The Rhode-Islandification of America?
A comment from Tom W, last week, raises an interesting question (emphasis added):
Of course “Linc” is now being widely (hailed) in the MSM regarding involvement with “Republicans for Obama.”
Gotta love the irony, since McCain came here to campaign for Chafee to try to save his RINO bacon.
This is what happens when the GOP embraces “moderates” and the “big tent” theory.
The “moderates” follow their heart and side with the Democrats, while voters, unimpressed with “Republicans” that are largely indistinguishable from Democrats, vote for the real thing rather than the reasonable facsimile. McCain will discover this the hard way when he finds out the the Hispanics vote that he is courting heads toward Obama, who is pandering to them even more (he’s not even playing lip service to “border security”).
That is why the GOP continues to shrink in the areas where it is “moderate” – the Northeast and now California. Yet the national party leadership (e.g., McCain) are determined to continue down this path … the RIGOP writ large.
Baffling, and it bodes ill for the future or our country, as both parties are leading us leftward, the only differences being the pace of decline … but both ultimately heading for the same destination, transforming the U.S. from our founding principles into a European-style socialist democracy.
I don’t know that the RIGOP writ large is possible on a national scale. Part of Rhode Island’s problem, I’ve come to believe, is that its size doesn’t allow for truly diverse enclaves in which an opposition party could develop a stronghold. The state’s environment doesn’t differ much from one place to another, making its residents consistently susceptible to the same peddled policies, as well as the same tentacles of corruption.
On a national scale, there would be a correction. GOP “moderates” would reach a degree of frustration at which conservatives, of whatever form, withdraw their support; simultaneously, “moderates” and liberals would begin to decide that they’d be better served by being part of the winning team. At some point, the institutional party would do what secular institutions do: adjust themselves for survival.
The danger — as any good federalist might surmise — is that undemocratic means would be leveraged to decrease the influence of conservative enclaves. Arguably (if ironically), a national popular vote system would contribute. The “Fairness Doctrine” would contribute. Legislation via judiciary is a more insidious example.
This may be part of what bothers me about our overly Senatorial presidential election: All of the participants are from the same range of our society. It’s as if we’re electing a prime minister, rather than a president. The health — the “contention” — comes when enclaves can raise up their own representatives, most notably governors, who bring a different perspective and a different approach to governance to the mix.