Marijuana.com

MickityMike

Via Sullivan via NPR's Fresh Air:

More evidence, IMHO, that the Republicans (and Democrats) are actually coalitions of large swaths of Rightist and Leftist thinking and policy. Rather than the conventional wisdom of US politics being a 2-party system, I think this spells out very nicely how the two major parties are actually consortiums of wide ranges of political thought: aka, the Big Tent.

__________________
I'd be delighted to live in a country where happily married gay couples had closets full of assault weapons. - Glenn Reynolds

 

DonkeyPunch

Good stuff! Now, what is Lynne's elected office?

Seriously, I get your point, but a quote on gay marriage by someone with a gay daughter doesn't exactly make a strong point, IMO. Maybe one of the 6 Republican Senators who voted against the Amendment last year and who doesn't have a gay kid would have been better... Especially since it is quite clear that a Constitutional Amendment on this issue will not happen anytime soon. "Consortiums of wide ranges of political thought?" Methinks you overstate your case... Especially when the elected officials are overwhelmingly on the same page on almost all of the issues. You found an exception, not a rule.

__________________
Posting Guidelines

Niteshift

Ever heard of the Log Cabin Republicans? http://www.logcabin.org/ Included in their membership are a number of elected officials.

Or It's My Party Too (IMP-PAC)? http://www.mypartytoo.com Chaired by former NJgov and Bush EPA head Christie Todd Whitman, their stated mission is "a political action committee dedicated to supporting fiscally conservative, socially progressive moderate Republican candidates at all levels of government. Additionally, we will work to advance the issues that help define moderate members of the Republican Party."

Or the Republican Unity Coalition? http://www.republicanunity.com/news.htm Among their board members are former President Ford, Congressman Jim Kolbe (Az.) and former congresswoman Susan Molinari (who gave the keynote address at the 96 Republican convention). Membrs include: George E. Pataki, Governor of New York, Rudolph W. Giuliani,Mary Matalin, Bush staffer Scott Evertz (White House AIDS Policy Coordinator), California State Representative Jim Brulte
D.C. Citycouncilman David Catania, Congressman Steve Horn (Ca.).

The chair of the DC Republican Committee, Bob Kabel, is openly gay.

__________________
A burning desire for social justice is never a substitute for knowing what you're talking about. -Thomas Sowell

Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is muzzle flash.

DonkeyPunch

Yes, I have heard of these groups. And yes, they are a minority in the party that was ignored almost completely when the Republican platform was written, and have had little effect on national policy. I'm not saying these people don't exist, just that they have little pull in their own party. After all, its happened more than once that I've heard people like Giuliani, Schwarzeneggar, Whitman, et al called RINOs, showing how the Republican majority feels about them. And Whitman isn't even popular in her old state anymore.

Niteshift

The point is that while they are minorities, they are still active, dedicated Republicans.

And holding or not holding elected office is a bogus standard. I'd submit to you that Lynne Cheney (who did head a govt. agency at one time), although unelected, has more influence on republican positions than some freshman congressman from some district in North Dakota.

Dick Cheney, who IS elected (twice), has spoken in favor of gay marriage as well.

 

DonkeyPunch

Of course she does. She sleeps with the VP! And elected office being a bogus standard? Not in my opinion. I also hold that if she was not Mrs. Cheney, she never would have been the head of the NEH, even with her impeccable education background.

Back to the main point. Using Mrs. C. as an example of the wide range of political thought that Mike talks about was a bad example to start his argument. She has a clearly personal interest in that issue, which probably leads to her above statement. I don't think she made that quote out of rugged, conservative principal, I believe she made it because of her family situation. My point was that the argument would have been better served by someone like a Log Cabin republican, not Lynne Cheney.

Calling the 2 party system as it stands "a wide consortium of political thought" is great, but in practice, those in disagreement with the mainstream force of the parties have little effect on national policy, save issues that need supermajorities, like Constitutional Amendments.

Niteshift

And elected office being a bogus standard?

Do you think the real power in the respective parties is vested only in the people actually elected to office?

I'd ask you if you feel that Terry McAuliffe has real power and influence in the Democratic Party. What elected office does he hold? Or ever held? (I am not aware of him ever holding elected office)

She has a clearly personal interest in that issue, which probably leads to her above statement. I don't think she made that quote out of rugged, conservative principal, I believe she made it because of her family situation.

Isn't that how change often starts?

MickityMike

She has a clearly personal interest in that issue, which probably leads to her above statement. I don't think she made that quote out of rugged, conservative principal, I believe she made it because of her family situation.

Possibly. But then again, maybe it is borne of real limited government principles? Either way, simply because one holds a view based in part upon personal experience doesn’t make that view any less or more valid. It's still nice to hear, no matter who makes it, an argument about social policy revolving around States' Rights - those aren't too common anymore. (SR arguments bode well for mj reform as well.)

How was it a bad example? There may be others that you would find more acceptable for one reason or another, but as Niteshift has pointed out, there's a ****load of different Republican groups advocating policy. Take your pick of contrasting views, dude. The point is that all these different groups come together and compromise on some things, hold their noses on others. Yet either way, they don't stop advocating their positions and as such, they do have an affect on the direction in which the party is headed. (The same is true of the Democrats.)

Compare, for instance, the libertarian wing of the Republican party and the "Christian Right" wing. Both hold completely opposite views on many domestic policies, yet both are very similar on foreign policy issues. Even with the formal Republican stance being against gay marriage, there're plenty of Rightist pundits and politicians for it. And if current demographic trends in favor of gay marriage continue, it's only a matter of time.

Our political system is not so different from other systems where many parties sometimes have to form governing coalitions. It’s just that in our case, our system has a Darwinian affect on political parties. Whereas other systems allow for the formation of political coalitions (like the Greens joining forces with Social Democrats), in the US the forming of coalitions happens at the party, not the governmental, level. Not everyone who votes Democrat believes 100% of the DNC platform, just like some Republican voters and the RNC. The coalescing of political thought into Left and Right happens spontaneously, because both sides realize that they’re stronger if they take into their Political Tents some that they don’t always agree with.