Replies

Heh, you good folks!

I've been watching your frustrations over the Senate/ Judges deal, and I appreciate and join the screams.

Thought, though, that I'd give a bump to the idea that it ain't over yet. Many, many mistakes have been made, but we must appreciate that the entire situation has been favorable to the Dims' strategy. Ted Kennedy is immune from public opinion, and likely considers killing the President's judicial nominations as his twilight victory. Something to think about, that, if we were to compare it to the last, twilight-of-the-career feats of Clay and Webster to hold together the Union. Kennedy's plan is quite the opposite, of course. It's a malicious legacy, and I can only hope history will recognize it for what it is. (Doubtful.)

As for the Republicans, there is an historical precedent we may mind here. The RINO defection is not unprecedented, and by comparision to other times it is a mild one. When parties are amidst a shift in philosophy and/or political fortunes, there come severe divisions that rip between the old and the new directions. Therefrom come reaction and counter-reaction, and, at the most, defection and re-alignment. The Democrats most recently went through this during the late 1990s. In that case, the old won out, with the party's old school leftists prevailing. That is why the Democratic Party is today the party of reaction.

The Republican Party just now has no such rift. While frustrating and offensive, this current display is protest, not rebellion. Were the RINOs in any serious play, their rhetoric would be that of revolution, and not this weak, mild tone of "conciliation" (be that with the Democratic left). The RINOs have not challenged the party's philosophy; they have challenged, instead, the party's methods to it. That is hardly a contest. It is a bump, surely, but not a true challenge.

During the period I have most closely studied, the TR and Taft presidencies, there were two simultaneous rebellions in the Republican party, only one of which led to a serious shift in the party. The first, a quick rebellion in the House of Representatives against the Speaker in 1909-1910, was in its general support confined to the particular fight with the Speaker over House rules. When the battle was over -- and it was divisive and infuriating to party loyalists -- it was over. During the fight the dissenters were appropriately called "insurgents." When the fight was over, most returned to the party fold.

The more serious event came when those Republican insurgents who fought the Speaker turned their revolt into a general attack upon the party's philosophy and leadership. They aligned themselves with a few like-minded Republican Senators. At this point they dropped the name, "insurgent" and adopted the label "progressive." Doing it they turned the fight from one of procedure (over House rules) to philosophy, and to the very nature and meaning of the Republican party.

It's a long story, and its conclusion comes in the 1912 election, during which the Republican party sets its path for the 20th century under Taft's leadership. It meant that the Republican party would become a minority party for six-eight years, but it secured the party's ideas. Progressivism became democratic, and, ultimately, the New Deal. Without getting into the larger struggle between progressivism and conservatism, I bother you with this to say that what is going on in the Senate today is not on the level of true division and realignment. The RINOs have held their little revolt, and I don't see it going any further.

McCain thinks himself a Theodore Roosevelt. He ain't no TR. He's more of a Bob La Follette, the insurgent/progressive leader in the Senate of 1909/1910, and hardly that. Even La Follette refused to "read himself out" of the Republican party during Roosevelt's 1912 bolt. And even Roosevelt came crawling back a few years after that. While today's Senate "insurgency" may have a basis in ideas, it is neither empowered nor operative by ideas. The fight for ideas is capitulated in the method, which means the ideas don't matter. That is to say that the party will hold, and it will prevail over Kennedy's vile game.

Hope that makes sense. Gonna post-n-run, as I have a concert to git to this evening. I've been thinking this through, and posting this likely helps me more than you... I do hope all are well.

Regards,

Michael

Hi nicollo! I sure hope it isn't over yet...Appreciate your thoughts..

I just love history...American history...the colonial period & Rev. War...

So, it was wonderful to be stuck somewhere yesterday a.m....with the tv tuned to the Today show, Katie Couric, and ....David McCullough talking about his new book:1776

He provided a wonderful quote which is appropriate for the events of the week, and Memorial Day coming up...

McCullough said that with all the fine ideas produced in Philadelphia and so forth that summer, it was the soldier in the field...in Boston, New York, Long Island, and so forth who secured those ideas

Bravo Mr. McCullough!!

Now the cold which attacked me last weekend is back, and seeing Voinovich cry like a baby on the Senate floor didn't help..What a disgrace!

Sniffling off to bed...

As for the Republicans, there is an historical precedent we may mind here. The RINO defection is not unprecedented, and by comparision to other times it is a mild one. When parties are amidst a shift in philosophy and/or political fortunes, there come severe divisions that rip between the old and the new directions. Therefrom come reaction and counter-reaction, and, at the most, defection and re-alignment"

Great historical perspective. I'm not much of a studied historian, but earlier today, I was reminded of the Senate in my own life and wrote:

"A small minority of Senators has been acting this way for a great many years... possibly since the founding of our Republic, but I'm not versed enough to say that. The actors have changed, but the dynamics of this "middle ground" is exactly as it has been for a long, long time. For example, during the days of the "yellow Dogs" that middle ground was comprised solely of Democrats who could be split from their leadership on some issues. Prior to that, there were other similar coalitions of these "middle ground" power brokers. Now, for the first time in MY lifetime, that middle ground is comprised largely of R's ... (RINOs) ... it is not a new situation in Senate history - but it is unique FOR US.

"At least NOW we are finally getting toward a majority of representatives who (hopefully) have more respect for the Founders of our Country than has been the case for nearly a century."

It is great to see your post, and CT's, regarding the history of these periods of time, and to be reminded of how these changes occur. It seems that there is always the "mushy middle" problem - and the challenge is always to pull it closer to the position you believe Right.