National Parties

A lot of times when pundits and writers, everyone really, talk about either the Democrat or Republican party they talk as if they're a national body only. The truth is that both parties are made up of elected representatives of a given district or half a state (Senators). When either party attacks an elected official in its own party for not towing the party line, they're far more often attacking that official for voting in a way that best represents the voters that put her/him there.

Part of the problem is also this rule of politics that says you must run to the base in a primary but the middle in a general. This is how parties are able to run an elected official out of office when they grow unhappy with his/her vote or multiple votes on various things.

Take Sen. Lieberman whom the Democrats tried taking out in a primary run off because the base of the party would obviously choose someone less (or not at all) supportive of the war in Iraq. Now if Sen. Lieberman hadn't chosen to technically leave the party so he could run as an Independent, the voters of his state would've had to choose between someone more liberal and in line with the base of the Democratic party or someone more conservative, a Republican candidate. Clearly the voters of his state wanted him. They wouldn't have re-elected him otherwise. If the Democrats had succeeded, the voters would've been less pleased with one of their Senators but one of the two parties would've been happier because they would've been able to better close ranks.

Let us look at the debate over the Republican's under attack for voting for the Recovery Act. They were elected to represent there voters. They voted in a way that they felt best represented said voters. The Republican leadership in Washington is already moving to run them off in a primary, as seen with Sen. Specter. (For the record, why anyone has any respect left for him is beyond this writer.) The reason Sen. Specter was losing horribly in a Republican primary challenge is simple: He isn't a base Republican. The proof that he will have voted in the interests of his voters will be if he wins re-election as a Democrat. Now, if the Democrats challenge him in a primary, unless he is able to raise his own money and do what Lieberman did, Sen. Specter's career is over. He doesn't fit either side’s base. (In truth, behind closed doors, if the Democrats didn't know they'd look like immense hypocrites, they'd love to challenge him in a primary.)

If Sen. Snowe wasn't someone that voted with the Republican party at least 2/3+ of the time, it'd make sense for Republican's to want her out (why would anyone be with a party if they're only voting the party line 50% of the time anyway?) but Republican's (and Democrats) should solely be concerned with this: Is our party member representing her/his voters? Maybe from time to time on a big issue, Sen. Snowe or Sen. Specter wasn't voting party line, but look at Sen. McCain who outraged the Republican base on immigration reform (and looks to be willing to do it again). Sometimes party members do what they feel is right and/or what they feel represents the will of their voters.

We could also look at the base of the Democratic parties' attacks on the Blue Dog Democrats or fiscal conservative Democrats lead by Sen. Bayh of Indiana. The base doesn't care what the price tag is (or at least isn't talking like they do). They simply attack because they somehow believe that spending less on the same agenda President Obama has put forward is somehow blocking President Obama's agenda. They attack those Democrats that have legitimate concerns over the much talked about Cap-and-Trade program this administration wants to implement. These elected officials have voters and they have unions and business representatives to answer to. They'd like to keep their job. They can't afford to tow the party line if it costs them there seat in Washington -just as important it could just as well cost the Democratic Party the seat there by lessoning the overall power Democrats have in Washington.

Health care is another prime example. Base Democrats either want Sweden or Canada style health care or at the very least, some form of Government run health insurance. The problem is that about 95% of Republican's are against any Government health care that isn't already in existence (and even some that is). Well, let’s break it down this way: The general election was essentially 52/48. So right away you have between 40-45% against any form of government run health care. We'll say anywhere from 25-30% want a single payer socialized health system. The other 25-30% just wants health care fixed with about half or more of that 25-30% not wanting it fixed through more taxes -which is how a new government health insurance plan would be funded. When you look at it that way and you figure that some Democrat officials come from states that Sen. McCain won and/or fairly conservative parts of the country, it is bad politics to expect them to go against their voters’ wishes simply because the national party platform says so or because the base wants it.

We could also get away from believing that the Democrat party is simply Chris Mathews, Keith Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow. If the Democrat party was those three, Rep. Pelosi would've been the presidential nominee. Just as much as we could get away from believing the Republican Party is Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Anne Coulter. If the Republican Party was those three, how did Sen. McCain win the Republican primary? They ripped him to shreds, swearing he wasn't a real Republican. The truth is both parties make sure they have pundits in the media that represent the base, rarely do see pundits that represent the middle of either party.


"In all things, one must consider the end." ~John Adams