Political Parties

Says Newt Gingrich:

"You need a solid conservative because you have to be able to draw the contrast.  If we [Republicans] run a moderate who is in any way close to where Obama is, we'll lose."

I understand political parties have a primary goal to win elections.  These parties are formed so that somewhat disperate beliefs can be unified behind single candidates that are generally close enough to the parties common goals.  Its always an imperfect fit and everybody is always unhappy in some ways with the candidates and leaders they put forward but everybody in the party agrees that having their candidate win is better than letting somebody else into office. Political parties are fundamentally about winning.

Newt Gingrich is a very experienced politician and he understands this in very practical ways much better than I probably ever will.  His words above make sense, too, because he is the "solid conservative" compared to the front-runner and more moderate Mitt Romney.  He is making the case that a moderate candidate will appear too similar to President Obama and all those in the center of the political landscape will view little distinction between the candidates.  If there's no difference between the two, why vote for one over the other. Even if a voter doesn't care for Obama, he or she may reason it is better to stick with the "devil you know" rather than vote for a similar but unknown candidate.

Here's the fundamental flaw in Gingrich's argument: you can't win an election if most of the voters don't want a
"solid conservative".  It could be that most voters are more interested in more moderate candidates and that running a candidate too far from political center will ensure that only a minority of voters will be interested in said candidate and the election will be lost.  If this is the case, the Republicans are in a difficult spot: they need to run a candidate who is centrist enough in beliefs to attract enough votes to win but distinct enough to motivate voters away from the politically similar incumbent.

And, of course, there's the more general problem with political parties and their focus on winning: if the goal is winning and beating the other teams, its easy to lose track of what should be the more fundamental goal of making the country a better place.  I suppose political parties do believe that their way is the best way in which case what is best for the party (winning elections and being in political power) is best for the country.  For this equality to hold, the other side must be void of good ideas, completely bereft of worthwhile plans, and lacking in any moral authority; it takes arrogance to make this claim.  If "best" equals "our team" then by definition the other team must have nothing to offer, there can be no good ideas they can contribute; if the other side did have something to offer, the combination of ideas would be better than "best".

To ensure victory often means discrediting the other team, even the ideas that may be good and helpful.  My friend calls this "football politics", placing victory in the political contest above the good of the country.  It seems that the major political parties today have decided that winning is the most important thing and seem to do all they can to vilify, discredit, and destroy their opponents.  Each side seems to have decided the only way to victory is through the complete refutation of the other side including the ideas that might be helpful.

This is why I'm an independent.