 |
| Missouri U.S. Senate Candidate Todd Akin-R |
With the 2012 elections now in the rearview mirror, partisan Republicans have decidedly gone into a period of self-reflection. Those on the far-right claim that this election exemplified their opinion that when the Grand Ole Party nominates “moderates” like Mitt Romney (and Bob Dole, and John McCain), they lose. Those within the center-right establishment are licking their wounds, still disgusted by the Right forcing Mitt Romney to take extreme positions on issues like immigration and a federal marriage amendment that made him a less palatable general election candidate. That’s not to mention certain senate candidates “not-to-be-named” in Missouri and Indiana who decided that only some rape is “legitimate,” but regardless of its legitimacy, God intended for it to happen. Because that played great for Republicans up and down the ticket. In short, that is not my Republican Party, and that’s not a party that can ever be competitive on a broad scale. But the flushing out of the anti-science, anti-immigrant, anti-intelligence side the Republican Party isn’t what this post is about - that will happen fluidly, ironic the way natural selection works (Todd Akin and Paul Broun I’m looking at you). The actually interesting aspect of the Party’s post-election repositioning is the ethical questions of the establishment’s sudden 180.
 |
| Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney |
On November 5th, if a mainstream Republican voiced support for any type of path to legal status for illegal immigrants, they’d be crucified. In fact, it was former Speaker Newt Gingrich’s lenient stance on immigration that cost him his superstar status among the conservative right in this cycle’s Republican Primary. The staunch conservatives, led by anti-immigrant leaders like Maricopa County’s Sheriff Joe Arpaio and former Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo, cornered Romney into taking a “self-deportation” stance on illegal immigration. In non-Washingtonese (Washingtonese: The sugarcoated, euphemistic dialect of English spoken in our nation’s Capitol), that means making the lives of the 12.5 million illegal immigrants in the United States such a living Hell that they’d rather move back to a third world country currently in the midst of a cartel war than to continue living here.
Now fast forward just two days to November 7th, the day after the Republican’s shellacking at the polls - including losing the Hispanic vote 71-27 - the tone has changed dramatically. The Republican Party now embraces comprehensive immigration reform with a full path to citizenship for illegals. Conservative Radio Host Sean Hannity claims he has “evolved” on the issue, Senator Marco Rubio and Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush are currently working on proposing immigration legislation, while the Republican intelligentsia’s voice of reason, Charles Krauthammer, also has taken on a pro-Amnesty pitch. In his post-election op-ed The Way Forward, Krauthammer believes the Party needs but a single policy change: “border fence plus amnesty. Yes, amnesty. Use the word. Shock and awe — full legal normalization (just short of citizenship) in return for full border enforcement.”
I don’t know what the heart of my Party believes on the issue of immigration; have we always understood comprehensive reform is necessary, but just been too afraid of the hard right to say it publicly? Or after losing 71% of the Hispanic vote, have the technocratic pragmatists in the Party finally convinced the mainstream that we will never win a national election again until we embrace reform - and thus the heart of the Party has become willing to compromise ideology to maintain relevance. Regardless of the answer (which we will never know), it brings up an interesting moral question in modern party politics: as a party, is it ethical to dirty your hands and present ideas contrary to your own convictions in order to win elections?
Brad,
ReplyDeleteThis was a very fascinating take on the recent presidential election. Despite the fact that I have not personally aligned myself with all the beliefs of either party at this time, I feel as if the Republican party itself deals with such a range of viewpoints that cannot all be expressed. As the country continues to move left due to changing times, it has become even more difficult for the Republican party to include moderates as well as the extreme conservatives all the way on the other side of the spectra.
This past break I was talking to my sister about the campaign and she made an interesting point. She stated that there is often more partisan flip-flopping among the Republicans than among the Democrats because it is much more difficult to please everyone in the Republican party than in the Democratic party. For example, Romney's position on abortion was constantly being altered completely throughout the campaign. At one point he stated that he wanted to end Planned Parenthood and appoint more pro-life supreme court judges, and then at another time he stated that there was no anti-abortion legislation that he would introduce. This flip-flopping could be attributed to the fact that he needed to please the extreme social conservatives of his party during the primaries and then moderate his opinions later on in the campaign to appeal to broader base of Americans. This disparate array of opinions amongst his own party made it difficult for him and probably any Republican to run on a Republican platform this election. We may never know his true opinions on certain issues as a result of these party affiliations.
Not that I'm trying to justify Romney's inability to express his true position on certain issues, but I feel what is really to blame for this confining political atmosphere are the political parties themselves. President George Washington himself warned against the creation of political parties in his farewell address in 1796.
So in response to your last question, I would say that all politicians do dirty their hands in order to win elections, however I would never agree that it is ethical.
Malini
Brad,
ReplyDeleteIt’s refreshing to see a post like this on this blog. Your argument is interesting, and I do think that its dirty hands to flip-flop to win elections. People like Chris Christie are popular because they have strong convictions and they back them up no matter what. However, as a politician, it’s almost inevitable to change your views at some point. I believe that it may be unethical, but you just have to expect it. It just may be necessary. Politicians on both sides change their views. It’s not just a Republican thing (don't even get me started about common Republican stereotypes).
That being said, our party needs to compromise on some of its views to modernize it a bit. I consider myself a moderate Republican, very pro-business and down the middle on social issues. Particularity, I'm a Republican who is Pro-Choice, Pro-Gay Marriage, Pro-Gun Control, and for the legalization of marijuana. That's where I differ from the party line. I believe that we need to move towards the middle on these issues, especially the first two. As a party we are alienating millions of voters that will never vote Republican because of these issues. I find it personally hypocritical for a party to stress small-government and less government intrusion into our lives to do just the opposite. We need to stress our economic platform, (which has been proven right over time), and our pro-energy policy that could give us energy independence down the road.
Nothing would make me madder than if in 2016, our party nominates a far-right politician like Rick Santorum. The far right is the reason why Mitt lost the election. Mitt is really a moderate, but the crazy right made him shift his views for the primaries. I know it’s early, but in 2016 you would have to convince me not to vote for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie if he were to run.
Matt McCool
Brad,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed your post - and I think it very obviously expresses an issue of “dirty hands”. After the results of this year’s elections, it was obvious that the Republican Party had to do something - anything - to increase their likability within the eyes of American voters - because, let’s be honest, the election results reflected nothing of the sort. Thus enters the “dirty hands problem” in this scenario: is it justified to compromise or outright “flip-flop” on policy views in a bid to gain voters, and therefore more elected representatives?
Though I don’t identify as a Republican, I would definitely have to say the party is employing a brilliant strategy. I honestly can’t say I blame the party for compromising their views; it’s in the essence of dirty hands to do bad in order to good. And, by relinquishing their ethical views on immigration and taking a more flexible stance on the issue, the Republican Party is doing itself immense good. Compromising with the Democratic party, at least on the issue of immigration, puts Republican politicians in the position to attract millions of Hispanic voters, some to whom immigration policy is extremely important. This opens doors to the possibility of hundreds of new elected officials - officials that identify with the Republican Party.
Brad, you put it best - “the heart of the Party has become willing to compromise ideology to maintain relevance”, and honestly, I don’t think this is completely a bad thing. Republicans have had to make some tough choices regarding what compromises are justifiable by voters, and thus comes the “dirty hands” issue. However, their actions on immigration are definitely justified, at least in the eyes of Walzer.
I think that this post is very thought provoking in terms of dirty hands – is it getting your hands dirty to change policies in order to win more voter blocs? And for those of us who believe in immigration reform, does it matter why the GOP supports immigration reform now, if it gets the job done? I think that you could say the same thing about the comments made about abortions and rape, because if the GOP took a new, less harsh stance on these situations, would they be getting their hands dirty if it wasn’t what they really believed? To me, these kinds of questions make up 90% of politics. Everything in politics is about getting re-elected, because legislation isn’t even considered politics, it is considered policy, meaning that politics, by definition, are simply the means of getting into office and getting policy passed. This also involves the problem of the tyranny of the majority, whether it is in the Republican Party or in the United States as a whole, politicians must bend their beliefs to fit whatever will be popular enough to get elected, or to get a bill passed.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the Republican Party and its future, however, I don’t necessarily view it as being compromised, so much as just changed, as political parties do over the decades, in order to accommodate for wider acceptance of social change. I personally think the party should go libertarian (shout-out to Ron Paul/Gary Johnson), which would be adopting many of the socially liberal policies you named. All political parties throughout history had to change because the times and circumstances of the country changed, so I think that this could be viewed as dirty hands for some, but progress towards a new kind of GOP for others.
Whether or not the Republican party has dirty hands is dependent on how you view the goals that they’re trying to achieve. If we acknowledge that their priority is on election victories and survival as a party, and we are to believe that this is a morally just desirability, then yes. However with that comes the admission that Republicans have placed party politics over ideology. While I may disagree with many social positions in the Republican platform, I acknowledge that its advocates, like me, have the best interest for the country in mind. We have different visions, and I accept that. However, once these people begin manipulating their positions like this, the average person (like me) will lose faith in that party’s moral standing. With this move, someone like me would stop believing that Republicans are fighting for what they think is right, and instead what will keep them in power. This is dirty hands without a late-game benefit for all like most examples we’ve looked at. The benefit might help a faction stay in power, but it most certainly isn’t in the best interest of the people.
ReplyDelete