I thought ten-question quizzes purporting to predict the outcome of your life were exclusively the province of flourescent-font-using fashion magazines. No really though. Since when did national politics happen in the mode of Cosmo magazine? The RNC's "conservative purity test" seems like nothing more than the Cosmo "Is it really really love, for real?" tests that middle school girls fill out to see whether Brad Pitt really loves them after all.
The Republican party should be about ideas, about a debate and an exchange, not a ten point yes/no litany. We are Republicans, we have great ideas, and as disciples of the free market doctrine we all should understand that an open market of ideas will give us the best results.
Picking candidates takes more than ten questions, and articulating a Republican vision takes more than ten "yes" answers. So let's leave the ten point quizzes to Cosmo magazine, and remember who we are--a national party, with national ideas.
The Republican party should be about ideas, about a debate and an exchange, not a ten point yes/no litany. We are Republicans, we have great ideas, and as disciples of the free market doctrine we all should understand that an open market of ideas will give us the best results.
Picking candidates takes more than ten questions, and articulating a Republican vision takes more than ten "yes" answers. So let's leave the ten point quizzes to Cosmo magazine, and remember who we are--a national party, with national ideas.
I think you're overly optimistic - the average American (regardless of party affiliation) chooses candidates and "articulates vision" (wow - that sounds corporate!) with significantly less than ten "yes" answers. My experience is that the average person on the street only needs three to five "yes" answers before they've "chosen" a "position" and moved on to more pressing thoughts, like who Brad Pitt is dating.
I agree that in an ideal world, a political party would certainly be about debate and exchange-of-ideas rather than "ten point litany". On the other hand, I also admit that we don't live in that world, and we're not likely to anytime soon... Instead, some people must make decisions based on effectiveness at achieving goals rather than maintaining ideals. This strikes me as eminently practical, even if it's less idealistic than I might at least pay lip-service to aspiring to. Want to get a candidate elected? An elite of idealistic, thoughtful people practicing the uninhibited free exchange of ideas are not going to accomplish that goal, unless they are backed by hordes of mindless drones who DO NOT think too much, who agree with ten-point lists, and who generally don't require too much maintenance or convincing.
So you might want to be careful when you criticize the tools that get people elected, no matter how distasteful those tools may be. Eschew them entirely, and you risk deepening a party's lack of electability. (But embrace them too closely, and you lose the idealistic appeal you were trying to achieve...) Much like life, I believe that the practicalities of politics are deeply rooted in distasteful compromises. This is the essence of the "Democratic bargain" we all make in order to live in a diverse representative democracy.
Gosh, I love playing devil's advocate, especially if we're talking politics!
Thanks :-)
-Simon
Posted by: Simon A. | November 27, 2009 at 02:54 PM
Hey Simon! Another way to put it might be, that the coalition is so large, that in order to successfully operate in a democratic society, a ten point list is the maximum we could possibly all agree upon....
... not sure if I'm ready to go there yet, but I see the argument!
Posted by: bikinipolitics | November 27, 2009 at 10:07 PM