With the winter meeting of the Republican National Committee coming up, RNC Vice Chairman Jim Bopp has come out with a proposal to pass a resolution establishing a "purity test" for Republican candidates in 2010, rather like the "loyalty oath" idea which was floated a few years ago. The plan would be to get all Republican candidates to sign off on a list of 10 positions, and if they disagreed with three or more of the items they would then be denied any support and funding from the RNC and other party organizations.
While I can safely say that I'd probably pass the test, I find the entire concept deeply distasteful. It's so un-Republican that it makes me angry to think that we've got people in the party leadership who would seriously advocate it. It reflects so badly on the party that supporting it should be more of a disqualification for holding office than disagreeing with its various positions would be.
Obviously this idea originated in the dissatisfaction which many people felt with the failed campaign of moderate Republican Dede Scozzafava. The problem with this is that Scozzafava was selected by her state's county party chairs who are part of the structure that produces the RNC and she was approved by the RNC. So this proposal is essentially saying that the RNC doesn't trust its self or its own people to pick candidates responsibly. And the double irony is that based on her actual views rather than various misrepresenations, Scozzafava might actually pass this test, and if they had just held a party primary and let the GOP rank and file pick her the entire problem would have been avoided.
This is the kind of ideologically based litmus test which makes the party look foolish and which has historically been more characteristic of the Democrats than of Republicans. Traditionally Republicans have been united by broad core values like a belief in individual liberty and limited government rather than specific issues of policy. The membership has been called a "big tent" for a reason. Bopp apparently wants to replace that tent with a tiny little coffin.
Here are the proposed items which candidates would have to sign off on:
1. We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;2. We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care;
3. We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
4. We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
5. We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave - it's refreshing to see you bash the Republicans...and that behooves me to show that I can bash the Dems with equal sincerity. That's not going to be easy.
Kudos on your article!
2 - CurtisJasper
"Traditionally Republicans have been united by broad core values like a belief in individual liberty"
Sorry but those ages are long past. Fiscal conservatism is enjoying a brief revival in the party as a reaction to the Democrats' apparent lack of fisal responsibility. However, it is fundamentally clear that the GOP has and will continue its gradual decline into a party of religious zealots and End-of-Days types. Fiscally conservative and socially tolerant Republicans are simply not reproducing quickly enough to keep up with the zombies of their party.
3 - Christine
Dave, I heard about this and I (a conservative) wouldn't even pass!! What the heck?????
4 - roger nowosielski
"and that behooves me to show that I can bash the Dems with equal sincerity. That's not going to be easy."
Why shouldn't it be easy, Glenn? You do seem to attribute a far greater integrity to the Dems and the politicians generally than they actually deserve.
Happy Thanksgiving, BTW.
5 - Dave Nalle
Curtis, if you read these 10 ill-conceived purity test items, you'll note that they don't take an extremely religious conservative, end-of-days perspective.
The one that addresses abortion takes a moderate position of only opposing federal funding and the one that supports the DOMA, stupid though it is, is supporting the federal version which says nothing negative about legal gay unions, only about the use of the word marriage.
So, in fact, the two religiously oriented elements in the proposal are extremely weak, and the rest are mostly about fiscal conservatism and individual liberty except for the one pro-war item which is in the hawkish tradition of one element of the GOP.
So you're misreading the intent of these test items, because they don't represent a religiously extreme perspective. Though that makes the idea no less stupid.
Dave
6 - Baronius
If I were a Republican candidate, I could sign off on the list, but why would I? A new Contract with America would be a good idea, but this list isn't it. It tries to look like a list of support's, but it has seven oppose's.
Let's be realistic. The Democrats aren't going to be running on their record in 2010 unless their record looks a lot better by then. They're going to be running against the "Party of No". This list would only make it easier for them. In fact, it's hard not to view this list as a naysayer's pledge.
There's an old line, something to the effect that any organization's actions can best be understood by assuming it's run by a secret cabal seeking to destroy it. That's the only reason the GOP would come up with this list.
7 - Zedd
Dave,
Perhaps you are still stuck on the Republican Party of your youth but sober up, this is a VERY Republican proposal. Nothing but.
I came to age at the time when the Reps started loosing their minds, bandwagoning every shallow idea as long as it made the masses feel warm and fuzzy without regard as to how it would affect the country long term. It that time the pocket pen protector types had been so frightened by the hippies of the previous decades that they were crazed with the idea of bringing America back. The problem was that America was never right or good (people/society rarely are)so the premise was a mess. The Reps became a party of fantasy, self delusion and denial. Skip a generation and you have George Bush, Rush, Bobby Jindal and Sara Palin. This proposal is VERY Republican. Stupid, badly conceived, dangerous, controlling, Utopian and fantasy driven. Wake up Dave. Going along makes you part of the problem.
Uhmmmm I thought you weren't a Republican? Happy Thanksgiving Bud!
8 - roger nowosielski
As usual, you demonstrate sober thinking, Zedd.
Happy Thanksgiving to you.
9 - Jet Gardner
"Every loyal Repubican in Congress is charged with only one important and sacred duty; To make absolutely sure that this president accomplishes little or nothing during this term."
10 - Dave Nalle
Zedd, that's the point, isn't it? At a time when the GOP ought to be going back to the broad principles of my youth, it's considering this idiocy instead. That's why I wrote the article, to point out that this is more of the same bad management.
Dave
11 - Silas Kain
So true, Dave. The Republican Party has gotten as stupid as the 43rd President. Happy Thanksgiving, sir.
12 - Baronius
Jet, considering the President's agenda, that's not a bad goal. But the GOP has got to aim higher and actually list the things they want to do.
13 - zingzing
baronius, considering that the republicans seem to think that the president's agenda is socialism and killing grandma, i'm not sure you've got your priorities (or reality) straight.
14 - Baronius
Zing, you disagree with the GOP's priorities, and I agree with them. None of that changes the fact that a bad or negative articulation of Republican principles would hurt the party in 2010.
15 - zingzing
i'm not sure you could get 10 reps in a room and get them to agree on what their priorities are. and although i do agree with you, it does seem to me that republican principles are primarily negative, so it's just about the only way to articulate them.
16 - Vagif Verdi
Blame shifting right in the assertion #1. Obama's stimulus bill ? The one that was proposed by Republican president and ratified by republican Senate a YEAR before Obama's presidency ?
17 - Baronius
Zing, three thoughts come to mind.
- The Republican principles are negative, in the same sense that the Bill of Rights is negative. They revolve around restricting government.
- When you've got as little power as the Republican Party has today, you're not going to make your mark by creating good policies, but by blocking bad ones. President Obama always says that if there's a better way of solving a problem, he wants to hear about it, but then he lets the House leadership write the legislation. The Republicans have no say.
- That being said, for the next election cycle the GOP has to articulate the things it wants to do. I keep going back to the Contract with America, which was just about the opposite of this "purity test". Term limits, welfare reform, tort reform, line-item veto: those were positive goals, and they had appeal. That's the kind of list the GOP leadership should be making.
18 - Cannonshop
#16 a bill that, had Obama been inclined to walk his campaign talk, he would have rightly vetoed. (then again, he proved his loyalties when he shilled alongside McCain on the earlier multibillion dollar no-oversight bailout of rich financial supporters of both parties.)
19 - Zedd
- The Republican principles are negative, in the same sense that the Bill of Rights is negative. They revolve around restricting government.
Being negative does not make your point or idea more relevant. It doesn't bring your beef to the level of the Bill of Rights. Protesting stupidly for stupid reasons against a stupid idea just makes you an idiot. It certainly does not transform you into a great mind like Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson.... Just an idiot with a stupid opinion.
President Obama always says that if there's a better way of solving a problem, he wants to hear about it, but then he lets the House leadership write the legislation. The Republicans have no say.
Are you saying that the Republicans are being prevented from voicing solutions because 1)they are small and 2) the democrats wont let them? Seriously? Or you don't know why they wont come up with solutions but you have to say something because you believe it's unAmerican or Republican to say "I don't know".
Term limits, welfare reform, tort reform, line-item veto: those were positive goals, and they had appeal. That's the kind of list the GOP leadership should be making.
What about addressing real issues instead of making something up that has appeal. Just a thought.
20 - Dave Nalle
Blame shifting right in the assertion #1. Obama's stimulus bill ? The one that was proposed by Republican president and ratified by republican Senate a YEAR before Obama's presidency ?
You're talking about the TARP bill, which is not at all the same thing as the first Stimulus bill. Almost all Republicans voted against the Stimulus bill in both the house and senate.
President Obama always says that if there's a better way of solving a problem, he wants to hear about it, but then he lets the House leadership write the legislation.
And they let it be written by their favorite lobbyists. It's the Democrat way.
Dave
21 - Jet Gardner
I think it's amusing that the party that's out of power always starts screaming term limits...
We'll see that before the line-item veto.
By the way giving people rights is not a negative. Giving people rights at the cost of other's rights is bullshit and imaginary. Black ex-slaves couldn't vote for almost 50 years using that assinine tripe.
That's the same argument they used for prohibition wasn't it?
22 - Jet Gardner
Dave forgot to close an HTML??? IT'S THE BIG ONE 'LIZBETH-I'M COMIN' FOR YA HONEY!
23 - Glenn Contrarian
Roger -
Why shouldn't it be easy, Glenn? You do seem to attribute a far greater integrity to the Dems and the politicians generally than they actually deserve.
And that would seem pretty naive on its face, wouldn't it?
BUT if you look at the lists of political scandals since the 70's, significantly more Republicans were not only involved in significantly more scandals, but in scandals that were MUCH more illegal than those that involved Democrats...and this was regardless of whether the Republicans were in the minority or in the majority! Ponder on the implications of that - and I heartily encourage you to research my claim.
To go back to the crux of your statement, I DO feel that the Democrats generally do have more integrity than the Republicans...and I rely on forty years' worth of scandals for proof of my claim.
And while such a claim is certainly not PC, is it really so preposterous? For not only do we see the statistics, but we also know that people tend to gravitate towards the political party that most closely suits their own personal beliefs...and you already know that many Republicans believe that:
- government IS the problem,
- the black helicopters are on their way,
- the president is an illegal alien,
- and said illegal alien has a deep-seated hatred of white people,
- and said illegal alien racist is a socialist who pals around with terrorists.
You know that the Republican party is the party of 'me-my-mine' - MY gun, MY taxes, MY way or the highway - and is it really such a stretch to think that those who feel this way might have a little less integrity than those who are a bit more altruistic in their outlook?
24 - Baronius
"Being negative does not make your point or idea more relevant."
True.
"I think it's amusing that the party that's out of power always starts screaming term limits."
I think they're a dumb idea, myself. They're an example of the kind of thing that the Republicans should be proposing. Education reform, oil independence, missile defense, tax code simplification, and transparency at the Federal Reserve are all positive items that don't overlap with the President's current agenda. If you want to put forward a health-care proposal, keeping in mind that some of the ideas may have been resolved in 2010, you've got the Mackey plan as a model. There are also the old workhorses of the Republican agenda, like private Social Security accounts and a balanced budget amendment. They could easily come up with a sellable 10-point plan.
25 - roger nowosielski
"You know that the Republican party is the party of 'me-my-mine' - MY gun, MY taxes, MY way or the highway."
If this is even partly true, Glenn, as a characterization of the Republican party, then I definitely agree with you.