Political Loyalists Anonymous
The Minnesota Republicans can relax again, having avoided airing too much dirty laundry at their convention. They kept Sue Jeffers from seeking the GOP endorsement, or addressing the convention. They prevented Sue from saying aloud what many Minnesota Republicans silently agree with... that Governor Pawlenty instigated, or promoted, or permitted many actions that a Republican governor should have been fighting against.
Sue publicly voiced, and made issue of, Pawlenty's violation of conservative principles. No political party enjoys criticizing one of their own who will likely be re-elected to the top job in the state. At least that's true now. It didn't used to be true. Political party conventions were once battlegrounds where issues were openly, even viciously, debated. They were a venue for exploring and coalescing party positions. They were the mechanism that, at least publicly, formed the direction the party would take.
Members and supporters of a political party NEVER all agree on all issues, and open, respectful debate is a healthy way for a party to deal with disagreements. Open debate is a necessity if a party hopes to remain true to its platform... or to change that platform. Politics is a complex set of issues, and real-world implementation is even messier. Every candidate or office-holder faces decisions that are a blend of what he considers good and what he opposes, so modern politics involves a lot of compromise and vote-trading behind the scenes. Major contributors make demands that a "practical" politician can ill afford to ignore if he hopes to continue a political career. The pressures are great and constant, and very few officeholders are willing to adhere strictly to what they believe in.
If I were still a Republican, I would cut Pawlenty some slack. After all, holding his feet to the fire could have the unacceptable result of "giving aid to the enemy"... the primary opposition party. In the eyes of members of either old party, few things can be worse. Winning in the general election revolves around swaying "independent" voters, and it is believed, by both old parties, that the best way to do that is to confuse them about where you stand, but to pretend that your party is unanimously enthusiastic about your candidate. For the Republicans, Pawlenty, as he stands, is a good choice. He'll win again. The internal party disagreements have been submerged, he'll retain the support of party loyalists despite any disappointments that they have in him, and, to the public, he'll pick up some votes from independents who will like some of his liberal actions. Conservatives will grumble, but jump on the bandwagon in the name of winning. Maybe.
To assuage the more idealistic conservatives in his party, Pawlenty acknowledged their disappointment:
Quoting from the StarTrib article:
I suspect that some of the more idealistic Republicans will finally take the step of leaving their old party. Some will approach the Libertarian Party... others will declare themselves independents. It's a question that rolls around in the mind of almost every person who considers themselves a member of some party. Is this party still good enough to satisfy me? Is winning, or defeating the opposition, important enough to justify watching my own party drag us in a direction I don't like? It's a tough call for anyone, and the more one has invested in a party, the tougher the call becomes. It's very much like being on a poker losing streak and having to decide when to stop playing to avoid losing more. The tempting thought is that the end of the bad streak may be just around the corner... maybe the next hand. It took me 30 years to drop the hammer on the GOP. I say that with considerable embarrassment. In poker terms, I deluded myself year after year with thoughts like "I'm losing LESS than I was... that's hopeful", and "At least I'm still in the game", or "I'm not caving in to that S.O.B. across the table". Yeah... that's addiction.
Minnesota is well known in "treatment" circles. I often joke that I may be the last Minnesotan who hasn't been through some kind of 12-step program. To many Minnesotans, that means I'm still sick and just won't admit it. I wonder whether the old bar pickup line about "what sign are you?" has been replaced by "what are YOU recovering from?"
Political party loyalty is addictive, and the old parties play it as well as any pusher does. They give you an occasional high, and celebrate your shared addiction with fabulous pomp and circumstance. When you're "coming down" they sympathize and tell you just need a little fix to get back on track. That's what Pawlenty's apology was... that little nip to get you through the current discomfort. Just like a drug, it makes kicking the habit a little bit harder by putting it off again. But... it does feel good.
Continuing the analogy, those who do finally kick the old-party habit often come to the LP, hoping it can fill the need that hasn't gone away. What they find isn't so different from a post-quitting support group, because almost all Libertarians were once addicted old-party loyalists. Some of the newcomers quickly find that even the small "highs" are far apart in the LP. In fact, they find that Libertarians face a constant struggle to do things their old party just flipped off as tax-supported perks. Soon the feeling soaks in... this feels right, but wrong was one hell of a lot more fun.
Eventually, you nail down the BIG question for yourself... can I put up with the constant discomfort in hopes of fixing what is wrong with our nation? Am I willing to be part of a "David" fighting not one, but two, "Goliaths"? Can I continue to hurdle over obstacles the established parties put in front of me, and satisfy myself with very gradual gains? It does constantly tax your resolve, and most who dip their feet in Libertarian waters can't take it. Many leave after burning out from a serious effort. Some return later, refreshed, ready for another long bout.
Unfortunately, being a political idealist is like an addiction in that it has to be dealt with one day at a time, for the rest of your life. While I'm sitting here writing, my cohorts are walking in the 19-blocks one-way Grand Old Day parade, trying to present an alternative to a few more people. They do so at their own personal effort and expense, using their spare time, knowing that old party groups will outshine them with big vehicles, bigger signs, more numbers and support... all paid for with the spoils extracted from contributors in search of favorable votes at the expense of taxpayers. It's one of many hard pills to swallow... but... nobody said that quitting would be easy, did they?
Sue publicly voiced, and made issue of, Pawlenty's violation of conservative principles. No political party enjoys criticizing one of their own who will likely be re-elected to the top job in the state. At least that's true now. It didn't used to be true. Political party conventions were once battlegrounds where issues were openly, even viciously, debated. They were a venue for exploring and coalescing party positions. They were the mechanism that, at least publicly, formed the direction the party would take.
Members and supporters of a political party NEVER all agree on all issues, and open, respectful debate is a healthy way for a party to deal with disagreements. Open debate is a necessity if a party hopes to remain true to its platform... or to change that platform. Politics is a complex set of issues, and real-world implementation is even messier. Every candidate or office-holder faces decisions that are a blend of what he considers good and what he opposes, so modern politics involves a lot of compromise and vote-trading behind the scenes. Major contributors make demands that a "practical" politician can ill afford to ignore if he hopes to continue a political career. The pressures are great and constant, and very few officeholders are willing to adhere strictly to what they believe in.
If I were still a Republican, I would cut Pawlenty some slack. After all, holding his feet to the fire could have the unacceptable result of "giving aid to the enemy"... the primary opposition party. In the eyes of members of either old party, few things can be worse. Winning in the general election revolves around swaying "independent" voters, and it is believed, by both old parties, that the best way to do that is to confuse them about where you stand, but to pretend that your party is unanimously enthusiastic about your candidate. For the Republicans, Pawlenty, as he stands, is a good choice. He'll win again. The internal party disagreements have been submerged, he'll retain the support of party loyalists despite any disappointments that they have in him, and, to the public, he'll pick up some votes from independents who will like some of his liberal actions. Conservatives will grumble, but jump on the bandwagon in the name of winning. Maybe.
To assuage the more idealistic conservatives in his party, Pawlenty acknowledged their disappointment:
Quoting from the StarTrib article:
Pawlenty acknowledged that he hadn't always stayed in sync with the party's conservative base, having supported light rail, large bonding bills and a cigarette fee that many considered a violation of his no-tax pledge.Notice that he didn't offer any explanation for his violations, nor did he admit that they were wrong. He just apologized that he couldn't please them. Members are to assume that he would've done better if it were humanly possible. It appeared to have worked. I wonder. I have a hunch that, after leaving the convention, pleased that Pawlenty seemed to apologize for his waverings, many seriously conservative Republicans will gradually realize that they were conned again. Soon they will begin wondering whether Pawlenty will be even LESS conservative in his next term, because he was successful in controlling opposition at the convention.
"I know I've disappointed some of you," he said. But he said he was "working hard every day" to move things in the right direction.
I suspect that some of the more idealistic Republicans will finally take the step of leaving their old party. Some will approach the Libertarian Party... others will declare themselves independents. It's a question that rolls around in the mind of almost every person who considers themselves a member of some party. Is this party still good enough to satisfy me? Is winning, or defeating the opposition, important enough to justify watching my own party drag us in a direction I don't like? It's a tough call for anyone, and the more one has invested in a party, the tougher the call becomes. It's very much like being on a poker losing streak and having to decide when to stop playing to avoid losing more. The tempting thought is that the end of the bad streak may be just around the corner... maybe the next hand. It took me 30 years to drop the hammer on the GOP. I say that with considerable embarrassment. In poker terms, I deluded myself year after year with thoughts like "I'm losing LESS than I was... that's hopeful", and "At least I'm still in the game", or "I'm not caving in to that S.O.B. across the table". Yeah... that's addiction.
Minnesota is well known in "treatment" circles. I often joke that I may be the last Minnesotan who hasn't been through some kind of 12-step program. To many Minnesotans, that means I'm still sick and just won't admit it. I wonder whether the old bar pickup line about "what sign are you?" has been replaced by "what are YOU recovering from?"
Political party loyalty is addictive, and the old parties play it as well as any pusher does. They give you an occasional high, and celebrate your shared addiction with fabulous pomp and circumstance. When you're "coming down" they sympathize and tell you just need a little fix to get back on track. That's what Pawlenty's apology was... that little nip to get you through the current discomfort. Just like a drug, it makes kicking the habit a little bit harder by putting it off again. But... it does feel good.
Continuing the analogy, those who do finally kick the old-party habit often come to the LP, hoping it can fill the need that hasn't gone away. What they find isn't so different from a post-quitting support group, because almost all Libertarians were once addicted old-party loyalists. Some of the newcomers quickly find that even the small "highs" are far apart in the LP. In fact, they find that Libertarians face a constant struggle to do things their old party just flipped off as tax-supported perks. Soon the feeling soaks in... this feels right, but wrong was one hell of a lot more fun.
Eventually, you nail down the BIG question for yourself... can I put up with the constant discomfort in hopes of fixing what is wrong with our nation? Am I willing to be part of a "David" fighting not one, but two, "Goliaths"? Can I continue to hurdle over obstacles the established parties put in front of me, and satisfy myself with very gradual gains? It does constantly tax your resolve, and most who dip their feet in Libertarian waters can't take it. Many leave after burning out from a serious effort. Some return later, refreshed, ready for another long bout.
Unfortunately, being a political idealist is like an addiction in that it has to be dealt with one day at a time, for the rest of your life. While I'm sitting here writing, my cohorts are walking in the 19-blocks one-way Grand Old Day parade, trying to present an alternative to a few more people. They do so at their own personal effort and expense, using their spare time, knowing that old party groups will outshine them with big vehicles, bigger signs, more numbers and support... all paid for with the spoils extracted from contributors in search of favorable votes at the expense of taxpayers. It's one of many hard pills to swallow... but... nobody said that quitting would be easy, did they?
<< Home