Tag: parties

Lincoln’s House Divided Speech

Post author By David
Post date July 2, 2009
No Comments on Lincoln’s House Divided Speech

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

I had never before read Lincoln’s House Divided Speech. Considering that it came in the very early days of the Republican party it could have been applied to or derived from the split between the Republicans and the Whigs and not simply the nation as a whole. Here is the heart of what most people know of the speech:

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.” I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the states, old as well as new, North as well as South.

Lincoln explores the recent history the slavery debate in his speech and I was surprised to find some startling parallels to the gay marriage debate we are currently having in this country. (Some people may not believe me when I say that I started reading this speech with no thought of this issue.)[quote] Here are the parallels I saw from the systematic progress of the pro-slavery movement in the prior four years.

The new year of 1854 found slavery excluded from more than half the states by state constitutions and from most of the national territory by congressional prohibition.

More than 30 states currently prohibit gay marriage by statute or amendment (compared to 6 that allow it) and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is a congressional action meant to ensure that states cannot be forced to accept gay marriages from other states.

The Nebraska Bill stated:

It being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into an territory or state, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people there-of perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States.

It was passed without a proposed amendment that would have explicitly stated that the people in a given territory could outlaw slavery within their territorty. Today it is the gay marriage opponents who say “let the states decide” but if the gay marriage advocates get DOMA repealed (as they hope to do) they will be the ones making that argument.

Lincoln sums up the situation of the four years prior to his speech by saying:

. . . when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and by different workmen — Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and James, for instance — and when we see these timbers joined together and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortises exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few, not omitting even scaffolding, or, if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such piece in — in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first blow was struck.

I believe that Lincoln was right that “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Today I believe that neither the Republican party nor this nation can endure permanently with part allowing gay marriage and part denying it. I do not know whether to expect the party to fall; but I do expect that if it does not fall it will be because it ceases to be divided. It must fall or become all one thing, or all the other. After the issue plays out in the party it will then have to be resolved in public policy although the chances of the nation splitting and falling over the isue are lower than the chance that the Republican party splits (as the Whigs did in Lincoln’s time) over this issue.

Tags documents, gay marriage, history, parties, Republican

State

Political Football

At a time when we have two senators and one senate candidate from our one party state all trying to insert politics into college football (and all three claim to be conservatives – go figure) it seems appropriate to use a football analogy to describe the dangers of having one-party domination within the state or the nation.[quote]

Think of the worst NCAA Division 1A (FBS) football team in the country. Now imagine that team playing the best team in the NFL. It should be a no-brainer to figure out which team will win the game (or every game if they were to play multiple times). Now imagine that we make one minor rule change – the NFL team can only play defense – the only way they can score is a safety or an interception returned for a touchdown. Anytime they get the ball and don’t score they would be required to let the NCAA team play offense and keep trying to score. In that scenario it would be very rare for the NFL team to win the game.

The point that this should illustrate is that with such a rule change the football games would never give any indication about which was the better team or even how good each team was. So long as those rules were applied between teams more fairly matched than a middle school team vs professional athletes the outcome would be almost completely determined by which team was allowed to play offense.

[quote1]Living in a one-party state has the same effect on our political system. So long as one party has no opportunity to play offense the outcome of every political scrimmage is practically predetermined. Sadly the Democratic party in Utah seems resigned to a permanent minority status where all they can do is play defense and hope for some spectacular interceptions. (I don’t mean to imply that there are no democrats trying to play offense, but the party as a whole seems to have accepted the idea that they can’t win.) The result is that the values espoused by the Republican party as well as the values espoused by the Democratic party are never really explored or tested in our political arena. People who would otherwise be Democrats participate in the Republican party in order to influence the politics of the state and moderate members of the Republican party can be ignored by party insiders as they pander to more vocal and extreme elements of the party which are not representative of the core values of the party as a whole.

This sounds like a recipie for political decay.

Tags football, parties, sports, thoughts, Utah

life State

Inside Politics

When I read about the results of the Utah Democratic party chairman’s race I had an interesting thought pop into my head. (Although this article originally ran in the Salt Lake Tribune I am linking to a copy at UtahAmicus because tribune articles eventually expire and disappear.)

First, some background. The race for chairman was between the incumbent, Wayne Holland, and Jeff Bell. Wayne’s website essentially advertised this message – “I’m the incumbent” – while Jeff’s advertised a message of “this is the direction the party needs to go and here is how I will make it happen.” The result:

the party delegates elected Holland with 87 percent of the vote.

When I saw the 87% figure I started to wonder – considering how much the state Republican party has been accused of being an insiders game – if the state Democratic party might be even more of an insiders game.

It’s something to ponder.

P.S. I’m going out of town for a week long road-trip of rest and relaxation, in case anyone would have wondered why I don’t post for the remainder of the week. I expect to be back to my regular schedule next week.

Tags parties, Salt Lake Tribune, Utah

General

George Washington’s Farewell Address

Post author By David
Post date June 16, 2009
4 Comments on George Washington’s Farewell Address

I have always had great respect for George Washington, but in the cannon of political doctrine his Farewell Address should be considered equal to the doctrine of the book of Isaiah in the Old Testament and the prophecy in the book of Revelation in the New Testament. Washington himself boils down the topics of his address as follows:

In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, . . . I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; (emphasis added)

This was Washington’s final effort to publicly influence the future direction of his beloved country before he could finally retire as he had privately wanted to do for years. He starts by reminding the nation – then and now – of the nature of its birth:

I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free Constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it. (emphasis added)

Notice that he does not recommend or propose that we should establish similar constitutions for others, but that we should preserve our own constitution so that others would desire to adopt such a constitution for themselves.

Tags change congress, documents, Elevated, foreign policy, history, parties

culture National

Our Broken Debate

The big question in the debate over torture right now is “who knew what and when did they know it?” That question is being used by Republicans right now to implicate Speaker Nancy Pelosi as having done nothing with what she knew and thus being complicit in any torture committed under the previous administration. The question and implications are very important questions that are worthy of debate in this country. The reason that I consider the debate to be broken is that the debate is avoiding the real substantive issue and just taking political potshots at the opposing party.

The fact is that speaker Pelosi is not in any way the only hypocrite in this debate – she is not the only one who knew and did nothing until it was politically advantageous. Democratic officeholders have been muttering under their breath (or less) about what the Bush administration was doing until Obama was elected and released the torture memos. In response the CIA is trying to defend themselves from these vocal attacks by revealing that Pelosi knew about this activity years ago.

If the Democrats were more interested in standing against torture in principle than they were in scoring political points and retaining personal power they would have been much more vocal about this issue. Speaker Pelosi would have been saying things like, “based on briefings I have had I am completely uncomfortable with what the administration is doing and willing to do to detainees through the CIA.” (Note that while that statement would open the door for discussion nothing in there would raise any national security concerns.) She would not have been alone either – other Democrats who had been briefed would also have stood up and echoed that sentiment if they had any backbone and cared about the issue. Senator Diane Feinstein would have been one of those who had also been briefed. I don’t know who else had been briefed, but all of them are guilty of doing nothing if they were uncomfortable with what they heard.

On the other hand, if the Republicans were interested in anything other than scoring points against their political opponents they would be naming the Republicans who had been briefed who were equally complicit with Speaker Pelosi. Republican officeholders have proven that they are perfectly content to have spineless and complicit representatives in office so long as they support the party line. They show that as a body they have no problem with institutionalized secrecy rather than open representation for their constituents and the other voters of the United States.

The voters need to demand that their representatives, whether of their own party or another party, quit playing politics in Washington and stick to the very serious business of leading our nation on to increased greatness – we should again be a shining city on a hill that the world can look to as an example of goodness. That can only happen if we quite trying to score political points and start having real debates about what is right and what constitutes greatness.

Tags Bush, change congress, discourse, Elevated, house, ideals, media, Obama, parties, senate

State

How Very Ironic

When I attended the breakfast meeting with Senator Bennett, he mentioned Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Specter – the three Republicans to support the Obama bailout bill – as "the three predictable crossover voters." I found it very ironic to read the results of a poll of Democratic Senators:

In fact, Hatch ranks No. 3 among Republicans whom Democrats say are the least partisan and most enjoyable to work with — behind only Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine (liberal Republicans who were among the few GOP members who supported Obama’s stimulus package), that newspaper reported.

Apparently Senator Bennett didn’t want to remind attendees that our conservative state is represented by some not-so-conservative senators. He got Collins and Snowe right, but Specter is not #3 on the list. While Bennett was not among the easiest Republicans to work with according to the overall poll results, he was listed as being among the easiest to work with by four of his Democratic colleagues – I’m sure another term or two can finish softening him up.

The results also confirmed what I had concluded – that Hatch was once conservative:

That is a big change from Hatch’s early career, when he was seen as one of the most conservative and pugnacious Senate Republicans. Now, Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., told The Hill, for example, that Hatch is among those who "want to get something done, and they’re not necessarily driven by ideology."

I have come to appreciate the fact that Hatch was conservative in the early part of his career and I am not opposed to having a politician who knows when to compromise. I do have serious issues with elected officials who just "want to get something done." They do the nation and their constituents no end of disservice when they take action for no reason other than to appear active. I also have serious issues with any politician who does not seem to know when to hold their ground and stand on principle – a skill that Hatch has lost if he ever really understood the proper line.

Tags 2010, Bob Bennett, compromise, Orrin Hatch, parties, senate

Local State

Convention Surprise

I attended the Davis County Republican Party organizing convention on Saturday. There was one very surprising outcome for me from attending. Senator Bob Bennett spoke at the conventions and by the end of his speech I realized that I could potentially vote for him in 2010 if he survives the Republican nominating convention and primary (if necessary) next year. I’m still absolutely sure that there must be at least half a dozen Republican politicians in this state that would be far better for the state than Senator Bennett can be he is still better than the majority of likely Democrat and third party candidates. Even if he were running unopposed I could not vote for our sitting senator at the Republican nominating convention but I may find that he is the best available option in the general election if he is the Republican nominee.

How’s that for a ringing endorsement.

Tags 2010, Bob Bennett, Davis County, parties, Republican, Utah

National

Internal Dissent/Debate

I can’t decide whether it was beyond the scope of what Cameron wanted to write or whether he thinks that the discussion and dissent among the Democratic base really are less prevalent among Republicans. Regardless of which of those options is more accurate, as I read his post I was struck with how I see the exact same kinds of dissent among rank-and-file Republicans that he was describing among Democrats. I see it at the local and national levels and I have seen it in various forms for years.

While I don’t think that I could specify the line between healthy debate and destructive agitation I am confident that a lack of debate is anything but healthy in all or nearly all circumstances. I hope that over time the Republican party coalesces around those positions that I think are the most conducive to good government and good society, but I do not hope that the debate should ever die. I think that when people silence their honest differenced of opinion they open the door for destructive dictatorial types to have undue influence within the political process within the party and within the actual government.

Tags connections, government, parties, Republican

National

Change You Can Believe In

Many of the conservative Republicans who opposed John McCain even after he was the last Republican Presidential Candidate of 2008 rightly observed that the differences between McCain and Obama (or McCain and Bush, or Obama and Bush) were largely cosmetic in nature. They were not swayed by the rhetoric of change from the Obama campaign, but they would probably have welcomed a real substantive change even from a Democrat if any were offered. Over at the Financial Times today, Clive Crook captures the truth of this foresight in his column:

Mr Obama’s campaign always exaggerated the difference he would make on foreign policy. His style could hardly be more different from the caricature of US supremacism projected by George W. Bush, but the underlying issues were unlikely to be any easier to deal with. So it has proved. In many areas of foreign and security policy, in contrast to the clear break he is attempting in domestic policy, Mr Obama is mostly rebranding Mr Bush’s approach.

Mr Crook is absolutely right here except in his categorization of government policy as either foreign or domestic. I would say that a more accurate categorization would break foreign policy into military and trade policies while breaking domestic policy into social, monetary, and security policy. Of those categories the difference between Republican and Democratic positions are only cosmetically different on military, trade, monetary, and security policy. The only substantial difference between the two parties recently (if there is any substantial difference to be found) is in social policy.

Once upon a time the Republican party stood for something different from the Democratic party, but somewhere that changed so that functionally (meaning without regard to what both parties say) they all stand for codifying the status quo – whatever that may be on any given day.

I have some advise for a Republican party that is grasping for an identity – stand for something. Become a party of change that voters really can believe in. Everyone knows how hollow it sounds to have Republicans harping about lowering the deficit spending and not propping up "private" enterprise. It does not matter that those are good ideas that are worth standing for. In order to stand for something Republican parties around the nation need to demonstrate by their actions in those areas where they have some power (various governors and state legislatures) that they will act upon the principles that the party is vocal about. As they do that the next step should be to replace most of the Republicans in Congress with a new generation of Representatives and Senators who have not been betraying their avowed principles (or even actively standing in opposition to accepted party positions).

A clean break wtih the past and a clear adherence to party principles will be the only thing that gives the party a chance to re-emerge in its own right. Otherwise the national GOP will have to wait for people to get fed up with the foibles of the Democrats, just as they have becaome fed up wtih insincerity within the Republican ranks.

Tags change, Obama, parties, Republican

National

Half Truths

Regardless of what political agenda is being pushed I hate to see people speak or perpetuate half truths. I try very hard not to do that myself. Today I would like to tell the story of two half truths.

The second half truth is the declaration by President Obama that he intends to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. His declaration is coupled with him reminding us of a half truth that President Bush put forward throughout his presidency – namely the fact that his military expenditures were largely left out of the regular budgeting process – relying instead on supplemental appropriations to cover the large gaps in funding the massive military missions. This declaration is made as an attempt to hide the fact that he is proposing record deficits for his entire term and there is nothing to suggest that he will ever propose anything approaching a balanced budget even if he serves two full terms.

In response to Obama’s half-truth many Republicans are perpetuating the first half-truth by sharing the following graph (or some similar variation):

Obama Budget

If we were to admit the full truth the graph would look more like this graph (which I created based on the best information I could find online without excessive research):

Obama Budget

Looking at the complete picture we see that the Bush fiscal record is 1) incomplete and 2) abused the budgetary process to obscure the financial cost of our military engagements. We also see another myth being put forward, that the extraordinary 2009 budget is attributed to Obama. The truth is that Obama took office 7 months into FY2009 and the bulk of that budget was spent by the Bush administration. On the other side, we see that Obama inflated the FY2009 budget by including the appropriations that Bush would have acquired through supplemental appropriations and by frontloading some of his new priorities so that he could claim to cut the deficit in half while running deficits that are larger than anything seen during the Bush administration.

I am convinced that any good goal has as much chance of succeeding while acknowledging the full truth than it has when only presenting half the truth. am also convinced that while both parties have been outrageously fiscally irresponsible the democratic party is even more bold about pretending that we can put that fiscal responsibility on the shoulders of generations unborn.

Tags 2009, Bush, fiscal restraint, Obama, parties