DeTocqueville.US

Archive for the ‘Site News’ Category

The outcome of the race in New York’s 23rd district among Bill Owens, Doug Hoffman, and Dede Scozzafava is definitely disappointing, at least in the sense of the fact that there’s one more Democrat in Congress.  However, I think the race does have some interesting implications for national politics: not as a referendum on President Obama and the Democrats (which none of these weird mid-mid-term elections can really be called), but on the politics inside of the Republican party and conservatism.  Below is a copy of a comment I posted to a story on the Huffington Post website, which you can look at in context here.

(Note: I really try to not read the comments on Huffington Post stories.  The site is a bastion of almost pure liberalism, and it’s often hard to fight the urge to comment on every backward, ill-informed comment.  That, and I just get really, really mad reading it, so it’s usually better for everyone involved that I don’t.)

<On to the comment:>

[NY-23] is a win for the Democrats in so far as they gain the seat, but Owens was to the right of Scozzafava on several issues, so it’s not exactly a win for liberalism. It’s not a “big” win for the Democrats because they failed to break 50% of the vote. The 6% who voted for Scozzafava apparently felt that neither Owens nor Hoffman represented them well; unfortunately, however, we don’t know (as far as I can tell), exactly who those people are or why they voted for her.

The election was definitely not a win for the Republicans, but it was a victory of principles for conservatives.

Put aside particular ideologies and party loyalties for a second: for conservatives, this race was about showing the GOP that we won’t vote for just anyone. For the Democrats and liberals out there, imagine how you would feel if the Democratic Party machinery just picked a candidate, without any sort of primary or public input, and that candidate was against many of your core principles. Would you go ahead and vote for them just because they have a “D” next to their name? Would you feel right about that?

That’s what this election was about. This election couldn’t change the fundamental makeup of the House. Instead, this was a chance to show that we’re tired of playing party politics.

<End comment.>

This is really what I think conservatives and Republicans need to learn from NY-23.  Yes, we lost the election, but we won a battle for the heart of the GOP and conservative politics in this country.  Although I would love to see us drop all of the baggage and corruption of the Republican Party, I believe a third-party movement is a bad idea.  This election confirms what a lot of us have known instinctively for a long time: that a substantial chunk of the country is conservative (recent polls put it at 40%) and that a conservative will beat a liberal Republican.  Had there been a proper campaign for a conservative, Republican candidate without any sort of split, I seriously think Hoffman could have won.

We need to continue putting pressure on the GOP to run candidates not to appeal to any particular group, but to support conservative principles and articulate them correctly.  We cannot give up on persuading people and showing them why our principles are good for this country.

Newt Gingrich is wrong in supporting Dede Scozzafava in the New York Congressional district 23 race. Of course, a lot of my fellow conservatives have been saying this for a while, so that might seem kind of obvious. And certainly there are some very obvious reasons why conservatives should oppose Scozzafava, as so many of her views are way outside of what Republicans are supposed to stand for. So there is definitely a good reason just based on who Scozzafava is for conservatives to oppose her as the Republican candidate.

Gingrich is also wrong about the practical (i.e. partisan) reasons for supporting Scozzafava and other candidates like her. He says (to paraphrase) that supporting liberal Republican candidates helps our majorities in Congress and will help Republicans effect their ideals in Washington. This is ridiculous for two reasons. First, (as Rush Limbaugh and others have pointed out) liberal Republicans won’t be voting for conservative ideas that they don’t hold (cf. Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, et al); instead we will be giving liberal Democrats more votes and the veneer of bipartisanship. Second, doing things just for the party continues the culture of corruption that pervades both parties. It is an attitude that puts the “good” of the party before our ideals. Gingrich and others forget that political parties only exist because of common ideals; a party with too big a tent doesn’t really have a reason to exist beyond continuing its own existence.

I believe, however, that there is a more important reason that Gingrich and others like him are wrong about support liberal Republicans. Many people have said that the Republican party has to understand the voters in different constituencies and run candidates that can pander to them. The argument goes something like this: people in the northeast are liberal, so we have to run liberals to get their vote.

This worries me greatly for one big reason: it relinquishes the party’s responsibility for persuading people. It says, “Don’t try to convince people you’re right, just try to get their vote.” This is not the way to do things. If people don’t agree with us, we shouldn’t just give up. We have to persuade them, show them how our ideas can help them achieve their goals. If we want their vote, we have to show them that our plans will make their lives better.

Persuading voters in this way is certainly more difficult; it requires a lot more work. But this is why conservatives around the country must work one-on-one with people and explain conservative ideas to them. It must be a local movement, and it must ignore the “leaders” in the Republican party who, like Gingrich, attempt a defeatist attitude of giving in to leftism.

Welcome to De Tocquville US.  The purpose of this blog is to explore and discuss Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America.  Although Democracy in America was written in 1835, de Tocqueville’s work is incredibly relevant to today.  It can help us to understand where we’ve come from and to then compare that to where we are now.  Given the changes that are occurring in our society, understanding where we’ve come from is more important than ever.  My hope is that we can discover the elements of our society that contributed to the establishment of the United States as the world’s singular example of democratic government and what we can do to maintain our democracy.

The plan will be to work through the book one chapter or so at a time, with posts at least once a week (probably on the weekend).  Thanks for stopping by!