Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com   RightArrow - Townhall.com  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Paul Greenberg :: Townhall.com Columnist
The GOP's dark little shop
by Paul Greenberg
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Are Barack Obama's friends -- like Bill Ayers -- legitimate political issues?

Reflecting national trends, the news just keeps getting better for Democrats here in Arkansas.

First they won every statewide office on the ticket. Beginning next year, Arkansas will no longer have a Republican governor - the reform-minded Mike Huckabee is now considering a presidential campaign. (The death earlier this year of Winthrop Rockefeller, the state's promising lieutenant governor and one of the GOP's bright hopes, was a blow to both his party and state.)

Now the GOP's most polarizing figure - a state senator from Arkansas' hilly Northwest who was beaten soundly in the lieutenant governor's race - has announced he's leaving elective politics. He's Jim Holt, who ran a campaign heavy on ideology and light on reform. He did his best to exploit fears about illegal immigration and railed against the Republican governor's plan to improve education. And those were Jim Holt's moderate positions.

After his second defeat in a statewide race, Mr. Holt now plans to form his own little pressure group. That way, he can preach to the converted without fear of contradiction - or rejection by the voters. He'll doubtless be a big hit on the e-mail circuit, where he can rail to his heart's content against the minimum wage, early childhood education, and other Soviet conspiracies he mentioned during the campaign.

Talk about a twofer for the Democrats: Not only did they sweep into every statewide office, but they'll still have Jim Holt to kick around. If he can be portrayed as the face of the Republican Party, its chances of once again appealing to the broad middle of the electorate will be pretty much gone.

But a petty consideration like winning elections needn't trouble the kind of zealots who just want to hear their own views repeated and magnified. As in an echo chamber. What fun - a lot more fun than the real world, where political leaders are expected to enter the public arena, not withdraw from it to organize their own little club.

After the GOP's Neanderthal right had been largely wiped out in the midterm elections of 1958, wise old Whittaker Chambers warned his party about the dangers of such self-indulgence. He knew that, in a practical-minded, results-oriented, can-do society like this one, ideologues tend to wind up sealing themselves off from public opinion instead of leading it.

Writing to a young conservative friend of his named William F. Buckley, the always eloquent Mr. Chambers came up with the perfect metaphor for the danger represented by the party's far-right fringe:

"If the Republican Party cannot get some grip of the actual world we live in," he prophesied, "and from it generalize and actively promote a program that means something to masses of people - why, somebody else will. There will be nothing to argue. The voters will simply vote Republicans into singularity. The Republican Party will become like one of those dark little shops which apparently never sell anything. If, for any reason, you go in, you find, at the back, an old man, fingering for his own pleasure, some oddments of cloth. Š Nobody wants to buy them, which is fine because the old man is not really interested in selling. He just likes to hold and to feel."

Whittaker Chambers' observation remains relevant every time an American political party ties itself to its true believers - and winds up wondering why it lost.

The moral of the story: If the Republican Party wants to become a permanent minority, one sure way to do it is to embrace the nuttism of its Jim Holts. Because their political fortunes aren't likely to improve as the years pass and the country's Hispanic population grows. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Subject: "True belivers" v. party hacks?
Mr. Greenburg sure seems to have a problem with ideology. Seems as tho everything that could possibly be wrong with the Republican Party is due to "idoelogy" and the "ideologues" being "ideological." I presume that "ideology" is used in place of "principle" or "belief" because it doesn't focus-group as well. Maybe Mr. Greenburg would like to see the GOP be less "ideological" and perhaps focus instead on precious little electoral strategies and buying off select groups of constituents. If so, he ought to be in hog heaven watching the Repubs do exactly that this past 12 years.

Funny nobody in the pop media gripes when the Democratic Party gets ideological. Their lefty moonbats are not only tolerated and recognized, but actually are made the leaders and faces of the top party leadership at all. Their kooky notions become the party platform & the object of party discipline. Yet no one seems to have an objection to that situation. There never seems to be an outcry for the Demmies to be more moderate or pragmatic and less ideological or partisan.

Anyway, there's no such thing as being truly non-"ideological." There's no such thing as having no ideology. Everybody has one "& they all stink, except mine." Show me someone with no ideology, & I'll show you a corpse. It's just that some ideologies, such as the one where you buy off your constituents with pork while you conspire with the top people to grow government, isn't very inspirational or palatable to proclaim or defend openly.

I don't know much about Jim Holt or his actual positions in detail, but is Greenburg saying we shouldn't enforce the immigration laws? Does he seriously think that neglecting the issue will result in a Hispanic Republican voting bloc down the road? Or will this tide of illegals-made-legal turn to the party that offers a one-stop welfare state and victim status & lots of other goodies?

Does Greenburg support the minimum wage and increasing it, in spite of all the well-known reasons to oppose it? Are Republicans supposed to cave on this issue to try pathetically to buy off & appease a certain constituency, including public and unionized employees who get automatic raises anytime the minimum wage increases?

I don't know what the early chilldhood education issue is in Arkansas, but it seems to me there's been a national coordinated effort to get children out of the home and into government-controlled daycare or preschool or whatever, at younger and younger ages. There are all sorts of good reasons to be skeptical of these efforts, & their motives.

What positions exactly are the "mainstream" GOP in Arkansas taking on these issues? Where do they stand? Are they offering real alternatives to the Demmies' program, or are they just going the "Democrat Lite" route trying to sell everyone on doing what the Dems want, but less?

Who is more deserving of mockery and disdain: someone proclaiming a set of principles, or a party apparatus that stands for nothing in particular but its own empowerment by means of a lukewarm populism and clever tactics? Most issues before us are inherently "polarizing" and cannot be meaningfully debated except in terms of one side that promotes, while the other opposes. Most commentators who affect disdain of "polarization" and "partisan bickering" actually want to shut up one side so that the side they favor can prevail by default. Whoever opposes the position the talking heads and editorial boards favor will be diengenuously accused of "partisanship," "polarization," "divisiveness." and so on, even though the other side could be the subject of the same accusations since they're arguing too.

Skip makes great points everyone should bear in mind, esp whenever the 2 alleged parties suddenly get all "bipartisan" & rush to enact things no one to the right of Castro would consider while the Repubs totally blow off the dismayed letters from their base. We have a single ruling Republicrat party when it comes to policies aimed at growing government and making it more invasive, pervasive, and expensive.

Asking which party would reduce and flatten taxes or shrink government has gotten to be like asking which pro football team needs to win the Super Bowl in order for ticket prices to be cut. The game creates a lot of excitement and draws everyones' attention, but the outcome of the game has no bearing on how much fans pay for tickets. That is decided by the league, to which both teams belong, & the league is not an issue decided in the game nor visible as such to the fans, but decides these things quietly out of sight regardless of the final score in the game.

I think the Whittaker Chambers analogy Greenburg cites could cut against his thesis as well as for it; who would want to shop at the dingy dark shop where the old man isn't interested in selling, while next door a bright and cheery place offers all sorts of cloth and service with a smile. Meanwhile, there are plenty of folks looking in vain for a place to buy something other than cloth. Nobody is excited by me-too Democrat Lite pork barrel welfare state when they can choose either real kook-lefty Democrat, or else they want real conservatism.

Steve O
On subject, dealing with the votes of Hispanics, i agree completely. There is just no understanding the illegal problem. Enforcement of existing laws, repeal of the "birth entitlement", and a controlled expansion of legal immigrants would not just solve the problem, but keep everyone happy. Why has this not been done? The only reason i can think of, is employers want the control they have over illegal aliens. Presumably this leads to low wages. Following the money, the employers then "invest" part of this money in DC. Any politician who obstructs enforcement of the immigration laws is on the take, pure and simple.
I am looking forward to voting against my senator Martinez for his amnesty stand.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone: