June 20, 2005
Who has the right idea?
Right after the election, Oliver Willis felt the Democrats had an image problem and came up with Brand Democrat. The thinking, if I understand it correctly, was that progressives and liberals needed to see the Democrats as their home base and to also pick up independents or moderate Republicans with the ads. In any case, the idea was to solidify a connection to the Democrats, to explain what Democrats stand for and to make calling oneself a Democrat cool.
Republican bloggers are sort-of doing the opposite. The Commissar started an association called Raging Rinos. 'RINO' typically stands for 'Republican in Name Only' and while it's sometimes overused (such as when referring to someone like John McCain who, while a total egomaniac and contrarian, is still very conservative), the new group uses it as 'Republicans / Independents Not Overdosed (on the Party Kool Aid)'.
So, liberals are trying to tie their beliefs firmly to their party while right-leaners are saying that they are independent of party and that they base their votes on their match with the individual candidate. Funny, then, that the RINOs, without intending to, will probably accomplish (for Republicans) something similar to what Brand Democrat set out to do (for Democrats).
Most of the people calling themselves RINO and going out of their way to say they're not drinking party Kool Aid (while sort of rudely implying that people who disagree with them- on Terri Schiavo or otherwise- are brainwashed followers) will mostly end up voting Republican anyway. And, in light of that fact, their disassociation, or whatever it is, with the party, will only make Republicans seem like the party of independent minded people that allows for all types of dissent within its ranks. I think they're actually going to do good for Republicans, whatever their intentions, because I think the staunch conservatives are more likely to bolt to a Third Party when faced with positions from politicians not in line with their own. After all, RINOs have 'Republican' right there in their self-label. Conservatives do not.
Posted by Karol at June 20, 2005 02:23 PM | TrackBackTechnorati Tags: Republicans Brand+Democrats Democrats Rinos
Thanks for the mention, and the thoughtful reaction. A couple responses:
1) I'm being likened to Oliver Willis, in any capacity, role, or analogy? Ouch! You really kow how to hurt a guy.
2) "people who disagree with them- on Terri Schiavo or otherwise- are brainwashed followers"
I'd put this the other way around. I read lotsa bloggers who follow the Party Line close to 100%. There's no 'RINO litmus test' that anyone has to pass. It's a matter of those who 'fail the Party's litmus test' on any number of issues are welcome. You might say there is no 'Party litmus test.'
Posted by: The Commissar at June 20, 2005 07:26 PMI agree.
Posted by: Jake at June 20, 2005 08:23 PM. . . while sort of rudely implying that people who disagree with them- on Terri Schiavo or otherwise- are brainwashed followers . . .
Those are called libertarians.
Posted by: ll at June 20, 2005 08:23 PMCareful, Jake. :)
Posted by: The Commissar at June 20, 2005 08:47 PMCommissar,
I guess my problem with the Terri Schiavo matter is that you had to pick such definite sides. I am not religious yet was strongly pro-tubist because I felt it set a bad precedent to arbitrarily choose when someone should die (seeing as she left zero in writing). But, all the other non-religious people that I read were all anti-tubist and the rhetoric got really ugly (on both sides, I admit).
The people that you write are 100% party followers, do they agree with Bush on immigration? Do they approve of his spending? Are they ok with the Medicare Drug Bill (an entitlement program for the richest segment of the population)? If they break with the party on these issues, as I do, they may just be conservatives. If they don't, well, maybe you're right.
Posted by: Karol at June 20, 2005 09:09 PMKarol,
I've written on lot about my discomfort with the "Party Line" bloggers over the past couple months.
Immigration? I dont know what you've written, but Malkin and others "DISAGREE" with the administration on this. Roughly, they advocate a harder line. And then there's Capt "Not One Dime" Ed, again pushing a harder line against that softie Frist.
Thru-out the Conservative Blogosphere, there's been one approach: "Party Line or Harder." So, yeah, that's 100%.
I IM'd the Commissar about this. I will say what I told him. We can't win without them and they can't win without us, so we are just going to have to learn to live with our disagreements.
Because if they are uncomfortable with us on the far right, Do they really think they want the likes of Howard Dean or Sen. Durbin?? Because that is exactly what they will get.
Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at June 20, 2005 10:16 PMCommissar,
I don't get how you consider further right opinions adhering to the party line. They're no more adhering to the party line than you are.
Posted by: Karol at June 21, 2005 01:40 AMCommissar,
"I don't get how you consider further right opinions adhering to the party line. They're no more adhering to the party line than you are. "
I tend to agree with karol on this. A line by defination cannot be strayed from, because if you do move off of the line you are not on the line anymore and therefore not following it.
I think you might be talking more about the shaded region under the line. Which is not the line at all, but the shaded region under the line.
Posted by: cube at June 21, 2005 10:24 AMCertain elements within the party are doing their best to hijack the party. They are, if you will, trying to define (or redefine) the line. Like it or not, the Religious Right is a) trying to do that and b) is being helped by certain elements in the Media who love to portray the Republican party as overly religious, homophobic, etc.
It doesn't help matters when the President, for better or worse, pushes SOME agendas that seem fairly evangelistic.
And if anyone thinks this hasn't hurt the party some, consider the fact that this is perhaps the only element of RINO that's getting discussed ... as opposed to the others out there who are pissed at Dubya for spending like a drunken Kennedy.
Declaring myself a RINO is a way, for me, to put the Religious Right on notice. Go on and think that people like me HAVE to vote for the Republicans. That's the sort of thinking that got Democrats in trouble. If the Republicans nominate Jeb or some uninspiring, overly religious party hack, watch me (and many others... ESPECIALLY all those sorta-liberals and newly minted neo-cons who crossed the aisle because of terror) pull the lever for a sufficiently war-like Democrat (they DO exist).
Posted by: ken at June 21, 2005 12:26 PMWell you wanted my thoughts Karol....
Interesting post. For what it is worth, I think RINOs are more willing to bolt than social conservatives. It is why John Anderson pulled a lot better than Pat Buchanan did (yes I know there was a 20 year difference...). I think a lot of RINOS can vote for a moderate Democrat and explains why Paul Tsongas and Bill Clinton did well in the NH GOP Primary back in 92. I suspect a lot of RINOS can cheerfully vote for the likes of Evan Bayh if the Dems were to nominate him in 2008 just like a lot of DLC types may vote for Rudy or McCain (fyi, totally in agreement with Karol on McCain-he is a gloryhound but is no RINO to be sure). I think a lot of social conservatives talk the talk but will not walk the walk for a number of reasons.
1. The boogeyman. Sure Dole, W. and Bush suck and aren't true conservatives. But Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukakis are much much worse ! If it is Hillary vs. Rudy, I expect to see this out in full force.
2. The options. A lot of the far right is so negative, nuts, out of touch, strange, trapped in the past, dogmatic and so on, that it is almost impossible to vote to take them seriously. Most Americans alas do not care about the Civil War and do not want to vote for political candidates who think secession was legal then and is legal now (like League of the South member Michael Peroutka). Or candidates that think we need no government, need to be ruled by Biblical Law and so on.
I have what I call "Von Bek's Law." If someone is to my right, I instantly get suspicious of him. I am like the Pillars of Hercules from the Middle Ages. If you go to my right, you fall off the face of the earth into "Cloud Cuckoo Land" (love that Aristophonaes). Yes, Cloud Cuckoo Land where everything would be wonderful if we could just restore antifederalism, Aquinian law, throw out the immigrants, destroy our televisions, destroyed our cities and lived on farms, blew up all the public schools and so on.
On other matters, I think there are a lot of people who seem to cheerfully digest whatever the Grand Old Party feeds them. Maybe we can call them "Hannity Republicans" but these people really do not follow politics that closely. They kind of follow it the same way that I follow Kurt Angle's wrestling career. I can't say that I watch much wrestling but, if I am flipping the station and Kurt Angle is on, I get happy and watch. I do not care if Kurt Angle is a "babyface" or a "heel" (translation, if he is a goodguy or a badguy by wrestling standards). I do not care if he is fighting the Undertaker or Booker T. I still root for him since he is my guy so to speak. I do not read the wrestling websites or magazines to see how he is doing or what he is doing. Kurt Angle may be talking about how great he is, how great America is, how much the fans suck, how he does not care if he took out a referee. He can be wrestling cleanly or hitting people over the head with chairs when the ref is down. I don't care. He makes me happy so I watch him and root for him. I do not have any real emotion invested in him. If he loses, I am not going to bed depressed. I can't say I spend much time thinking about him when he is not on. Except for right now.
I do get a little disapointed when blogs seem to be merely party talking points or cheerleading for their party. I expect a little indepenent thinking to at least keep me interested. If I created a Kurt Angle is great blog, it would just not that be interesting.
Karol,
"I don't get how you consider further right opinions adhering to the party line. They're no more adhering to the party line than you are."
The Main Stream Bloggers of the Right act as enforcers, either propounding the Party Line or excoriating any deviants/compromisers. Ya know when Capt Ed invoked lynching in connection with those who favored the senatorial compromise, that didnt sit so well with me. I'd call that a demand for "adherence to the Party Line."
The religious Right Wing seems happen to demand that secular conservative "stop whining" and just go along. Personally, I'm tired of being threatened with the Hillary-monster.
This can come down to personalities, or to demographics. And here's the demographic message. Last time around, Bush won with 3.5% edge over Kerry. That means that if just 7% of 2004 Bush voters get tired of Dobsonism, Creationism, etc. it'll be a new ballgame.
