NEW CASTLE —
Somebody asked me the other day if I thought the Republican Party was about to split apart.
I said no. It was an assessment based on history.
Creating a new political party in America is a challenging process. They occasionally crop up, but they don’t last.
Typically, these parties appeal to a relatively narrow portion of the population. But under America’s traditional two-party system, Republicans and Democrats survive mainly by attracting a large cross section of citizens.
The world is full of political parties with narrow focus. They frequently are referred to as minor or fringe parties. Only in those countries where a multitude of political parties exists — and coalitions must be forged to govern — do they have even a chance of sharing power.
The issue involving the Republican Party is a rift that’s forming between what could best be described as traditionalists and the tea party insurgents. Right now, members on both sides of this divide are taking pot shots at each other — mostly by blaming their GOP brethren for costing the party success in the most recent election.
The 2012 vote mostly maintained the status quo in the nation, but it came at a time when many Republicans were anticipating substantial gains. It has led to an element of soul searching and intraparty bashing.
On one side you have strident believers who argue that having Mitt Romney at the head of the ticket was a disaster. For them, Romney was too moderate and indecisive, causing many conservatives to stay home on Election Day.
On the other side you have pragmatic political types who claim some of the hardline candidates selected in GOP primaries caused many voters to recoil in November, giving key races — particularly in the Senate — to the Democrats.
So who’s right?
In a way, they both are. Romney was a flawed candidate with a laundry list of flip flops. People from a broad array of the political spectrum viewed him as a politician whose only core belief was becoming president.
But it’s also true that voters were repelled by some of the tea party-backed candidates who found it appropriate to say silly and disturbing things regarding rape and abortion. Originally, the tea party’s focus was on deficit spending and a demand for balanced budgets. But it somehow shifted into areas that are political dead ends in a free society.
It’s possible some tea party Republicans will break from the main organization. Last week, there had to be two responses to President Obama’s State of the Union address because of the current schism.
But will it last? I don’t think so. While tea party members may be passionate about certain things, emotion gets you only so far in politics. At the end of the day, it’s organization, planning and compromise that achieve sustained success at the polls.
Democrats may be grinning at the notion of a Republican Party on the verge of implosion. But wise folks will recognize there is an underlying healthiness in America’s two-party system. It creates the catalyst for presenting competing ideas for the future of the nation. A healthy political system needs that sort of constructive give and take.
In the current ugly ideological atmosphere of this nation, many people forget that negotiation and compromise always have been the hallmarks of change. In fact, the checks and balances established by the Constitution ensure that without compromise, no sustained progress is possible.
And without compromise, no meaningful political party is possible.
Mitchel Olszak
Related Photos
-
Mitchel Olszak, Dear Reader
Discussion
Mitchel Olszak: Will GOP survive current divisions?
- Mitchel Olszak
-
-
Mitchel Olszak: Snooping threat to the free press
In “All the President’s Men,” reporter Bob Woodward conducts late-night meetings with a source in a parking garage. That source, Deep Throat (later revealed to be high-ranking FBI official Mark Felt), was worried that he would be exposed as a tipster in the Watergate scandal.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Toomey takes a chance on guns
How does a conservative Republican senator representing a state with a Democratic majority protect himself politically? One way is to take positions that tend to straddle the nation’s ideological fence.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Terrorists strive to create fear
The finish line of a road race serves as the division between one world and another. Ahead of the finish line, there is structure and discipline, with attention paid to the runners as they cross over. Spectators are kept back, mainly to avoid interfering with the participants — and perhaps to keep them from being trampled.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Kelly, allies battle arms treaty
Supporters of the right to bear arms have a champion in Congressman Mike Kelly. The federal lawmaker, whose district includes most of Lawrence County, has been making waves with his criticism of the Obama administration and its support for the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
-
Mitchel Olszak: I like beer, so I’m watching our state closely
I like beer. More to the point, I like good beer. In my younger days, just about any swill would do. But with the passage of time, sophistication and exposure to the possibilities, my interests in beer have sharpened and matured.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Political lessons from distant past hold value today
If you want to gain an appreciation for great thinkers, read some of history’s major political philosophies. Here you will find the works of Plato, Machiavelli, Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, St. Augustine and many others. They explored difficult social issues and offered serious insight.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Do the emotional centers of the brain guide our politics?
People who hold specific political points of view like to think their positions are based on serious analysis. They view their given ideologies as careful conclusions reached through assessing the world around them and examining how things work. Thus, liberals and conservatives both manage to claim the intellectual and ethical high ground.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Will GOP survive current divisions?
Somebody asked me the other day if I thought the Republican Party was about to split apart. I said no. It was an assessment based on history. Creating a new political party in America is a challenging process. They occasionally crop up, but they don’t last.
-
Mitchel Olszak: History as a matter of chance
History is full of pivotal moments. What if Socrates had decided against drinking that hemlock? What if Gutenberg hadn’t developed his printing press? What if Washington’s army failed to survive the winter at Valley Forge? What if Edison gave up on inventing the light bulb?
-
Mitchel Olszak: Pennsylvanians shouldn’t be fooled by electoral hijinks
Back in the 2000 presidential election, Americans received a civics lesson of sorts. Much of it involved obscure terms such as hanging and dimpled chads, as well as butterfly ballots. All of this, of course, came courtesy of Florida, whose clumsy election efforts produced an extended period of uncertainty in the presidential contest between George W. Bush and Al Gore.
- More Mitchel Olszak Headlines
-
