Monday, October 02, 2006

Misreading the Situation

I believe that Amba has misread a key part of the current political situation. Here she mentions an interview with Richard Viguerie that she has just seen on CNN. According to Amba (whom I have no reason to doubt),

[Mr. Viguerie said] he felt betrayed by the Republicans in power, that they've betrayed the voters who put them in power with their big-government shenanigans, and apparently have no principle or goal other than remaining in power. Viguerie says he no longer considers himself a Republican, but rather a "Reagan conservative."
This is significant because Viguerie is one the prime movers of the American conservative movement of the last several decades. His dissatisfaction with the current Republican Party is chronicled in his new book, and at his website. Now he has called for the immediate resignation of the House GOP leadership because of the Foley scandal. This bodes ill for Republicans in the coming election. (On the other hand, the fact that they are running against Democrats bodes well for them.)

Where Amba is mistaken is in her conclusion: "Another hard blow to partisanship from an unexpected direction!" This is surely incorrect. Viguerie isn't against partisanship, he's for partisanship. To quote from the last link above:
In his book, Conservatives Betrayed (Bonus Books, 2006), Viguerie makes the case that the GOP leadership on Capitol Hill has held power too long and has become like the Democrats whom they replaced a dozen years ago.
Viguerie wants a party that is true to conservative principles, a party that matters, a party he can fight for. He's all for partisanship - he just wants it to mean something.

6 comments:

amba said...

OK. I shoulda said, "against partisanship as presently constituted," and for reconstituting it. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Any force that tends to break up the current stalemate and to elevate substance -- even if it ain't my kinda substance -- over vacant power games is, at this moment, IMO, a healthy development.

Icepick said...

Any force that tends to break up the current stalemate and to elevate substance -- even if it ain't my kinda substance -- over vacant power games is, at this moment, IMO, a healthy development.

I won't say any force, but point taken.

Janet said...

I think virtually any government has an expiry date. After about 10 years in power, the unscrupulous have gotten very adept at handling the levers of corruption, and the scrupulous who have managed to keep their morals intact AND get re-elected are exhausted. So then it's time to clean house. Unfortunately, sometimes the broom available isn't new enough to really sweep clean.

Walrus

reader_iam said...

I would say that what Janet says--imagined more broadly and based soundly in history--pretty much nails one of the issues specifically with regard to foreign policy with which we ought to be be most concerned, but generally just gets brushed aside, brushed aside: move-along-now, no broader sense of history, time, human nature, yadda yadda yadda, blah blah blah blah blah.

And, by the way, Janet:

You rock.

Even disagreeing with you (which I'm not, by the way) is a privilege.

Pooh said...

I for one would love it if "partisanship" was more meaningful than sports-team fandom. I don't see that happening any time soon, though...(cue 'pick saying something to the effect of "it was ever thus")

Icepick said...

(cue 'pick saying something to the effect of "it was ever thus")

Nah, not quite. It has OFTEN been thus, but not always.