A friend of mine listed this story from the Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/04/parker-griffith-staff-res_n_410280.html, on his Facebook page. The article discussed that every member of Rep. Parker Griffith's staff has quit because the Representative of Alabama's Fifth District decision to switch from the Democrat to the Republican Party. Chief of Staff Sharon Wheeler is quoted in the article as saying, "Alabama's Fifth District has deserved and has benefited from great Democratic conservative leadership since Reconstruction. And until now they had it. I appreciate Congressman Griffith's being a very dedicated congressman. But we believe he made a mistake – a well-intentioned but misguided mistake that is not in the interest of the great people of North Alabama who elected him a year ago as a Democrat." So let me get this right, since the Congressman switched political labels he suddenly lost his conservative leadership? This is exactly what is wrong with having political parties. Just as Arlen Specter (D-PA) made his leap last year, did anyone really think his ideals or principles flipped as well?
The move from one political party to another is not one of personal shift in ideology, at least it does not appear in this situation, and rather the move is for political survival. House Speaker Pelosi has already conceded that policies passed on the Hill will result in a net loss of Democrat seats in the House of Representatives and is giving all indications that she is okay with that. Wheeler goes on to say, "As his staff, we wish him only the best, and we will remain committed to the citizens of the Tennessee Valley. But we cannot, in good conscience, continue working for him. It is with deep sadness that we leave our work for the Fifth District. But because we are unwavering in our own principles, we have no choice but to move on." Really, "because we are unwavering in our own principles", what does that mean?
The man the staff went to work for was a Conservative Democrat (Blue Dog) and now he is a Conservative Republican. Someone, anyone please help me understand how the change in words – Democrat to Republican – breaks with Rep. Griffith's core beliefs and what most likely attracted the staff to work for him. For the staff to up and quit just displays how ideology rules the roast in Washington D.C., probably in politics in general, that if ones employer or candidate doesn't have a certain label then they must be the opposition. How shortsighted is the staff?
The type of ideological stance taken by the staff is the primary reason why I do not call myself a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or insert political affiliation. Instead I look at the candidate's stance on my core issues to determine if I will back that person or not. I have little time to care what their party affiliation is. Does one a change in party affiliation translate into a change in core beliefs of the candidate? Is the staff being true to the principles they signed up for by quitting? Or is the staff quitting a sign of ideology over principle in action?
So...your in agreement then about what happened in that congressional district in New York as well, right? The situation where a moderate republican dropped out because she couldn't win any conservative support. They backed an individual who was more interested in slinging mud against the Obama administration then working in Congress.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, unfortunately however I like to point a finger at the cable media more than I like to at the politician themselves. We are now told what to believe, defined by our beliefs, and marginalized.
If you are a liberal, you are unamerican.
If you are a conservative, you think all poor people are lazy.
The problem with society today is that the issues that we care about become issues that wedge us apart. We are now defined by our conflicts than when we come together to solve our problems.
You're correct that if a politician has core values, that should make up who he is and his platform. Not the words "republican" or "democrat".
ReplyDeleteSadly, we are a nation that's tied to those two words--republican & democrat. I would have hoped that they would have stayed to support HIM not the party. But people just can't see past that.
Yes, I am completely okay with any Senator or Representative that decides to “switch” political parties while not changing their core beliefs. As Kelley points out, and our Founding Fathers lamented over, the political party machine is making us all divisive while masking the true nature of our elected officials.
ReplyDeleteThe judge of a nominated official ought to be their past voting record, if one exists, and their current stance on the issues at hand. Not their party affiliation. Voting because someone is a certain party affiliation, creed, religious denomination, sex, or color is following blind ideologies or perceptions of that person – in essence profiling – which is why an informed voter ought to cast their vote based upon the candidate’s core beliefs on the issues of the day.
However, party affiliation is a strong indicator how someone will vote in the future. Especially on that are key to the parties platform.
ReplyDeleteAnon..I agree that we have well defined party affiliation ideologies, yet there are still some, i.e. Blue Dog Democrats, that have conservative ideals or Republicans like Olympia Snowe that harbor progressive ideals.
ReplyDeleteThis is just one reason why we need to abolish political parties.
You can't abolish them forever. Parties will always exist in some form. People will always create partnerships and those who are like minded will associate together. What's more realistic, to me, is fractioning the existing parties into smaller groups that are more alike ideologically.
ReplyDeleteI agree that abolishing parties would not remove the ability of like-minded people to get together to form a partnership.
ReplyDeleteWhat I'd like to see is the elimination of current fundraising scam and replace it with a shorter, publically financed race. I did detail this in a previous blog entry. The long and short would be to limit the election cycle to four months. All candidates would be given public money and could only use public funds. Plus there would be series of debates to allow all candidates the opportunity to state their point.
By going to a shorter election cycle and eliminating fundraising, it may just help stem the tide of special interest influence; maybe.