more ideologically-driven readers of this blog, many on the Right will disagree. But such things are relative- and ideological absolutists of any stripe are, after all, in a perennial state of high dudgeon, since no two people hold precisely the same view of everything-and therefore, the moment you add one individual to another to form a political party, you automatically have ideological disagreement.
Successful parties- and politically effective individuals- look for commonalities and build alliances, in order to get as much of a common agenda adopted as possible. They sometimes confront situations in which differences in agenda within the coalition threaten it. When they do, they seek to engage in dialog to try to minimize those differences and salvage the coalition- and the prospects for avoiding a much greater disaster than the disagreement itself: the triumph of those with whom their common ideological differences are far more serious.
The overwhelming instinct of unsuccessful parties and politically ineffective individuals, on the other hand, is seek out deviance, and to exclude the deviant as a default reaction- even when the deviance is minor, or wholly imaginary. That's the common impulse of the Ned Lamont crowd among the Democrats, and of those sometime Republicans who are planning to stay at home this Fall.
HT: Real Clear Politics
Salena Zito's argument: that the Democrats, on one hand, are confused about who they are- whereas the Republicans, all things considered, have their ideological ducks in a row.
Obviously, given the opinions of the more ideologically-driven readers of this blog, many on the Right will disagree. But such things are relative- and ideological absolutists of any stripe are, after all, in a perennial state of high dudgeon, since no two people hold precisely the same view of everything-and therefore, the moment you add one individual to another to form a political party, you automatically have ideological disagreement.
Successful parties- and politically effective individuals- look for commonalities and build alliances, in order to get as much of a common agenda adopted as possible. They sometimes confront situations in which differences in agenda within the coalition threaten it. When they do, they seek to engage in dialog to try to minimize those differences and salvage the coalition- and the prospects for avoiding a much greater disaster than the disagreement itself: the triumph of those with whom their common ideological differences are far more serious.
The overwhelming instinct of unsuccessful parties and politically ineffective individuals, on the other hand, is seek out deviance, and to exclude the deviant as a default reaction- even when the deviance is minor, or wholly imaginary. That's the common impulse of the Ned Lamont crowd among the Democrats, and of those sometime Republicans who are planning to stay at home this Fall.
HT: Real Clear Politics
Comments