The tragedy of partisanship
When I saw this article in yesterday's Washington Post, I immediately thought of Jonathan. I wish I could remember the specifics of his encounters with Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) while working on the Hill, but the one thing I do remember is he spoke of him in a very positive light. Positive enough that, though I was previously unfamiliar with the Rhode Island Senator, I have never since forgotten his name. (Though I suppose one could argue it's hard to forget a name like Lincoln Chafee. But I digress.)
Apparently, Chafee is finding it difficult to woo, of all things, Republican support in his largely Democratic state. And listen to his reasoning: "They support the president on everything."
Yes, Chafee is one of those Republicans bold enough not to blindly follow the party line, and apparently it's costing him. He had the guts to oppose the Iraq war and domestic wiretapping because he believes in conservative values. Yes, not Republican values; conservative values.
You remember conservatism, right? That old, simple belief that too much government was a bad thing. That belief that the Republican party used to espouse. Well, guess what, sports fans: the current incarnation of the Republican party is far from conservative. The government's power has inflated massively since 2000. And "conservatives" have let it. Hell, they've supported it. And meanwhile, quite ironically, it looks like liberals, who by definition should favor larger government, are going to be the ones that have to reign in the sprawling tendrils of executive power that those of us with eyes see sneaking in through our windows and under our doors.
But again, I digress. My point is, the Republican party is not the place for a true conservative. Chafee likely knows this. But he probably also knows it's the only place where true conservatives can hope to have a shot at winning. That is the tragedy of the two-party system. And the tragedy of partisanship is that "maverick" Senators like Lincoln Chafee, who simply dare to look closer at each issue and make a decision based on their personal values and beliefs, lose out as a result. And maybe so do we.
Song lyric of the day:
"Some things that were said
Nothing's gonna change that
Some things you can't explain
Like why we always play to conventional wisdom
In a world that's just so unconventional"
- Built to Spill, Conventional Wisdom
Apparently, Chafee is finding it difficult to woo, of all things, Republican support in his largely Democratic state. And listen to his reasoning: "They support the president on everything."
Yes, Chafee is one of those Republicans bold enough not to blindly follow the party line, and apparently it's costing him. He had the guts to oppose the Iraq war and domestic wiretapping because he believes in conservative values. Yes, not Republican values; conservative values.
You remember conservatism, right? That old, simple belief that too much government was a bad thing. That belief that the Republican party used to espouse. Well, guess what, sports fans: the current incarnation of the Republican party is far from conservative. The government's power has inflated massively since 2000. And "conservatives" have let it. Hell, they've supported it. And meanwhile, quite ironically, it looks like liberals, who by definition should favor larger government, are going to be the ones that have to reign in the sprawling tendrils of executive power that those of us with eyes see sneaking in through our windows and under our doors.
But again, I digress. My point is, the Republican party is not the place for a true conservative. Chafee likely knows this. But he probably also knows it's the only place where true conservatives can hope to have a shot at winning. That is the tragedy of the two-party system. And the tragedy of partisanship is that "maverick" Senators like Lincoln Chafee, who simply dare to look closer at each issue and make a decision based on their personal values and beliefs, lose out as a result. And maybe so do we.
Song lyric of the day:
"Some things that were said
Nothing's gonna change that
Some things you can't explain
Like why we always play to conventional wisdom
In a world that's just so unconventional"
- Built to Spill, Conventional Wisdom
8 Comments:
I'm kind of torn. On a personal level, I feel for Chafee. As someone who disagrees with conventional party wisdom on a few hot button issues, I can totally sympathize with his dillemma. And I had forgotten about Jonathan's descriptions about how cool Chafee was. He seems like a truly decent fellow.
On a political level, though, I have to hope he goes down. Here's why. As long as Congress is Republican-led, it will not reign in President Bush. Take the NSA scandal. Even when Bush's popularity is at rock bottom and many Republicans are questioning the NSA program...it still looks like the Republican-led Congress is going to whitewash it and let it continue. And even if, individually, Chafee will vote moderate on many issues - he's still a vote to have Bill Frist be majority leader. And as long as Frist & Co is leading the Senate (and the same thing is going on in the House), Bush will have another 2 years to run wild. The only check on his power would be a Democrat-controlled Congress.
So, I'm sad to say, I hope Chafee does go down. It's better to have a Democrat-controlled Congress than a Republican-controlled Congress with a few admirable moderate voices. That's politics.
As for the two-party system....I agree with everything you say. But I also look at how places like Italy are paralyzed when there's no majority party. (Iraq, too....although they've got a whole host of other problems, of course). I'm not sure parliamentary democracy is the best system for getting things done. Then again, sometimes, getting nothing done is better than getting something bad done. I just don't know.
I basically agree with you. If we're going to curb the massive expansion of executive power, we'll have to break some good eggs along the way. I'm not a huge fan of the Democratic party anymore, but the current incarnation of the Republican party makes the Dems a far better alternative. At this point, I'd rather have a party that stands for nothing than a party that stands for such the wrong thing.
Of course, Chaffee hasn't made too many friends among the Republican right in RI - you know, the kind of people who vote in primaries. So he might very well lose his primary race to some guy named Steve Laffey. If that happens, don't be surprised to see Chaffee run - and win - as an independent...
Hey Jeff, you coming up to play golf in May? Mike never gave me an answer for you. He's such a goober
A good point Jeff - and it seems to me at this point, the more independents the better. Without having a party line to tow (is it "tow" or "toe"? I've always been confused about that, as I've seen both) I think Congresspeople would be more inclined to more carefully consider the issues.
Of course, with all this ranting about partisanship, I should mention that I generally agree with Madison's contention that a two-party system is inevitable in a republic like ours. But what I think is avoidable (and desirably so) is "Hammers" who enforce the partisan mentality.
And "other white meat", for some reason your comment reminds me of a television quote from my youth: "Hey Beavis, I just thought of something: 'goober' spelled backwards is 'booger'."
haha
I don't know... when in May is it again? If it's that first or second weekend I probably could...
May 20th
Post a Comment
<< Home