The wingnut takeover of the Republican party may be about to be formalized. Up to now, we've had promises to put up primary opponents, bullying by El Lardo, Beck, Malkin and others, threats of town hall harassment, for any Republican officeholder or candidate who strays from the far right ideology. Now an RNC Committeeman, Jim Bopp, Jr, is circulating a draft resolution - a "purity test" is what MSNBC is calling it. See why below the fold.
Update [2009-11-23 17:35:7 by DanK Is Back]: Blue Aardvark also has a diary on this topic, posted just before I finished. I'm leaving this up, linking to his, because we're each looking at different angles of the same mess.
RESOLVED, that a candidate who disagrees with three or more of the above stated public policy position [sic] of the Republican National Committee, as identified by the voting record, public statements and/or signed questionnaire of the candidate, shall not be eligible for financial support and endorsement by the Republican National Committee; and be further
RESOLVED, that upon the approval of this resolution the Republican National Committee shall deliver a copy of this resolution to each of Republican members of Congress, all Republican candidates for Congress, as they become known, and to each Republican state and territorial party office. Proposed RNC Resolution on Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates (PDF) {Emphases added]
Now, the resolution has not yet been formally introduced, and MSNBC is not sure that it will be. So this may be a diversionary tactic in the ongoing GOP civil war. But it makes fascinating reading in any case.
Start with some selections from the preamble:
WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan also believed the Republican Party should welcome those with diverse views; and
WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan believed, as a result, that someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent;
In other words, if you meet the 80% minimum threshold of absolute agreement with St. Ronnie, you can be diverse on the other 20%.
And right there is another battleground forming: Are any of the 10 points sacred? All of them? Which ones will Republicans be allowed to waver on and by how much? It makes the dancing angels-on-a-pin conundrum look simple.
Further evidence of the resolution's disconnect from reality is seen in this preamble paragraph:
WHEREAS, Republican faithfulness to its conservative principles and public policies is necessary to restore the trust of the American people in the Republican Party and to lead to Republican electoral victories;
They still don't get it; the country rejected the GOP because of its conservative policies, not in spite of them.
OK, what are the Ten Principles? (In order to keep to fair use rules, I will summarize rather than quote.)
- Smaller government, smaller debt, lower taxes - and opposition to "Obama's 'stimulus' bill." ("Stimulus" is in quotes in the text.)
- Market-style health-care reform, no government-run programs. (No mention of medicare, though they may have set up a dodge on that issue by saying they oppose "Obama-style" health care.)
- No cap-and-trade, only "market-based" energy reforms.
- Secret ballots for union membership.
- Legal immigration OK, amnesty for illegals not.
- Whatever the generals want in Iraq and Afghanistan, they should get (as long as it's a "troop surge").
- "Effective action" against Iran and North Korea to "eliminate their nuclear weapons threat."
- Keep DOMA.
- Oppose "health care rationing and denial of health care" - and no government money for abortions.
- No restrictions on gun ownership.
On an interesting - and revealing - side note: Every time Reagan is mentioned in the body of the text, he is referred to as "President Ronald Reagan," while the current president is referred to, twice, as "Obama" without title. (Both references are in quotes above.) It is deliberately rude and disrespectful of the office, and if adopted by the GOP with in its current wording, it will be one more step toward the GOP officially proclaiming that they doubt that President Obama is the legitimate president. (Some in the GOP have found it politically expedient to hint at or take that position now, but this would be the RNC edging to an open statement of it, and, tangentially, an incitement to rebellion.) If nothing else, it is spiteful and childish behavior.
One of the hallmarks of a rigid ideology is an insistence on its own infallibility. We see it here in at least three ways:
- The infallibility of the market - notwithstanding that what created the current mess was the dropping of existing regulations, the failure to regulate new mortgage bundling, and the health-care industry's anti-trust exemption.
- The infallibility of the military - as long as they are asking for more troops. And a clear preference for bullying over talking - like that worked so well the last time.
- That old, infallible GOP trio: God (#9), Guns (#10) and Gays(#8).
Now, this is all just a proposal right now. No guarantee that it will actually be introduced, much less approved. But it is definitely another salvo of the GOP civil war.
And whatever happens, it's clear that reality still has a lot of work to do.