Colin Powell has been in the news quite a bit lately, mostly responding to criticism from prominent Republicans (like Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh). Powell has been dispensing advice about how the Republican Party must go in order to grow, saying mostly that the American people want MORE government in their lives rather than less.
A couple of things about Colin Powell.
First, he is a hero and an inspiration. I believe he may be one of the singularly gifted men left on the national scene.
Second, he's always been AT BEST a moderate Republican, more like a Lowell Weicker Liberal Republican of the past. He's always been a very APOLITICAL Republican...this is what we want out of our soldiers and statesmen. But he's never been seen as an ideologue, and he's never been seen as anyone with any kind of a coherent political philosophy. As such, he's like most Americans.
Third, he's in over his head. He has little or no political backing, he's had no political jobs, and he (as I said above) has no political philosophy. He's getting into it here over the future of a party littered with people who have actual political philosophies. For good or bad, if you re-read my Ten Principles, you'd see that there is a little bit of Colin Powell's view of the world in it. But that's all--a little bit. Powell's view of the world (pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, pro-government) has NEVER been at home within the Republican Party. This isn't a case of the party moving away from an individual--it is the case of an individual beginning to seriously consider what he really is and realizing that he's not really part of the larger group. Let's all remember here....COLIN POWELL ENDORSED BARACK OBAMA. There's nothing wrong with this, it is a perfectly legitimate political act. But it is not the act of a man with the credentials to shape the future of the Republican Party.
He is interesting to the Press because he WAS a Republican at one point, and they love the internecine nature of this battle. But this is not a fight among Republicans. It is a newly empowered Democrat rationalizing to himself the mistake he made for all those years being a part of an organization he never agreed with.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
I am profoundly tired of Colin Powell, for two reasons. Of course his endorsement was his to give, and I don't begrudge him that in the least. But after he did that, he kind of lost the right to lecture the GOP on what they need to be and do.
And this is what I don't get. Everyone in the Bush administration has been excoriated over the years for how they handled the run-up to the Iraq War. Somehow, Colin Powell seems to get a pass. Has anyone ever criticized him? How was his involvement any less complicit than the others?
I'm sorry, I just don't get the worship of this guy.
The word "hero" lacks the meaning that it once had. Are all former members of the armed Forces considered to be a hero?
What did Colin Powell ever do that was heroic?
If serving in the military or in war makes one a hero, then we are all heroes which means it is of little distinction.
Colin Powell a hero? I think not. An inspiration maybe so for many different reasons.
or perhaps he is the future of politics
Perhaps, Bbauer--but not the future of Republican politics.
Regarding Powell's status as a hero, during his first combat tour in Vietnam he served as a ground combat advisor to the S. Vietnamese Army. This unit and Powell’s small and vulnerable group of advisors saw a great deal of combat action and his actions were solid, albeit clearly not worthy of MoH or DSC. But is heroic valor the litmus test of a hero? I think not (although I respect alternative views on this). Thus, unless he was visiting Saigon or cruising the South China Sea with Navy friends, he actively and honorably engaged in dangerous ground combat operations - yes he is a hero.
CW wrote "it is the case of an individual beginning to seriously consider what he really is and realizing that he's not really part of the larger group." (I will address the larger group later) This is a great point that should be examined. I agree that his position appears to have evolved and is perhaps still evolving. Why is that wrong? Let me suggest an answer. If you are a hard corps “party person” with strong party ideology then this view is an assault on your view of how the party should act. I believe this is the crux of Republican party’s current quandary (inability to win a majority of elections). Hard core Goldwater / Reagan Rep.s like the author of this site and many regular contributors here see the world as black and white and are loathe to see the world and its inhabitants as being dynamic – violators of YOUR constant principals simply don’t fit, thus they are silly, unreasonable and lack coherent logic. By dynamic I mean changing with the times.
Perhaps this is why strong Republican’s are very fond of Constitutional originalist such as Justice Scalia. Adherence to self imposed principles is key to being logical and unemotional – sounds like our dear friend the author of this site.
“He's getting into it here over the future of a party littered with people who have actual political philosophies.” Back to the larger group comment -- AND SHOULD CW HAVE ADDED “HOW I and PEOPLE LIKE ME WANT TO SEE THE PARTY RUN…” a small group of party leaders drives this party to its current principles. Keep this mindset and lose elections, its really that simple. (Arguing that the party is a drift and needs to get back to its core beliefs is Rush’s argument.) The party of Lincoln use to stand for and support diversity, be inclusive, use to enjoy a liberal perspective* and alternative views – it’s a shame it doesn’t any more.
Does the Republican party want people that think like GEN Powell? Seems that CW does not...
*In the 1980s the right deftly reconstructed what liberal thinking had actually meant for some 200 years. Did you know the US was founded on liberal not conservative principles?
Who said it was wrong for Powell's views to evolve? I have no opinion on that (I love when readers read into what I say what they want to read, rather than what I said). My argument is with anyone thinking that he is an adequate spokesman for the Republican Party.
Have you taken the time to read the principles I put forward on this site a few weeks ago to guide the Republican Party? I invite you to. YOu won't see me saying "stay true to your core principles". You expose yourself as a dive bomber here, and not a very thorough reader, as you've got no clue what I've written in the past about the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh or anything else.
dive bomber? hardly.... i think you've become too impressed with your communication skills. There are many interpretations and nuances within your principles. Plenty of wiggle room. i read "my way or the highway" in the direction YOU chose for the party and it seems you prefer your followers to be lemmings.
How good of me then to leave so much "wiggle room" with my "nuance" and "interpretation" in my "my way or the highway" direction I "choose" for my "lemming" followers.
Do you actually read your stuff before you hit the send button? I purposely put nuance and interpretation into the principles so that it ISN'T a narrowly focused my way or the highway approach. It is designed to be MORE tolerant and inclusive by creating opportunities for a larger number of people to identify with Republicans.
CW, interesting exchange of ideas here: I think if we can get past whether or not your dive bomber has done his homework and fully consumed and understood your full bloggy oeuvre, there's a critical point that those involved in this discussion are addressing in the context of whether or not Powell is of the GOP or if he has abdicated his voice (and apparently, his reputation) by publicly addressing his differences with the current position of the party.
What does happen when factions of a party evolve in directions that are at odds with one another? It's something the Democratic Party has been wrangling with for some time, too. Does the Party shift, and if so, in which direction, based on what (Majority? Distinctiveness from the Other Party? Lowest common denominator? Something else?) Does the Party contract or expand its platform?
And the question that the commenter brought up is valid in that context: in the framework that you've outlined, are you defining what you think the Republican Party is (or should be) all about at its core and are you suggesting that those who think otherwise should not consider themselves GOP? Or are these principles what you consider a common denominator that the Party can maintain? Or are these your personal beliefs that you are outlining and are you wondering if, like Powell, you also fit within the current GOP or if the Party has shifted away from what you hold to be critical to our governance policies? If the Party definition of principles conflicts with yours, which one gives?
And if the principles you've outlined differ with the GOP platform, how do you balance personal differences with Party policy in the public forum?
GHP--a couple of things. But most of all, thanks for once again throwing a solid bone into the mix.
"there's a critical point that those involved in this discussion are addressing in the context of whether or not Powell is of the GOP or if he has abdicated his voice (and apparently, his reputation) by publicly addressing his differences with the current position of the party." I don't think Powell has abdicated anything--he never was an effective spokesman for the Republican Party and he never should have been considered to be so by either other Republicans or the media. That said, to the extent that he currently considers himself to be a Republican--and that he continues to speak out in a manner which would suggest that he's like to be CONSIDERED a Republican spokesman/voice of reason on how to grow the party...his endorsement of the other party's guy--when we were running the MOST MODERATE REPUBLICAN IN YEARS--greatly undercuts his appeal--to me. Others can and may differ.
"What does happen when factions of a party evolve in directions that are at odds with one another? It's something the Democratic Party has been wrangling with for some time, too. Does the Party shift, and if so, in which direction, based on what (Majority? Distinctiveness from the Other Party? Lowest common denominator? Something else?) Does the Party contract or expand its platform?" Great questions, and I simply do not know. Reagan rebuilt the Republican Party on a few big ideas; Clinton forged a ruling coalition by winning back some folks in the middle. GWB momentarily exalted in the post-Clinton sleaze, then his party left its own sleaze trail. Obama's been riding a clear shift to the left in the country. I think the jury is out for some kind of generalization. As for where the Republican Party should go now--"back to its roots" (which I read as code for social conservatism) seems a losing strategy to me.
As for the question about what my principles represent, they are an attempt to put down set of ideas to get Republicans thinking about what is at our "new" core. I think the party is shifting...as the country does. And the further the party gets from the country's middle, the less likely it is to have an impact on governing. So I put down a series of ideas about what I believe a common understanding could be. Is it inclusive? No. Is it the last word? Hell no. But it was an attempt to get Republicans who read this blog thinking about how to organize ourselves around a set of ideas so that we can swing a small number of folks in the middle BACK in our direction so that we might have a chance to govern again.
As for how I balance personal differences with the Party platform, it is something I've done for as long as I've been politically conscious. I've never been much of a social conservative. In fact I've written in this blog about being a "fiscal conservative, social libertarian". I've never felt particularly comfortable with deeply ideological social conservatives...though I have felt MORE comfortable with them than I would with deeply ideological liberals. So I find that the party in which I reside has a continuum of ideology, and I feel I fit comfortably within it. If I found myself moving so far from what the party stands for as to make the label irrelevant, I'd probably stop thinking that I was a Republican.
Post a Comment