"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty."
-George Washington (The REAL George W.)
This is what you get when you support the party instead of ideas.
Great Post.
"The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty." -George Washington (The REAL George W.)
This is what you get when you support the party instead of ideas. (-- Pan Yan)
The "Party" is supposed to BE ideas. It's supposed to be a platform, a framework, a collection of common denominators -- a philosophy! I like the philosophy that Jim outlines in his essay.
My very politically wise and prophetic dad has often told me, "I don't vote for the man, I vote for the Republican." He's never thought much of people who say, "I vote for the man, not the party." His point is that an agreed-upon philosophy, a "party," can be identified and therefore trusted, whereas the philosophy of an individual man is pretty vague and elastic. If you're voting for the man you really don't know what you're voting for. If you're voting for the party, Republican or Democrat, you should know what you're voting for.
It seems like every country I read about where voters split between three or more major parties, there's constant strife and horrible lack of direction; the more parties, the worse the strife. A two-party system is better.
In a way, that's why Jim Robinson is SO RIGHT at the core of his essay, that it's bad to let as left-headed a thinker as Giuliani represent the Republican party. Arnold is a good lesson; then again, California has become dominated by east-coast Liberals (San Francisco always was an East Coast town!). If we want to make the best of the two-party system, which is better than a multiple-party system, we need to beware of the erosion of the Party Platform.
Local elections and PRIMARIES are where Republicans need to do their real work. I was extremely disgusted by the low turnout in the special elections that Arnold held. Republicans let him down by not going in in droves to vote for some of the propositions he had on the ballot that, if passed, would have put begun some serious hairline cracks in the edificies of liberalism in the state and started the process of killing them back. In my opinion, that one can't be blamed on the Liberals.
California is one thing; a presidential administration to the United States of America, with all its impact on every arm of government -- to have a well-intentioned bubblehead who endorses the validity of bogus issues such as global warming environmentlism and normalizing homosexuality, in such a powerful postion for a potential eight years -- all I can say is I hope Republicans are smart enough to use the primaries to ensure that he doesn't get nominated.
*sigh*
For what it's worth, I don't think Hillary will get the nomination and if she does, she'll sink like a stone. We could put anyone up against her and win.