Posted on 02/06/2010 7:20:48 PM PST by Wanpeirui
Yes, 'Mugwump' is a rather pejorative term, and so I hate to use it--many of the people I would apply the term to are otherwise compatriots and even friends. Some are on my blogroll. And, yes, some of their concerns are legitimate. However, there is a danger to being a Mugwump and to Mugwumpery--a danger that should not be ignored. This danger is political wilderness.
There are two things conservatives need to keep in mind:
So, yes, let's kick the machine politicians out of Washington, regardless of which party they belong to. Let's start demanding more of our elected leaders. Let's roll back, as much as possible, all of the great harm that Barack Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress has inflicted on the US. At the same time, let's stop eating our own. Always keep in mind who the enemy is ... because if we forget that the real enemy is the Democratic party and worthless career politicians, and if we start feeding on our own, then we have made ourselves our worst enemy.
Hadn’t heard that. Seems appropriate.
My grandmother, God rest her soul, said a “mugwump” was someone who sat on a fence with their mug on one side and their wump on the other. That’s an old timey definition for a word that’s not often used anymore.
I love it!
in the end there will be a need to coalesce around a single conservative candidate and support him/her for the presidency in 2012. We cannot allow a reprise of 2000 or 2008, when many conservatives sat the election out or even supported the other guy simply because they were uncomfortable with the conservative candidate. Nor can we afford to have a modern-day Ross Perot.. . . and the unconstitutional campaign "finance reform" laws make it hard for a candidate to get traction. Which is why I think we should draft Palin as the most attractive new-face ex-governor on offer. Palin was, hands down, the most experienced candidate for an executive position of anyone on the R or D tickets in the last election.The perfect is the enemy of the best.
I agree with this post! There are some “Mugwumps” amongst “Conservatives” that take an “all or nothing” approach on every issue in a candidate. They will be ALONE if they go to such an extreme!
One observation/adjustment to the writers language, however. I agree, Conservatives will have to “coalesce” around one candidate come 2012 — BUT, that candidate MUST be Conservative! We DARE NOT substitute “Republican” for “Conservative.” No more Bushes, or McCains, or Doles. There are some candidates running who SHOULD be non-starters — and Conservatives ought to make that clear from the get-go.
It will take hard work and a long time from a PRINCIPLED leader who upholds the Constitution and stands up against the Progressivist agenda so thoroughly permeating Washington now. If our Republic stands ANY chance to peacefully be restored, a REAL Conservative is a must — NOT an option.
My understanding of the term involves choosing principles over party.
The original Mugwumps went against the radical republicans during the very beginnings of Reconstruction: The radical “Rs” were intent on punishing the South any way they could. If anything, my understanding of the group is that they were more prone to helping the Union to “heal” (hate the term, but there it is) rather than perpetuate division.
Principles over party. Hence, my much maligned handle. I still like it.
From what I can tell, your understanding of the origins of the term Mugwump is not correct. The term related to the rejection of Blaine’s candidacy in 1884. The Mugwumps were primarily against machine politics and business as usual. Blaine was as well—and had a track record to back it up. However, Blaine was also a product of his times, and had been an effective and skilled political operative on the national scene for over twenty years. (He authored of the 14th Amendment, for example). That he knew how to use power and make deals—even if it was for principles that the Mugwumps agreed with—made him tainted in their eyes.
The Mugwumps ended up despising his humanity and rejecting him, making him the issue because he was not pure enough—costing the GOP the 1884 election.
The truth is—and here is the nub of the matter—while it can be argued that Blaine was dishonest and imperfect, he was not any more dishonest and imperfect than his opponent, Grover Cleveland. Effectively, the Mugwumps were turning their backs on someone they were nearly 100% in agreement with and who had the ability and desire to carry through with the program they supported. At the same time, they were embracing another man, many of whose policies they disagreed with, because he was “clean”, when in reality he was no more cleaner than Blaine.
This was perverse. The modern equivalent is how Jimmy Carter rejected allies because they were not democratic enough, and then turned around and coddled dictators; or how anti-war demonstrators in 1968 threw Humphrey under the bus because of his association with LBJ, thus making Nixon president in what turned out to be a squeaker of an election.
While I think the sound of the word “mugwump” is cool, I do not think it is possible to give it a good meaning.
After some light review, I agree with part of what you said. My understanding is that Blaine was accused of corruption, and that did indeed cost the GOP the 1884 election, in New York, at least.
But I believe it was opposition to the spoils system, and their frustration at not being able to make political inroads because of it that made the Mugwumps who and what they were.
I certainly don’t dispute the fact that no politician is “pure”; I’ve spent too much time too close to politicians. It’s the filthiest business on the planet IMO.
I also believe the Mugwumps were *classic* liberals in the sense that they believed in individual merit and self-reliance. Most of them were of the upper middle to upper “old money” classes of the day, and were reviled for their so-called elitism.
Even Wikipedia mentions that the Mugwumps were disliked by the Liberals of the early to mid-twentieth century because of their bent towards capitalism,
My choice of Mugwump as a screen name stems more from the Mark Twain quote on my profile page than anything else. Clemens wrote more extensively on the subject in his autobiography, and it was his opinion — rightly or wrongly — that he was only voting his conscience, which is the way I approach any political issue.
Then, of course, there is the notion that if the Mugwumps were Dems that helped elect a Republican, the term probably wouldn’t be as maligned as it was, and apparently still is, in our circles.
So, yes, I concede the point on their error in rejecting Blaine, but I also believe it was an honest mistake. The GOP was split in the early 1800s much as it is today. (My own conscience wouldn’t let me vote for anyone but McCain because the alternative was, and is, too horrible to contemplate BTW.)
At any rate THANKS for your well thought out and reasonable post. As my profile page says, that’s the reason I’m here.
Yeah, I still like Mugwump as a handle, but as Dennis miller says, “...that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.
I am by no means an expert on the subject on politics in the 1880s—though if I had time and the means I would certainly do research in the subject. I actually have great respect for Twain and other Mugwumps of the era, such as Nast. I think they had the best of intentions. However, in the end they ended up exiling themselves rather than having the influence and impact they so desired to have. I see a similar trend in politics today at both ends of the political spectrum. Of course, I rejoice in the idea that many on the left are engaging in their own brand of Mugwumpery, while at the same time I see this attitude as being counterproductive on the right.
It’s still a cool-sounding handle, though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.