—

Well spoken. This was perhaps the most well-reasoned and thought-provoking essay I have read, in regards to fostering the two-party system.

I do have this contention, though. Marginalizing the extremists is, indeed, the efficient road to the White House, as well as the various Governances in the US. However, over-marginalizing the extremists of any given party will eventually lead to the stagnation of the brain pool. From whence shall a party find it’s bold, new ideas when the extremists are barred from competing in the arena of ideas? Who can say, at this stage, what the next Emancipation, the next Sufferage, or the next Civil RightsMovement will be? Does it lie in the direction of nationalised health care? Is it the legalization of currently controlled substances? Perhaps it is something that isn’t even on the current political radar.

I am not in favour of handing the Conservative reigns over to the Reverend Fallwell, nor do I advocate throwing the Liberal lot in with eco-revolutionaries who dress in clothing made of rocks, after having read The Secret Life of Plants. I only say that marginalisation must be approached with caution. Those on the receiving end will think it bad form, and there is the very real possibility that, even though extreme, they may be extremely right.
Mr. E. | Email | Homepage | 10.26.03 – 6:32 am | #

At the very least I would suppose that you have a doctorate in either philosophy or history and are a published political writer. Thanks for breaking the no politics rule. Your insights and predictions are
most thought provoking.

I shall read you often.
jane m | Email | Homepage | 10.26.03 – 5:19 pm | #

To join the chorus, excellent piece!

My view is that the Democrats are on teh permanent decline because they no longer can purge the fanatic left from their ranks – the reason for this being that to a large extent the fanatic left has gained ascendency in the innermost areas of the Democratic Party. The moderate left and center/left can leave the Party, but they cannot purge the Party and take it over. Given that the fanatic left has no more chance than the fanatic right of gaining majority political power, this means the end of the Democrats and the eventual emergence of a successor Party which excludes the fanatic left which will then, in turn, slowly be erroded from any political power.

I take slight issue with your contention that the GOP still has some fanatic right to be purged, however; in my view, with the de-facto explusion of Pat Buchanan from the party, the fanatic right is gone from the GOP, never to return. Religious conservatives (I’m one of them, but of the Catholic variety…this means no bad suits and a tender affection for philosophy) there are still aplenty in the GOP – but as what is today called religious conservatives was once upon a time what founded the United States and carried it through Civil War, emancipation and the Progressive Era, I don’t think we’re any threat to anyone.
Mark Noonan | Email | Homepage | 10.26.03 – 10:54 pm | #

MD: well done. One of the few commentaries I’ve seen that has remarked upon the effects of unchallenged power for either party….
Casey Tompkins | Email | Homepage | 10.26.03 – 10:23 pm | #

I could use a good Democrat right now on the other end of the stage to keep my Republicans in line. But, you are correct. Moderation is key.
Jason Newcomb | Email | Homepage | 10.26.03 – 9:48 pm | #

Interesting piece. If I may abuse the idea by focusing on a single issue, rather than party politics: In my opinion, the importance of the procedural ban is to shift consensus, not to define it. But I agree that its opponents have made a strategical error.

Perhaps this is just my twisted view of history, but I seem to recall that the pro-choice leadership made a decision to abandon the common-ground movement in the 1990s. I’m not sure if they did this to maintain ideological purity or because they thought they were in a position of political strength, but it seems to have already cost them.
James Nightshade | Email | Homepage | 10.27.03 – 1:07 am | #

A belated comment, coming at this from an unabashed partisan on the left.

You suggest that the Republicans have, by and large, done a
good job isolating their more radical elements. I’d be
interested to know how you draw that conclusion; to my own admittedly partisan eyes, the trend looks like it’s going the other way. For example, House majority leader Tom DeLay and the
Bush team in the White House are working together to href=”http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/robison/1961278″>push
redistricting plans which seem designed to marginalize even
moderate Republicans (the House leadership having long since href=”http://www.hillnews.com/news/102203/earmarks.aspx”>abandoned any
pretense of comity toward Democrats). And Senatorial Republicans
of a more moderate stripe — Olympia Snowe and George Voinovich, for
example — find themselves on the receiving ends of href=”http://www.portlandphoenix.com/features/postcard/documents/02877354.asp”>pressure
campaigns from the Club for Growth, whose stated agenda is “to
support conservative tax-cutting candidates to challenge moderate
Republicans in primaries.” This group has received a href=”http://www.rollcall.com/pub/48_47/news/156-1.html”>contribution
from DeLay, the man who seems right now to be running the House, much to the discomfort of moderate Republicans in his own chamber.

Beyond that electioneering, it’s also not hard to find
examples of the national Republican leadership — the folks who are
actually running the government on a day to day basis — doing things
that look pretty radical to me. Consider for example:

… Bush’s nomination of an appellate judge who, on top of her href=”http://www.therightchristians.org/archives/000226.html”>other
controversial views has publicly href=”http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/scotus/la-na-brown23oct23,1,6609181.story?coll=la-news-politics-supreme_court”>opined
that state governments have the right to legislate religion.

… the failure, so far, to discharge or seriously discipline
Gen. Jerry Boykin, now in charge of the search for Osama bin Laden,
for public comments which, among other things, said a Muslim opponent
at arms was worshipping an idol, and described a black smudge on a
photo taken over Mogadishu as a demonic manifestation.

… complaints not only from political opponents, but editors of
major scientific journals that scientific advisory panels are href=”http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31318-2003Aug7?language=printer”>being
stacked
to produce bogus science which fits a political agenda — including
false claims on government web sites that breast cancer is somehow
linked to abortion, and a change in the evaluation criteria for
abstinence-only sex education programs which lets them get funded
despite the embarassing fact that they
Aloysius Verklempt | Email | Homepage | 11.03.03 – 7:19 am | #

Sigh… I fought Haloscan, and Haloscan won. To finish the bulk of it…

… complaints not only from political opponents, but editors of
major scientific journals that scientific advisory panels are being

stacked
to produce bogus science which fits a political agenda — including
false claims on government web sites that breast cancer is somehow
linked to abortion, and a change in the evaluation criteria for
abstinence-only sex education programs which lets them get funded
despite the embarassing fact that they don’t

actually reduce VD or teen pregnancy.

… Bush’s own publicly

expressed doubts about the theory of evolution (a position common
enough in Congress that I’ve heard one prominent biologist talk about
avoiding “the e-word” in Congressional testimony).

All of this, of course, is in addition to a legislative
program which includes not just the abortion bill, but elements
ranging from school vouchers to Bush’s “faith-based” social programs
which are acknowledged as part of the program of the Christian
Right.

In short, I think there’s room for dispute here about who’s
marginalizing who…
Aloysius Verklempt | Email | Homepage | 11.03.03 – 7:25 am | #

Ummm… let’s try that again.

A belated comment, coming at this from an unabashed partisan on the left.

You suggest that the Republicans have, by and large, done a
good job “distancing themselves” from their radical elements. I’d be
interested to know how you draw that conclusion; if anything, to my
admittedly partisan eyes, it looks like the
trend is going the other way. For example, House majority leader Tom DeLay and the
Bush team in the White House are working together to push

redistricting plans which seem designed to marginalize even
moderate Republicans (the House leadership having long since href=”http://www.hillnews.com/news/102203/earmarks.aspx”>abandoned any
pretense of comity toward Democrats). And Senatorial Republicans
of a more moderate stripe — Olympia Snowe and George Voinovich, for
example — find themselves on the receiving ends of pressure

campaigns from the Club for Growth, whose stated agenda is “to
support conservative tax-cutting candidates to challenge moderate
Republicans in primaries.” This group has received a contribution
from DeLay, the man who seems right now to be running the House.

Beyond that electioneering, it’s also not hard to find
examples of the national Republican leadership — the folks who are
actually running the government on a day to day basis — doing things
that look pretty radical to me. Consider for example:

… Bush’s nomination of an appellate judge who, on top of her
other

controversial views has publicly opined
that state governments have the right to legislate religion.

… the failure, so far, to discharge or seriously discipline
Gen. Jerry Boykin, now in charge of the search for Osama bin Laden,
for public comments which, among other things, said a Muslim opponent
at arms was worshipping an idol, and described a black smudge on a
photo taken over Mogadishu as a demonic manifestation.

… complaints not only from political opponents, but editors of
major scientific journals that scientific advisory panels are being

stacked
to produce bogus science which fits a political agenda — including
false claims on government web sites that breast cancer is somehow
linked to abortion, and a change in the evaluation criteria for
abstinence-only sex education programs which lets them get funded
despite the embarassing fact that they
Aloysius Verklempt | Email | Homepage | 11.03.03 – 7:22 am | #

Aloysius:

Absolutely superb comment! I do enjoy it when someone goes to the trouble to link his data and also to remain civil and composed. For that you have my gratitude. Now, to the central point: I do believe my comment was that the Republicans had a head start on the process, not a patent upon it. That Congress is currently populated with conservatives of somewhat questionable reliability where questions of faith vs. science are concerned is hereby stipulated without protest or mitigation.

Politics in the United States is a process of degrees, not of revolution. I find that Europeans in particular have a very difficult time with that concept, but Americans as well seem to see their own political processes in a “revolution” context (FYI- I am not an American citizen). In this mindset all actions are absolutes- victory requires the destruction of one’s enemies, etc. If you can accept that I am working from this premise you might find my comments somewhat easier to understand.

Americans are a terribly ideological sort and in that context religious and political ideology is fairly easily intermingled, constitutional prohibitions against legal intermingling of religion and politics notwithstanding. I make little distinction between the Right’s adherence to some pseudo-biblical creed and the Left’s slavish devotion to a Marxism-Lite social order. Both contain the trappings of ideological extremism that I find abhorrent. Both extremes color the outlying rhetoric that is hurled upon each other as battles of seemingly epochal import are hammered out in the arena of public discourse. This applies as well to the extremist rhetoric being applied to judicial nominations. The left is playing its part in these things as it must, but I refuse to be drawn in to the fray. Let Congress decide this as it will.

I pay very little attention to the protestations of extremists, both left and right. Instead I listen to the voices that surround me in my real-world life. I am blessed with access to an invigorating mixture of political archetypes and followers. I listen to them and I believe that they are telling me what they believe to be the truth. In that context, I hear that the conservatives seem to have a better handle on their lunatics than do the liberals.

I do wish it were possible for me to give you a more concrete response, for your courtesy certainly entitles you to such, but I do stand upon my statement. Deride it if you must, but do me the courtesy of believing that I have my reasons for my conclusions.
MD | Email | Homepage | 11.03.03 – 9:23 pm | #

I’m quite sure there are plenty of Republican moderates in the real world who believe that their more radical elements are more or less controllable, and being marginalized. I’m just not so sure they’re right about that — it wouldn’t be the first time a group of that sort has fooled themselves. At the other end of the scale, there were probably Mensheviks who thought that way about the Bolsheviks.

But back to America. What bugs me isn’t so much that Congress is populated by Republicans “of questionable reliability where questions of faith vs. science are concerned”, as that the House, at least, seems to be under the control of one. Tom DeLay isn’t just some random nut — he’s running the show. And he is right now moving to cement his control for the forseeable future with the connivance of a President whose unreliability on those questions, among others, is also clear — particularly in his public skepticism about evolution.

All that is necessary for the triumph of the radicals is for the moderates to stay above the fray…
Aloysius Verklempt | Email | Homepage | 11.06.03 – 9:13 am | #