From "Big Tent" To Gated Community

By Steve Hynd

It's rare for me to agree with Kathleen Parker. Even her criticism of Sarah Palin as "out of her league" didn't go far enough - Parker should have said "out of her mind". But when it comes to the GOP's new "purity test", she isn't entirely wrong.

some conservative members of the party have come up with a list of principles they want future candidates to agree to or forfeit backing by the Republican National Committee.

The so-called purity test is a 10-point checklist -- a suicide pact, really -- of alleged Republican positions. Anyone hoping to play on Team GOP would have to sign off on eight of the 10 -- through their voting records, public statements or a questionnaire. The test will be put up for consideration before the Republican National Committee when it meets early next year in Hawaii.

...James Bopp Jr., chief sponsor of the resolution and a committee member from Indiana, has said that "the problem is that many conservatives have lost trust in the conservative credentials of the Republican Party."

Actually, no, the problem is that many conservatives have lost faith in the ability of Republican leaders to think. The resolutions aren't so much statements of principle as dogmatic responses to complex issues that may, occasionally, require more than a Sharpie check in a little square.

...Each of Bopp's bullets is so overly broad and general that no thoughtful person could endorse it in good conscience. Some are so simplistic as to be meaningless. As just one example: "We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges." What does that mean? Do we support all troop surges no matter what other considerations might be taken into account? Do we take nothing else into account? Does disagreement mean one doesn't support victory?

Whatever the intent of the authors, the message is clear: Thinking people need not apply.

I say "entirely" because although Parker has a point, there's also an entirely opportunistic wing of the Republican party that thinks about this stuff a whole lot too much. These are the people who say they're neoconservative and in the next breathe say they support Palin's religiously-founded political fundementalism. The two are incompatible in large part, sharing only a zeal for American exceptionalism and hegemony while being worlds apart on domestic social issues.

People who espouse both, like those promoting this purity test, are cynically intending to appeal to the non-thinkers among the GOP base and are thinking entirely too much about how to do so without ever letting intellectual integrity enter the picture. They'd rather be the undisputed rulers of a small gated community than embrace the "big tent" that Buckley or Kirk envisioned.

But, at the end of the day, Parker's right: these opportunists are intent on creating a suicide pact for the Republicans as a nationally representative party. Thinking conservatives should let them do just that, and form their own third party. They could call it, as so many do elsewhere, simply The Conservative Party.

Comments

[Tina]

for your reading pleasure :)

Mary Matalin Defends the GOP's 'Purity Test'

[Ron Beasley]

This is the dollar quote from the Parker piece:
"Actually, no, the problem is that many conservatives have lost faith in the ability of Republican leaders to think. The resolutions aren't so much statements of principle as dogmatic responses to complex issues that may, occasionally, require more than a Sharpie check in a little square."
They can thank the Bush/Cheney cabal for this. They didn't want Republican "lawmakers" who could think only ones that would jump through hoops. The result is morons like McConnell and Boehner in leadership postions.

[Spidergrackle]

You know, the GOP leadership needs to come up with their own shtick: this was all done by another group of guys 40 years ago...