In the end, it will be the voters who will have litmus tests -- and I'll be very interested in viewing what those turn out to be.
The late Frank Sheed wanted every morning, with his breakfast, a papal bull to impart conviction and momentum to the day. For more than 30 years the same effect has come for me through the editorials of the Wall Street Journal. Among the major newspapers, there is surely no editorial staff more politically savvy, or one with better practical judgment. But this morning, the editors fell into a rare but telling mistake: They lambasted the proposal by the Republican National Committee to adopt a set of minimal principles, as offered by James Bopp Jr.
Bopp has distinguished himself for years in the pro-life movement and won some telling cases before the Supreme Court, resisting controls on campaign funding and political speech. Bopp has offered a list of ten items — not principles, but particulars — that can furnish a minimal test of whether a prospective candidate stands, with any credibility, with Republicans in a conservative party. As the Journal noted, the list includes: “support for smaller government and lower taxes, troop surges in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Defense of Marriage Act, containing Iran and North Korea, and gun rights; as well as opposition to ObamaCare, cap-and-trade legislation, ‘amnesty’ for immigrants, union card check and government-funded abortion.”
Bopp has suggested that a prospective candidate should hold to at least eight of these items in order to stand honestly and coherently with Republicans. The concern of the editors at the Journal is that the imposition of a litmus test comes at precisely the wrong time: After the election in Massachusetts, Republicans are suddenly competitive again in all parts of the country, including New England and New York. This is the time for a bigger tent, they argue, the time to invite in more voters without quibbling over the finer grain of principles.
But what the editors don’t seem to appreciate is that the list already contains vast accommodations in prudence, avoiding any firm test on the principles at the core of the matter. Take the matter of banning public funding of abortion: Even people who are firmly pro-choice have been willing to support that position — as indeed Scott Brown is. They support that position while leaving wholly unchallenged the claim of a right to end the life of a child in the womb at any time for any reason. They simply hold that abortion is a private liberty, not a public good to be funded with monies drawn by law from the public. If even the father of the child has no standing in making the decision, why should the public at large be implicated in this business and compelled to pay for abortions?
On the matter of marriage, the list would seek only the support for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) — once again, a position that Scott Brown has no trouble affirming.
There's more from CNN too:
A key voting bloc within the Republican National Committee on Wednesday rejected the so-called "purity resolution" that would forbid party money from going to moderate GOP candidates.
In a private meeting, the RNC's state chairman's committee voted unanimously to oppose the resolution, which would force GOP candidates to ascribe at least eight of 10 conservative principles, or else be cut off from RNC financial support. It was submitted this week by 10 committee members.
14 Comments •
Comments:
Oh do I ever have so much so say as a conservative 3rd Party
agitatorcoordinator - and I will later.