Political Commentary: Joan McCarter
Can a Westerner Bring Back Republican Sanity?
The nation came to its senses last November, abandoning a Republican party that has grown increasingly extreme, and if the last few day's activities are any clue, is getting more so. But a decidedly western-sounding voice is trying to break through the noise.By Joan McCarter, 3-03-09
 |
|
 | |
|
National Republicans spent the end of last week at their annual Conservative Political Action Conference, where the main feature was Rush Limbaugh mangling the Constitution to the extent that it was actually the Declaration of Independence he was talking about, and reiterating his desire for Obama to fail.
Since issuing this dictum, the traditional media has had great fun attempting to find out Rush really speaks for Republicans, and the Republicans they are talking to are actually intimidated enough to line up behind him. One who tried to repudiate him, RNC Chair Michael Steele was forced into damage control mode, and ended up offering his abject apologies for the very possibility that some might perceive that he “attempt[ed] on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership.”
Meanwhile, all hell continues to break loose in our economy. The Dow plunged to below 7,00 for the first time in almost 12 years. The government announced it has to pour another $30 billion into AIG, and that’s just on the heels of the ammouncment that the American taxpayer is also going to be pouring more into Citi. Unemployment is rising, the mortgage crisis continues essentially unabated, and economists are increasing using the “D” word in their forecasts.
And the most prominent Republicans are having a fight over who can most vociferously agree with Rush Limbaugh that they want Obama to fail. Which is very close to saying that they want America to fail, now, in what is inargueably the most tenuous economic and security situation we’ve faced in decades. Why does Limbaugh hate America?
Into this mix comes a very refreshing Republican voice. When I wrote about Jon Huntsman last week, the likelihood that the governor of Utah, especially one that was bucking the current GOP talking points, would be heard above the din seemed slim. He sure wasn’t at CPAC last week, but his absence seems to have actually raised his profile.
Largely under the radar of the national media and even out of sight of many in his own party, Huntsman, 48, is emerging as an articulate, unapologetic and unlikely spokesman for a new brand of Republicanism, one that seems out of vogue at a time when many in the GOP attribute their fall from power to a deviation from right-wing orthodoxy....
The party needs to be more intellectually rigorous, and to compete for the votes of the young, the elites and minorities, he said in an interview with POLITICO. To do so, the GOP needs to tack toward the middle on environment, gay rights and immigration. And, yes, Ronald Reagan is to be admired – but as much for his oft-overlooked pragmatism as for his conservative principles....
“We need to pull up the stakes of the tent and draw them out a little bit,” he told POLITICO, while in town for the National Governors Association meeting.
Is the current Republican party ready for this big of a tent?
The two issues [gay rights and the environment] “carry more of a generational component than anything else,” he said. Huntsman, the father of seven, points to his own children, all of whom were born after Reagan’s second term began, to underscore the shift.
“Just sit around your dinner table with your kids, as I do, my teenagers and college kids, and you’ll get a sense of the world for what it is and what it is becoming,” he said. “And it’s a whole lot different than the dinner conversations I used to have with my parents, that grew up during the ’50s.... Many agree, and I think the Republican Party will ultimately have to take a lot of competing ideas and blend them into some sort of governing philosophy,” he stated. “That, above all, begins to broaden the base of the party.”
On the environment, Huntsman was just as outspoken and tied the issue to broader problems his party is encountering with educated voters.
“We cannot become the anti-science party and succeed,” he said. “We have to be intellectually honest as a party, and I think we’ve drifted a little bit from intellectual honesty in the tradition of Theodore Roosevelt, for example, where they would use rigorous science to back up many of their policies, and in this case many of their environmental policies. Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency… .A lot of intellectual rigor went into the policies of those days, and we’ve drifted a little bit from taking seriously the importance of science to buttress much of what we’re doing today, whether it’s basic research and development [or] whether it’s looking at climate science.”
Huntsman is sounding a lot like a pragmatic, non-ideological, get-things done kind of politician. In other words, a Westerner. The big question for Republicans is if they’re ready to hear a 21st century message from a moderate Mormon who is going to be kissing Rush Limbaugh’s ring.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
I am a conservative and I am Republician and I will work hard to fight against Huntsman. I am also Mormon... and from Utah.
We don't need more fakes, we need a real leader and I don't listen to Limbaugh but he hasn't gotten to where he is at with out striking a cord with alot of people. I would rather him lead then MSNBC or CNN pick another Messiah like OBAMA.
I tend to agree.
There are many things conservatives need to do to regain prominence (relevance?), but until they stop using their faith to promote hate on others and until they get with the program on protecting an ever shrinking, ever more finite planet (shouldn't conservatives be open to conservation, don't they have something worth conserving here?) they will become ever more politically marginalized in this changing West/country/world.
Maybe, but who would want it? Those craaazzzzy Reeps are so entertaining the way they are!
do you guys know how ridiculous you sound? do you even really believe what you say or are you just being incendiary? maybe you're just crazy.
You guys don't even sound like real people that I might meet on the street and have a conversation with.
I guess here is what I am saying: In at least some small way I have voted a split ticket in every federal election I've been age eligible to vote on (all five, which isn't many, but is kind of my point), but if you guys represent conservatism, I can't identify with any aspect of it.
Hopefully Huntman can convince them that they are the true owners of the Republican party.
"Nationalize banks"
It was under Bush that the banks were nationalized.
"raise taxes"
Obama has LOWERED taxes for the majority of Americans.
"I wonder what country he'll declare war on to 'perk up' the economy?"
Remember George W. Bush? Perhaps you recall that he's the guy who got us into Iraq.
"Or if he will just pull a chavez and declare himself 'president for life' "
The last politician to try to extend his term beyond the legal limit was Republican Rudolph Giuliani.
Where did you dig up this "Why does Limbaugh hate America?" spin--from the Huffington Post or the Daily Kos?
Commentors;
I am beginning to suspect, from the above comments, that you can't be a conservative in this nation if you know how to spell words like "wildly," "without," "chord," "loser," etc.
Or are you folks mangling the English language almost beyond recognition actually liberals posing as ignorant conservatives for the purpose of discrediting the movement? My spelling and punctuation is bad; yours is...words fail me. What planet are you from?
Isn't it funny that the poorer your actual English, the more likely you are to be one of those extremists that demands we rewrite the Constitution to make English the official language?
Here is my favorite example of this and one of the most awesome pictures on the internet:
http://www.bradblog.com/Images/Protestor_EnglishOfficalLanguage.jpg
I think the simplest explanation is that these people are generally America-hating Limbaugh fans (i.e. they don't read much, but they listen to a lot of hate radio). These people have problems spelling Oxycontin, but they sure do lap the stuff up.
In two months he has rang up a deficit larger than GWB ran up in 8 years!!!!! Great Job... My grandkids who are not even born are going to be paying for this socialist agenda!!
I agree with RUSH!!! If Obama wants us to be more like France or Venezuela... I object!
Remember LIBS... When GW was president... You LIBS said dissent was Patriotic. I agree! And I dissent....
What a liberal rag this website is..... ROFLMAO!!!
That is the single most BULLCRAP paragraph that I have read in years! I hope Comrade Obama FAILS at his Marxist makeover of America every bit as much as Rush does.
The question can be answered simply by reading the above two comments.
Socialism: A government philosophy best defined as the state (government) owning all means of production and the distribution of goods and services.
Marxism: Class struggle defines social change.
Now, I don't expect either of them to have the capacity to actually step up to a challenge to actually show proof of Obama's Marxism or trend towards Socialism that is any different now than what America has been all throughout history.
Pure Capitalism leads towards real class warfare, usually in violent revolts from the underclass. That is why our system of governance and economic policy has always been a mix of socialism, capitalism and even communism. It is a careful balance that has been thrown out of kilter by years of deregulation and cutting taxes on the upper class. At this point, either the government steps in and re-regulates and goes back to earlier forms of taxation, or we face a true economic meltdown that could result in a violent revolution.
Your government will receive grievances and attempt to listen. You can take part in government. Try that with the private sector. Go to GM, tell them that your family is starving, you are living out of a car and that you can't find work. Let me know if they welcome you in with open arms and give you the alms you are so begging for.
The purpose of the government IS to make sure there is a prosperous, healthy populace. To that effect, it is its duty to legislate and distribute monies in order to make sure even the least of its citizens has at least the very basics.
Nowhere did I say any of that, did I? I said the government has an obligation to the public to provide for the basics.
Communism is also NOT socialism. Do you understand the differences? Do you even understand what you yourself wrote?
I suspect you're either ignorant of the terms you are using, or you are a troll that plays ignorant. Either way, if you're going to just throw out spasmodic fecal material like a monkey, then I guess we can treat you like a monkey. Pass on by, nothing to see here unless you want some poo thrown at you.
I never said that.
"This sounds like the "green" party platform, AKA Communist Party USA." Wrong, it is actually listed in many of the basic human rights that almost all countries in the world recognize, including America.
"Since CPUSA can't get more than a handful of votes, it's trying to push the communist agenda because of the socialist in the White House." Communism is not socialism.
"So, NO, the Constitution does not provide for a "guaranteed annual income" or a "maximum wage" law." For some reason you used quotes as if I has said either of those two things. If you are going to use quotes, can they at least be real quotes and not things you randomly pull out of thin air?
"Except of course where it has ALREADY been tried and dismally failed, I doubt you will get many takers." Where would that be? Italy? France? Australia?
Back away from the crack pipe.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
I see no guarantee's here. None. I see nothing that would take from one to give to another.
What you do describe though is Karl Marx "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
This is what Barry is doing now.
And no, you don't know a thing about Karl Marx, either.
Why don't you try backing up your statements with something resembling an actual argument instead of calling me names?
Ask some refugees from the now non-existent USSR how good the government is at "meeting your needs" by taking from one group, washing the taking around the good nanny state and then "giving" it to the "needy".
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Do you understand much of that? Really actually understand it?
Lets just take "promote the general Welfare", because it might be easy enough for you to understand. The general welfare of US citizens depends on its abilities to gain access to food, and one could argue, shelter. Promoting that general welfare can take many forms, the most direct among them being entitlements.
A more difficult one to understand would be "insure domestic Tranquility". Countless studies into prosperous communities show that increased class disparity increases the chances of class warfare (violent or non-violent), as well as the "tranquility" of the lower classes, when they don't deem the differences between classes too difficult to overcome.
But please, keep shouting communist! socialist! USSR! Marx! I'll continue to point out how you don't understand any of it, that you're just another "I've got mine, so screw you" Republican.
Your name calling, your inability to understand even simple civics, and your inability to communicate all point to someone that isn't mature enough to tie his shoes, never mind debate solutions to a national crisis.
And what level of "class disparity" does the Constitution call for betwen your "rich" classes and the "poooooooor"? And how is the average person supposed to distinguish between the "lower" classes and their betters? Dots on the forehead? Little triangles sewn on the clothing? Do tell us of your "enlightened" view of the "class struggle" and where you fit in.
Here is a little snippet:
"The first clause of Article I, Section 8, reads, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." This clause, called the General Welfare Clause or the Spending Power Clause, does not grant Congress the power to legislate for the general welfare of the country; that is a power reserved to the states through the Tenth Amendment. Rather, it merely allows Congress to spend federal money for the general welfare. "
Hint: the President does not get to spend money directly.