Party > Status Quo > Ideals
What do these three things have in common:
Even though Republican Michael Steele says he probably wouldn’t want President Bush campaigning for him in Maryland and that he considers his party affiliation a scarlet letter, the White House said Wednesday that Bush still is backing Steele in his Senate race.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, a longtime supporter of Senator Joseph Lieberman, said Tuesday she will not back the Connecticut Democrat’s bid for re-election if he loses their party’s primary.
NPR:
The beleaguered campaign of Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman is expected to get a lift today from two prominent Democrats, including one former President. Former President Bill Clinton is scheduled to headline an event at the Palace Theater in Waterbury this afternoon designed to shore up support for Lieberman, a three-term incumbent in the political fight of his life.
They illustrate a problem with our two-party political system. Party is first. Always. Second to party is status quo. Lieberman and Steele, as incumbents, take precedent over any in-party upstart. Ideals are last. Good to know where we stand, eh?
Update: Steele isn’t the incumbent. But he still represents party. I think the point stands. Thanks for the corrections.
July 27th, 2006 at 8:59 am
I remember reading somewhere that the framers of the Constitution didn’t anticipate political parties, and likely would have explicitly prohibited them had they thought of it. Not sure if it’s true or not, but I like the sound of it.
July 27th, 2006 at 9:02 am
I’m not opposed to political parties. I’m opposed to the fact they can make the system benefit only them.
July 27th, 2006 at 9:16 am
They already had political parties, but they were local and usually formed around one or a small group of men. That is, New York City had several parties formed around locally prominent leaders and Boston had different parties formed around different prominent men. What the founders didn’t anticipate was that these various little parties would ally into two huge parties. For instance, they expected that aside from George Washington, there wouldn’t be many nationally prominent men who could garner an Electoral College majority over the various regional candidates. The expectation was that usually the Electoral College would serve as an open primary to pick a few regionally prominent men, with Congress then picking the winner.
You are correct that they deprecated parties as “factionalism”. However, they didn’t see a practical way to ban them. Unlike modern-day politicians, they recognized that there is much that government *cannot* accomplish, and even more that it *should not* do.
July 27th, 2006 at 10:07 am
And then collude or openly conspire to deny a ballot access to every one else.
July 27th, 2006 at 11:16 am
Steele isn’t an incumbent. I think he is the Lt. Gov, or some other statewide office, but he’s not currently a Senator from Maryland. I believe he’s running for an open seat.
Now, here’s the question: would you rather have an R who doesn’t particularly relish the support of President Bush, and who might be a RINO, or a Barbara Mikulski clone in that seat?
July 27th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
markm:
Yes, that is indeed more accurate. Thanks for the clarification.
August 9th, 2006 at 9:05 am
[…] First, I never cared for Lieberman. As I said before, he’s a statist and only seems to appeal to the conservatives lately entirely due to the war. The significance of Lieberman’s loss is that the people, for good or bad, can be motivated to buck the status quo. That’s a good thing, overall. Also, it’s that rare occasion where the ideals take precedence over the party line and the status quo. […]