Purity
In my day to day dealings with fellow Republicans, I have come across people who are, for lack of a better way to put it, purists. They take an all or nothing stance on their issue...whether it be stadium funding, smoking bans or immigration reform the purists have a zeal for their issue that is equally admirable and off-putting at the same time. They can give you all of the reasons why their view on the issue is justified, but they will never allow any other side of the debate even nodding justification and heaven help the poor soul who is undecided...
Their passion is contagious - of that you can have no doubt! However, that passion can be a double edged sword.
The problem, if you can call it that, that I have with purists is that purity does not win elections. Take a look at the Minnesota Gubernatorial election of 1998. You had a DFL purist with an impeccable pedigree (Skip Humphrey) on one side, a presumed Republican purist (St. Paul Mayor Norm Coleman) on the other and a former professional wrestler (Jesse Ventura) in the middle. The wrestler won the election by basically taking the best from both sides and rejecting the purism. Now I won't advocate rejecting purism completely out of hand. Most Minnesotans realize that Governor Ventura was a mistake, but not completely. However, the purism needs to be tempered, at some point, with a dose of common sense and a touch of pragamatism. That is where Jesse Ventura won.
Single issue purity ignores that there are other equally vital issues to be addressed. Single issue purists feel that their issue is the most important issue of the time. It may be the most important issue for that person, but it is not that for everyone. Our elected officials represent a large number of people. Just because your representative doesn't see eye to eye with you on the importance of the issue, does not mean that representative is a traitor to the conservative cause. It simply means that you disagree on that particular issue.
The sad thing about the purists is that they will always find a "reason" not to help with campaigns. In the 2006 election, I talked to many purists. When I asked for their help in campaign events I alway got a polite "Why should I help get him re-elected? He voted against my pet issue!" A lot of times, I agreed with the purist that the vote was ill-advised, but I campaigned anyway. Now (as a result of those activities) when I write or call my elected officials, I get responses where oft-times the purist won't (or they get the obligatory "form letter" in response). I'm sure some of the reason that I get responses is probably because I have made a large pain out of myself but some of it has to do with the fact that I walked the parade routes and did the lit drops for and made phone calls on behalf of the candidate in question. The bottom line is, I worked. I made calls for and to the elected officials. I wrote letters for and to the elected officials. I walked and talked to them on the parade routes and at community festivals. I made myself known to them. And when the time came that we didn't see eye to eye on an issue, we respectfully disagreed but we also realized that, as human beings, we were not going to walk in lock step agreement on every issue. My rep did not instantly become the enemy because we disagreed. He/she was simply a fellow human being with a different perspective on the issue. I figure as long as we agree on a large majority of issues, we can work out the differences.
I won't go so far as to say that there is "no room" in the big tent for the purists. I will, however, ask that the purists try to remember that sometimes compromise is a necessary part of life. We have two choices when it comes to compromise....we can reject it out of hand or we can try to make the best compromise possible - to do the best with what is at hand.
Their passion is contagious - of that you can have no doubt! However, that passion can be a double edged sword.
The problem, if you can call it that, that I have with purists is that purity does not win elections. Take a look at the Minnesota Gubernatorial election of 1998. You had a DFL purist with an impeccable pedigree (Skip Humphrey) on one side, a presumed Republican purist (St. Paul Mayor Norm Coleman) on the other and a former professional wrestler (Jesse Ventura) in the middle. The wrestler won the election by basically taking the best from both sides and rejecting the purism. Now I won't advocate rejecting purism completely out of hand. Most Minnesotans realize that Governor Ventura was a mistake, but not completely. However, the purism needs to be tempered, at some point, with a dose of common sense and a touch of pragamatism. That is where Jesse Ventura won.
Single issue purity ignores that there are other equally vital issues to be addressed. Single issue purists feel that their issue is the most important issue of the time. It may be the most important issue for that person, but it is not that for everyone. Our elected officials represent a large number of people. Just because your representative doesn't see eye to eye with you on the importance of the issue, does not mean that representative is a traitor to the conservative cause. It simply means that you disagree on that particular issue.
The sad thing about the purists is that they will always find a "reason" not to help with campaigns. In the 2006 election, I talked to many purists. When I asked for their help in campaign events I alway got a polite "Why should I help get him re-elected? He voted against my pet issue!" A lot of times, I agreed with the purist that the vote was ill-advised, but I campaigned anyway. Now (as a result of those activities) when I write or call my elected officials, I get responses where oft-times the purist won't (or they get the obligatory "form letter" in response). I'm sure some of the reason that I get responses is probably because I have made a large pain out of myself but some of it has to do with the fact that I walked the parade routes and did the lit drops for and made phone calls on behalf of the candidate in question. The bottom line is, I worked. I made calls for and to the elected officials. I wrote letters for and to the elected officials. I walked and talked to them on the parade routes and at community festivals. I made myself known to them. And when the time came that we didn't see eye to eye on an issue, we respectfully disagreed but we also realized that, as human beings, we were not going to walk in lock step agreement on every issue. My rep did not instantly become the enemy because we disagreed. He/she was simply a fellow human being with a different perspective on the issue. I figure as long as we agree on a large majority of issues, we can work out the differences.
I won't go so far as to say that there is "no room" in the big tent for the purists. I will, however, ask that the purists try to remember that sometimes compromise is a necessary part of life. We have two choices when it comes to compromise....we can reject it out of hand or we can try to make the best compromise possible - to do the best with what is at hand.
Labels: Political Purism
posted by The Lady Logician at
4:43 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home