Why is it that diversity is celebrated for anything remotely Lefty and scorned elsewhere? Right now, there are four strong and very different Republicans vying for the privilege of carrying the Republican banner. The Media Complex and Blog Menagerie are having a field day pointing out that the GOP have not yet united around a single view point.
Uh, why should we?
Where is it written that any group must share the same viewpoint on everything? People have different viewpoints. People have different definitions of electability, different priorities on social and fiscal policies, different ideas of good hair... Diversity is supposed to be a good thing, right? Isn't that what the Lefties are always trying to shove down our throats? So why not let the Republican field be diverse?
I mean, it's not like we're not going to rally against the anti-Obama candidate.
In the upcoming election, the real fight that we're seeing is not so much an identity crisis as it is defining electability. Some think Newt's debating skillz are the needed tipping point to definitively beat Obama. Some think Santorum's old school conservatism will bring us home. Some think Romney's moderation and business history are the key. Some think Ron Paul will rouse the youth vote. And ya know what? No one has the answers. That includes pundits, "the base", "the fringe", "the independents", and ME.
We've all got opinions. We are discussing and debating those opinions in every way imaginable, both public and private. Sometimes it's messy. Sometimes it's loud. That's okay. That's how democracy works. If we, as conservatives or Republicans or anti-Obama-ites, were unwilling to discuss and debate, what kind of party would we be? What kind of candidate would we end up with?
What kind of party wants people to fall in line behind a chosen one without discussion, debate, and personal conviction? Not the GOP.
Uh, why should we?
Where is it written that any group must share the same viewpoint on everything? People have different viewpoints. People have different definitions of electability, different priorities on social and fiscal policies, different ideas of good hair... Diversity is supposed to be a good thing, right? Isn't that what the Lefties are always trying to shove down our throats? So why not let the Republican field be diverse?
I mean, it's not like we're not going to rally against the anti-Obama candidate.
In the upcoming election, the real fight that we're seeing is not so much an identity crisis as it is defining electability. Some think Newt's debating skillz are the needed tipping point to definitively beat Obama. Some think Santorum's old school conservatism will bring us home. Some think Romney's moderation and business history are the key. Some think Ron Paul will rouse the youth vote. And ya know what? No one has the answers. That includes pundits, "the base", "the fringe", "the independents", and ME.
We've all got opinions. We are discussing and debating those opinions in every way imaginable, both public and private. Sometimes it's messy. Sometimes it's loud. That's okay. That's how democracy works. If we, as conservatives or Republicans or anti-Obama-ites, were unwilling to discuss and debate, what kind of party would we be? What kind of candidate would we end up with?
What kind of party wants people to fall in line behind a chosen one without discussion, debate, and personal conviction? Not the GOP.
No comments:
Post a Comment