| Yesterday I met a young man who has never registered to vote. Nice guy. Decided against registering when the table was set up in high school, now a few years later, he sees no reason to vote. NO REASON TO VOTE! You might think this is a standard "I don't want to register because then I can be called to jury duty" story, but it's not. The man has issues with which he is concerned, specifically DOMA, DADT and gay marriage. He knew about the Prop 1 vote in Maine, and said he was disappointed that the people didn't see the need for marriage equality. I explained that if he had lived in Maine and wasn't registered, that would have been a potential vote lost. That if similar legislation ended up on the ballot here in Pennsylvania, and all the people who were in favour were unregistered, the cretins could vote it down. Epiphany. He said the real reason he never registered was that politicians promised things, and then went back on them. He said that no one seemed to stand for anything, I thought about that while reading an article about the RNC "Purity" Resolution. It's basically a loyalty oath which will probably be voted on at the January RNC meeting. Republican leaders are circulating a resolution listing 10 positions Republican candidates should support to demonstrate that they “espouse conservative principles and public policies” that are in opposition to “Obama’s socialist agenda.” According to the resolution, any Republican candidate who broke with the party on three or more of these issues– in votes cast, public statements made or answering a questionnaire – would be penalized by being denied party funds or the party endorsement.
Two basic things: notice that they chose the word "purity" in lieu of "loyalty". I hear Germany in the '30's in that term, but maybe that's just me. The other thing is that the overwhelming drive of the list involves the word "opposing". The list is after the jump, so you can see what I mean. The list has no ideas, just things to oppose. I have such mixed feelings about this that I don't even know where to begin. On the one hand, the list represents everything I dedicate my life to fighting against. On the other hand, I actually believe there is a benefit in people reading the party platform, and then sticking with it. On some third hand, I wonder if this brings the Republican Party closer to implosion by forcing moderates out. I wonder if the Democratic Party had a loyalty oath dedicated to positive action on the part of government, would that make us stronger or weaker? If there are loyalty oaths, does that bring us closer to leaving the two-party system and moving to a set of multiple parties with different issue thrusts, and the potentiality of needing to form coalition governments on specific issues? I wonder if we had a "loyalty oath" on the issue of health care reform, would we already have a bill ready to implement in January 2010, or fewer members? And which would be better? Certainly I understand that it's generally a good idea to have a platform to which one adheres to receive party funding. One of the reasons I don't give money to the party is because it can go to ostensible Democrats who actively work against my interests, my issues, and my philosophy. As for the party endorsements, in the Democratic Party, these have often led to the "preferred" candidate being a moderate or a conservadem, as opposed to a progressive, dating back to the DLC in the early '90's. And finally, how much easier for my young friend, and many others like him, if it were possible to know where candidates stood, and to be certain that, if elected, they would remain with those positions? I don't have a clear answer. What about you? |
