Don’t Blame The Republicans For Having Principles (Guest Voice)
Don’t Blame The Republicans For Having Principles
by Dalitso Njolinjo
I’ve just been debating with my friends about the big evil in American politics, the Republican Party.
To simplify the two hour debate, the argument against the Republicans boils down to this: they are sour losers. They can’t take it that they lost the last election that badly and now they are obstructing the Democratic agenda. They are unpatriotic for not supporting Obama’s “War against economic disaster”.
“If they (the Republicans) framed the argument about the ‘war on terror’ as ‘you’re either with us or against us’, the Democrats should do the same with the economy.”
OK: the Republican actions can be interpreted as being obstructionist when it comes to the holding up of Tammy Duckworth for Vet Affairs and other cabinet post because of things such as tax-related issues.
But when it comes to the ‘War against economic disaster’ argument, well I don’t buy that. I think the Republicans just have more testicular fortitude than the Democrats, full stop. They have the conviction to stick with their principles and what they believe in, because that’s what got them elected.
I think the Democrats should have done the same during the ‘war on terror’ debate — and they have nobody but themselves to blame, not George Bush, not Dick Cheney and certainly not the Republican Party.
Maybe if the Democrats stood up for themselves during the lead up to Iraq, American wouldn’t have entered that Iraq.
In the end, isn’t that what we want from our politicians, to have the steel spine and have the courage to stick with their beliefs and principles, especially if the wind is against them?
Dalitso Njolinjo lives in Northamptonshire, England. He is an aspiring writer and communications consultant. He writes that he “enjoys all things politics, sports and French. The ungodly trinity.” He also writes on his own blog.
17 Responses to “Don’t Blame The Republicans For Having Principles (Guest Voice)”
I began writing a comment in response, but it quickly grew to such a length that I decided to make it my TMV column this morning. Interesting and thought provoking piece you've written, I must say. Well done.
“They have the conviction to stick with their principles and what they believe in, because that’s what got them elected. “
Okay… maybe I'm irretrievably cynical, but I think that's hysterically funny!! Not just about Republicans, but politicians generally.
Also (specific to the GOP) — where were those bright, shiny economic principles during the spending org(ies) of recent years?
It isn't having a spine of steel when you only do it to the other party. I would have more respect for the GOP if they had stood up to former President Bush on his irresponsible spending and deficits. But now that they aren't in power they suddenly have 'found' their ideals. Similarly, they told Al Gore to stop being a sore loser and concede the election before a recount. But they want Norm Coleman to fight for years if need be to stop Al Franken from being seated thus denying Minnesotans their Constitutional right to representation.
Also, if you are going to oppose something then you should propose alternatives. Yet the GOP has yet to do it. Their 'budget' proposal was laughable. It was basically the same policies that got us into this mess and would likely make things a whole lot worse (spending freezes on social services is not a good idea in a recession).
The GOP needs to put up or shut up. They don't have spines of steel – if they did they would actually be able to stand up to Mr. Limbaugh – they are just sore losers who can't understand why people aren't buying their B.S. anymore.
“Maybe if the Democrats stood up for themselves during the lead up to Iraq, American wouldn’t have entered that Iraq. “
And how would that have happened? The Republicans had majorities in both houses of Congress and held the White House. Anytime the Democrats tried to make a stand – such as with judicial nominees – the Republicans threatened to get rid of the fillibuster in the Senate and thus remove their only real ability to influence debate.
I agree with the gist of the comments above. The statement “to have the steel spine and have the courage to stick with their beliefs and principles” is demonstrably wrong. The Republicans, at a time when they had control of both Houses and the executive branch (an unprecedented level of control thanks to 911) exercised virtually no fiscal responsibility. Fiscal responsibility is the absolute core of “their beliefs and principles”. Forfeit this component and all else is moot. Dalitso, your piece fails.
BTW – though an independent, I voted Republican almost exclusively right up to 2004, when appalled and perplexed by the runaway spending during the Bush term I voted for Kerry and other Democrats for the first time in my voting life – and I am 49. The Republicans lost their mandate precisely because Independents like myself realized that the Repubs had lost the spine and the courage to hold down government spending. Oh, and Irag was as bone-headed a strategy as bone-headed gets.
If you study political history, those who stubbornly stuck to their principals in the face of adversity often were unable to adjust to the challenges of the time. Just as economic conditions change, the response has to change. Just as the needs of a constituency change, the response has to change.
Merely stating that you believe in small government, spending cuts,deregulation, low taxes and a strong defense is not a governing strategy when we are facing the worst crisis since the Great Depression is not a solution. Any mindless idiot can mouth this ideology- that's not going to help working families who are losing their shirts in this economy.
But when it comes to the ‘War against economic disaster’ argument, well I don’t buy that. I think the Republicans just have more testicular fortitude than the Democrats, full stop. They have the conviction to stick with their principles and what they believe in, because that’s what got them elected.
Well, apart from the fact that fewer and fewer of them are getting elected, perhaps you could defend the GOP's recent budget proposal. Personally, that depressed the hell out of me. I expected so much more. I guess the long and the short of it is: “Testicular fortitude” without real world solutions just makes for, well, a useful prick.
“There are many men of principle in both parties in America, but there is no party of principle.” ~Alexis de Tocqueville
“Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule – and both commonly succeed, and are right.” ~H.L. Mencken
“Some men change their party for the sake of their principles; others their principles for the sake of their party.” ~Winston Churchill
“We hang the petty thieves and appoint (elect, in our case) the great ones to public office.” ~Aesop
The point of those quotes to this discussion? All this is nothing new, and it won't every really “Change” despite any “Hope”.
I think what it means to either be a “democrat” or a “republican” is a shifting concept. It is currently undergoing reconstruction. Out of this may be born a new party or four? That's what looks like is in our future.
While I agree with those who were disgusted with the GOP spending and rubber stamping of Bush's policies, and agree that this signifies a lack of principle then, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to criticize those who now do uphold the principles of fiscal responsibility.
Whether or not they refound their principles, or they're just acting on political expediency, doesn't really matter if they're the only ones who are voicing the right principles. And even on the issue of political expediency, what's wrong with getting the message that the voter's sent?
CS -
“Whether or not they refound their principles, or they're just acting on political expediency, doesn't really matter if they're the only ones who are voicing the right principles.”
Sorry, but I have to disagree. If indeed they are simply acting on political expediency, then they are untrustworthy hypocrites, who cannot be counted on to actually provide any fiscal responsibility at all.
They will either sell themselves to the current majority to get their pet projects funded, or once back in power, revert to their natural tendencies.
Certainly you are familiar with the parable of the scorpion and the frog?
“While I agree with those who were disgusted with the GOP spending and rubber stamping of Bush's policies, and agree that this signifies a lack of principle then, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to criticize those who now do uphold the principles of fiscal responsibility.”
But they aren't upholding the principles of fiscal responsibility. They want to continue the same policies that led to huge deficits and the current economic meltdown. Their 'budget' consisted of significant tax cuts and no way to account for the large decrease in revenue. That isn't fiscal responsibility – that's pandering to the base. There is the lovely saying of fool me once, shame of you but fool me twice and shame on me. The Republicans have fooled us many times by claiming to be the party of fiscal responsibility – yet the vast majority of our national debt was created under Republican Administrations. They've yet to show they can actually follow through. And until they provide reasonable ways to be fiscally responsible then all they are doing is pandering – showing showing adhearance to principles.
AR, the problem is that the 'they' is a heterogeneous group so you can't assess how trustworthy they are when some are, some are not. There has been a shift toward some of the more true fiscal responsible GOP House members being at the higher eschelons now, although it hasn't gone far enough (Boehner needs to go, and put Cantor in his place.)
I'm only talking about supporting their efforts to block things that are objectionable- why would I not support them in that effort if I agree with the opposition? If they then sell out, they'll hear from me on that too.
I think the voters need to make it clear to them that they will have our support only when they uphold the principles.
Jcavhs: Yeah, I guess they should be like the Dems who, instead of continuing the spending levels that led us into this mess have now instead spent ten times as much. That's MUCH more fiscally responsible.
CStanley, and yet under Democratic Presidents the economy does better and the national debt goes down. That sounds really good to me. A spending freeze during a recession? Cutting taxes for the wealthy? Repealing the economic stimulus bill? Doesn't sound so good to me, because it is basically what got us into this mess and what the voters in this country rejected in November.
We need to spend money as a government. GDP = Consumption + Investment + Government Spending + Net Exports. Consumption and investment are down because people are out of a job or scared about losing their job so they are saving rather than spending. In the long run that is good – we need more savings but right now it is worseing the economic problems. The only other way to counteract this is to have the government step in. And look what we're going to get – lots of improved infrastructure so that hopefully we won't have more bridges fall down like the 35W bridge in MN.
Jcavhs -
Less than 5% 9about 3%, actually) of the Porkulous bill went to infrastructure.
under Democratic Presidents the economy does better and the national debt goes down.
Not this time, baby: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gr…
[...] [...]