06-25-2011, 09:49 AM
|
#5
|
|
All Pro Poster
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,231
My Mood:
|
Re: Anarchy in the GOP
It's an interesting article, yes. But it makes me wonder what you (or anyone else) thinks will be accomplished by a schism or a splintering. I can't help but be reminded of the old adage, "A house divided cannot stand," and I fail to see how this can be helpful to any factor in The Republican party or any other hopeful party.
I understand The "old" Republican way which wants to disallow any criticism - it's kinda like family -- I can say whatever I want to or about my kids in the privacy of my home - but criticizing them outside, in front of strangers, it's just not done. It undermines our cohesiveness as a famil unit. Hence, the threat, "Just wait til we get home, Mister," when and if they acted out in public. (Which they didn't often do since they, too, understood the rules early on.)
Squabbling in public among the members of a group only reaffirms an outsider's opinion that none of them really knows what's going on and makess them all too aware that if they cannot manage to negotiate amongst themselves that they are certainly not going to be able to negotiate with outsiders.
I think that the article is trying to say that these select few newcomers (for lack of a better word) don't really care since they do not really identify themselves as Republican party members who are bound by the "rules" of the Republican party. (Have I got that right? I admit to reading through the article rather quickly and very tiredly so I could be wrong.)
If that's the case, and I am reading it correctly, then perhaps they ought to have the courage of their convictions and not run under the auspices of The Republican Party.
This is not to say that all members of a political party must (or even should) agree on everything - all members of a group are, first and foremost, individuals. However, when presenting themselves to the public they should at least attempt to show a united front and keep their squabbling mostly internal.
If the party is that odious to them - then it's probably time to leave the party.
|
|
|