When I learned that Dede Scozzafava dropped out of the NY-23 race, and even more when I learned that when she dropped out she endorsed the Democratic candidate rather than the Conservative candidate, it really got me thinking about what parties are supposed to be. That endorsement would indicate that the GOP establishment in that district is closer to the Democrats than it is to the Conservatives (or else Ms. Scozzafava is playing sour grapes, but somehow I don’t think that’s the explanation). In theory there’s nothing wrong with being closer to Democrats than Conservatives but in practice it depends on what the GOP stands for – which is the question currently raging within the party membership.
Political parties, rightly and of necessity, are coalitions of voters. In theory those voters share some political views in common in order to participate in the coalition. If that is the case then it must be accepted that some parties will have no presence in some locations because in some locations there will be no voters who share the views belonging to a particular party. I’m not suggesting that a place as large as a state would be devoid of voters for any significant party, but individual districts, cities, or precincts might easily be split more between the Green party and the Democrats or between the GOP and the Constitution party than they are between the Democrats and the GOP – assuming that the GOP and the Democratic party each have some core values politically.
Everybody knows what GOP stands for (Grand Old Party) but there are some people who seem to argue in this time of internal turmoil that the GOP should be ATTAP (All Things To All People). They argue that the GOP needs to be a big tent party, but they forget that a tent without some supporting structure, a center stake if you will, cannot serve as a political home. If that position wins the day then there will definitely be a GOP presence in each district and precinct, but GOP will mean nothing more than Grand Opposition Party.
On the other side are many who argue that there must be some core set of political views that all party members must accept if they are to be part of the party. They are willing to welcome all who accept the structural values, but these principle centered members recognize that without something to stand on the tent is going to fall no matter how big we make it. The hard part is that not all of the principle centered party activists are centered on the same principles and they have yet to form a consensus on what constitutes an acceptable coalition standard for adhering to core coalition values.
While the principles-first factions are debating what values should define the party position, it’s time for the enlarge-the-tent crowd to articulate what structure they would propose to support their enlarged tent. Regardless of how big a tent they propose, without the structural supports that tent is nothing more than a tarp on the ground.
