Republicans considering ideological purity test for candidates - WTF?!!

[Achán hiNidráne]

I actually like the idea of the purity test. Republicans should be Republicans...

And just who get's to decide who is and who isn't a Republican? I smell a No-True-Scotsman lingering about.

 

[Thunder]

This is why I love Republicans. They never miss an opportunity to portray themselves as the party of extremism, intolerance, and non-compromise. Maybe they should start their own church.

 

[drkitten]

And just who get's to decide who is and who isn't a Republican?

Ultimately, the Republican National Committee. I should think that was their job.

Certainly, distributing RNC funds and RNC support is their job, and they're supposed to ride herd on the local republican party organizations.

If some nutcase local politician, in, say, Louisiana decided to run explicitly on a pro-KKK platform, the RNC would have a duty to protect their brand-identity and at least to keep that nutcase from running as a Republican. In the same way that if my local burger joint decided to create an unauthorized McE.Coli special, regional or national might have something to say about it and would eventually pull their franchise.

Nothing keeps that person in Louisiana from running as the Independent White Power candidate. Just like nothing would keep someone else in Ohio from running as candidate from the Conservative but In Touch With Reality party.

The real problem is what this says about the "brand identity" that the RNC wants to protect. Evidently "in touch with reality" is more scary than "white power."

 

[Brainster]

This is why I love Republicans. They never miss an opportunity to portray themselves as the party of extremism, intolerance, and non-compromise. Maybe they should start their own church.

Says the man who just last week was calling Joe Lieberman a traitor to the Democrats.

 

[Cain]

But this is simply wrong.

"All politics is local." The national issues that define "the party" may be meaningless or active hindrances locally, which is where candidates are nominated and run. In a strongly "blue" area, you may not be able to find ANY electable candidate that will support all ten -- or even eight of the ten -- planks on that particular purity test. Even if that's the case, you'd be better off finding an electable candidate who supports six of them than insisting that the Republicans must run a candidate who can't help but lose to a zero of ten McGovern Democrat. If you do that, you end up with support for NONE of your ideas in congress, instead of only some of them.

This is the classic mistake of letting the achievable good become the enemy of the unachievable best.

But you're not really making an argument against a test; you're just lowering the score for a passing grade from eight to six. There's no reason why eight is a magic number. States also have their own party platforms; Texas Republicans and Texas Democrats differ from the national party. Besides, many local races are non-partisan anyway; try getting elected the Mayor of Newark as anything but a Democrat.

 

[drkitten]

But you're not really making an argument against a test; you're just lowering the score for a passing grade from eight to six.

No, I'm making the argument against a test. The point is that any cutoff, especially one set nationally, will not reflect local concerns and considerations.

Indeed, I can see lots of situations where a candidate with a score of 10 is LESS electable than one with a score of 6. The idea of a "test" where the best grade is somewhere in the middle is kind of silly, isn't it?

The alternative is to have a test where the "passing grade" is set at whatever the locals want. Which is more or less the current state of affairs, and it's unsatisfactory because the locals aren't producing candidates of sufficient ideological purity.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Ultimately, the Republican National Committee. I should think that was their job.

Really? I thought it would fall to voters in the primaries.

If some nutcase local politician, in, say, Louisiana decided to run explicitly on a pro-KKK platform, the RNC would have a duty to protect their brand-identity and at least to keep that nutcase from running as a Republican. In the same way that if my local burger joint decided to create an unauthorized McE.Coli special, regional or national might have something to say about it and would eventually pull their franchise.

So they couldn't enter primaries and see if local republicans vote for them?

I guess this is the problem with the primary system.

 

[Thunder]

Says the man who just last week was calling Joe Lieberman a traitor to the Democrats.

there is nothing wrong with having values that differ from the mainstream of your party.

now, actively helping the opposition filibuster legislation? thats a whole different story.

Lieberman is more then welcome to vote against all the Obama-inspired legislation he likes. but i think it would be horribly wrong of him, or any other Democrat, to be the deciding vote in a filibuster against democratic legislation.

i can expect Republicans to feel the same say, if a moderate Republican decided to give the Democrats a filibuster against some of THEIR legislation.

can you imagine...can you comprehend...the reaction if a moderate Republican decided to give the Democrats a filibuster against Republican abortion legislation? they would call for his head on a stake on top of New London Bridge.

 

[Beerina]

Republicans considering ideological purity test for candidates


Oh man, I see this as a really bad idea. It basically screams "moderates need not apply"

It also screams, "Here, Left, here is a softball we're lobbing for you to hit it out of the ballpark with in your rhetoric."

On the other hand, many of the individual issues are liked by most Americans. But, unlike the Contract With America, this is seen as being forced, rather than a list that candidates voluntarily flocked to for the boost it gave them. Why they aren't taking that successful approach (successful for getting elected in 1994, not in execution) I don't know. Well, yes I do. Stupidity.

I concur.

 

[drkitten]

So they couldn't enter primaries and see if local republicans vote for them?

I guess this is the problem with the primary system.

They could, and it is. Or at least "a" problem. One of the things that local party organizations do is endorse candidates in the primary who best reflect what they consider to be the electable party line. There's a big difference in running in the primaries as an "endorsed Democrat" and a just a "Democrat," precisely because of the imprimatur the local party endorsement gives.

.... plus, of course, the help, both financial and organizational, of the party organization.

All of which tend to keep the candidates on the rails, as it were. It's much more difficult to win if you don't have the party itself on your side.

But it's a real issue, precisely because a charismatic nutcase could do serious damage to the party "brand."

 

[MattusMaximus]

At least there's no call for prayer in public schools.

Just wait... I'm sure once the Tea Party wingnuts have had a chance to hoot, holler, and stamp their feet the RNC will roll over and add that bit of lunacy to the list. That and something stating that "human life begins at conception" to appease the hardcore anti-abortion nuts.

Moderates need not apply...

 

[MattusMaximus]

But it's a real issue, precisely because a charismatic nutcase could do serious damage to the party "brand."

Read: "Sarah Palin"

 

[drkitten]

Read: "Sarah Palin"

Pre-CISE-ly.

 

[ponderingturtle]

They could, and it is. Or at least "a" problem. One of the things that local party organizations do is endorse candidates in the primary who best reflect what they consider to be the electable party line. There's a big difference in running in the primaries as an "endorsed Democrat" and a just a "Democrat," precisely because of the imprimatur the local party endorsement gives.

Sure but what happens when the wrong candidate wins the primary?

.... plus, of course, the help, both financial and organizational, of the party organization.

All of which tend to keep the candidates on the rails, as it were. It's much more difficult to win if you don't have the party itself on your side.

But it's a real issue, precisely because a charismatic nutcase could do serious damage to the party "brand."

Ah like Micheal Steele getting repremanded and then appoligising to Rush.

 

[Cain]

No, I'm making the argument against a test. The point is that any cutoff, especially one set nationally, will not reflect local concerns and considerations.

Any political party needs a set of unifying principles. It's inescapable. If anyone can be a Republican, then it reduces what it means to be a Republican. Suppose someone believes intelligent design, homeopathic treatments, 2012 destruction, Planet X, 9/11 conspiracy theories and so on. Would we still call her a skeptic? Would it be wise for a skeptics' organization to hire her as a spokesperson?

On a slight tangent, it's insane that a country as geographically varied and rich as the United States, one with a population of over 300 million people, has only two major parties.

Indeed, I can see lots of situations where a candidate with a score of 10 is LESS electable than one with a score of 6. The idea of a "test" where the best grade is somewhere in the middle is kind of silly, isn't it?

I think it's intuitively obvious a candidate scoring six is, generally speaking, more electable than a candidate scoring ten. This does not mean that a medianish score is "best," -- that's a value judgment. A candidate scoring six might is probably more representative; but the people are supposed to choose their representatives. Here's another crucial psychological difference between the parties: Democrats are more likely to fail to take a stand and lead. They moderate their stances to reflect changing public opinion rather than standing up for core principles.

 

[Thunder]

RNC new rule:

"Moderate people, who don't seek out scapegoats, and who don't want poor and sick people to die in the streets, need not apply. Gay lovers and folks who believe women have the right to decide the fate of their own bodies, need not apply"

 

[ponderingturtle]

Any political party needs a set of unifying principles. It's inescapable. If anyone can be a Republican, then it reduces what it means to be a Republican. Suppose someone believes intelligent design, homeopathic treatments, 2012 destruction, Planet X, 9/11 conspiracy theories and so on. Would we still call her a skeptic? Would it be wise for a skeptics' organization to hire her as a spokesperson?

Maybe, but the problem is that if someone agrees with you say 70% of the time you are kicking them out for the remaining 30%.

Well very few people agree with one parties platform 100% they just fit more with one party than the other. By having pass fail tests of ideological purity you are driving the moderates away. This will kill a party in the US, as you can't be a national major party with out many diverse groups supporting you.

For example the republican party is both the party of the religious and big business. Now is there any natural reason that these two groups would have the same goals? I can't think of any.

On a slight tangent, it's insane that a country as geographically varied and rich as the United States, one with a population of over 300 million people, has only two major parties.

No it is a result of how the american constitution was written. No one ever votes for a party they vote between a group of people running for a single office, the one with the most votes gets the office. This means that if you get 30% of the vote another party gets 20% of the vote the party that got 50% of the vote gets everything, and the two parties that split the vote get nothing.

That is why america is a two party system. What a third party does it means that it and the party closest ideologicaly to it will lose.

Is this unique in the modern world? Maybe. But that doesn't make it untrue.

I think it's intuitively obvious a candidate scoring six is, generally speaking, more electable than a candidate scoring ten.

Depends on the candidate. Candidates are often elected more on their personality than the positions they hold.

 

[willhaven]

Political parties are a bad idea for the reasons outlined in this 10 point list of insanity.

 

[MattusMaximus]

The only upside I see to this situation is that, in the long run, it could break the logjam of our two-party system. As a guy who voted Reform Party more than once, I wouldn't mind seeing something else on the table (if for no other reason, such as in the case of the TP nuts, to get some entertainment value out of it).

 

[Cain]

No it is a result of how the american constitution was written.

This doesn't follow from what I said. We could be living in the early 19th century and I'd point out how insane it is that blacks are counted as 3/5ths of a person. You could dig out your Constitution and point but it's rather meaningless in the context of my moral outrage.

No one ever votes for a party they vote between a group of people running for a single office, the one with the most votes gets the office. This means that if you get 30% of the vote another party gets 20% of the vote the party that got 50% of the vote gets everything, and the two parties that split the vote get nothing.

It seems that at least two cities have adopted preferential voting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote

Is this unique in the modern world? Maybe. But that doesn't make it untrue.

It's a rotten system. Our elections are ****ed up all the way down the line. The Patrician anti-democratic Senate, the gerrymandered House (where politicians choose voters rather than voters choosing politicians), and the antiquated Electoral College. It's all crap.