Purity Test, 2009 GOP Edition
(Source: NY Times)
If you've been around the Internet (or its predecessors) for any length of time, you're probably run across a purity test. (If you haven't, consult this archive of purity tests - you may see one of these as an Open Thread some Friday!) They're usually somewhat tongue-in-cheek, designed more to embarrass than to actually gauge one's personal level of purity.
Well, some members of the Republican National Committee want to impose a formal purity test upon party members. They've prepared a resolution for the RNC's next meeting that will deny party funds or party endorsements to anyone who breaks ranks--whether in votes cast, public statements or answering a questionnaire--on three or more of ten key points. Why require an 80% score? Well, that's easy - it's because Ronald Reagan once remarked that someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was a friend, not an opponent.
What are the 10 points? Well, here you go, and I'll try to hold my comments to a minimum:
(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;
OK, so any GOPers who were incumbents during their control of Congress in the 2000s have automatically lost on this point, right?
(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care;
I guess this one was unavoidable, but more on this point later...
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
Why don't (2) and (3) fall under the "smaller government" umbrella?
(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
OK, no big deal on this one; it's understandable.
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
No problem here.
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
This bothers me greatly. The President is Commander-in-Chief for a reason; he isn't supposed to meekly go along with whatever the military leaders might recommend. Are these folks really suggesting that the President simply roll over and say, "whatever you want, General"? This is, by far, the most short-sighted item of the lot.
(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
Depending on their definition of "effective action," I don't see this as a major bone of contention.
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
They're fighting a losing battle on this one, simply because of the aging of America. Support for same-sex marriage is inversely proportional to one's age group; this has been shown time and time again. It seems almost inevitable that conservatives will ultimately see this one fail.
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
More health care? To be honest, I think that they were running out of easy items, so they padded the list with another easy-to-meet health care item.
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.
I'm hoping that isn't implying "opposing any government restrictions;" some restrictions (mentally ill, convicted felons, et al.) are just common sense.
Overall, I'm rather disappointed in this list. This is nothing more than a combination of hot-button issues and generic platitudes. Consider that, if the GOP should regain control of either house of Congress, more than half of this list is rendered moot. I'm sure that someone could come up with a fairly concrete list of 10 conservative principles, but this is just an ideological checklist to be wielded as a club. If this should be adopted by the RNC, I'm sure that we'll see moderate Republicans labeled as "RINOs" and pushed aside at the first opportunity. Bleah.
Permalink | tagged GOP, purity test, republican 
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (29)
Is it irony or complete obliviousness by the RNC that Reagan would've failed this litmus test. Lol. Reagan would've failed on "purity" points #1, #5, #6, #7 and #9.
I enjoy it when the left comments on "Republican Purity Tests." Get back to me how much influence anti-abortion, fiscally conservative, anti-truther and thinks global warming is a croc of shit (see leaked memos) democratic politicians have in your party.
Thanks for this post, Wes. Maybe it's possible to identify when and where American "conservatism" morphed into open proto-fascism by carefully following how they chucked all serious principles overboard. Conservatism once respected a few principles (even if their priorities were seriously skewed). But the fascistic impulse is driven by a will to power, period, with even policy driven by public relations (the sales job).
Take opposition to card check for instance: this position doesn't grow out of a respect for democratic practices (a value they actually disdain) but out of antagonism toward unions (which themselves are an expression of democracy in the workplace).
It's particularly striking, as you say, when it comes to # 6 and civilian control of the armed forces. For all their whacky tricorner hats, powdered wigs, "Don't Tread On Me" flags and and shrieking over the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, these people don't have a clue what American values are about. They want the Joint Chiefs to be writing American foreign policy.
Sorry; I realized I forgot one other critical "Purity Test for Democrats", pro-terrorism rights. If you don't believe KSM should get Johnny Cochran type of legal representation, your a damm neo-con.
Oh cripes another "Neener-Neener-I-know-you-are-but-what-ami-I" post from Tom.
First, ideological rigidity is not a problem in the current Democratic Party. Otherwise it wouldn't be experiencing so much difficulty passing its legislation despite having a majority.
Second, as Wes says, the RNC 's"purity" resolution actually points up less how "pure" the party base is than how it is ideologically confused and nakedly opportunistic. These aren't principles, they're marketing points, and frankly the Retardican base can't tell the difference anymore.
Mary Landrieu and $300 million dollars=demwit purity.
Tom neatly makes my point for me. What was once a core conservative value—respect for the rule of law—is now completely dispensable if
1. The Retardican base calculates cheap points may be up for grabs by impugning others’ patriotism
AND/OR
2. War criminals on the Right are involved.
I'm just amazed by the surge toward rigid, if not iron-clad, ideology. There's an unspoken assumption at play here, and I don't believe it to be accurate.
If this list is going to define "Republican worthy of party support," then the points on the list indicate that a "good Republican" must be a social conservative, a moral conservative, a hawk on defense, a Constitutional conservative, and a fiscal conservative, all at the same time. It seems to me that several of those positions can conflict, if not contradict each other outright. For instance, the question of automatically supporting "military-recommended troop surges" runs smack-dab into the Constitutional imperative of civilian control of the military; by the same token, some of the most morally conservative persons I know are hardly likely to favor hawkish defense moves. There are fiscal conservatives who pay more attention to the bottom line than they do to the particular uses to which the monies are put, and there are social conservatives who think that 'limited government' means that the Feds simply don't legislate on every social issue that comes down the pike.
It seems to me that the GOP would have a hard time building a Congressional majority out of people scoring 80% or better on this list.
"SEIU Thug Intimidation Caught on Tape; Fresno Homecare Workers Describe SEIU Threats"
No dem purity tests around here, no way. This was just union thugs reminding little old Hispanic ladies they may take a trip to the hospital if they don't vote the right way. For the left on this site to preach “republican purity tests” when union thugs beat the shit out of people who don't vote the right way in your party isn't laughable, it isn't ironic, it's sadly un-American and reminiscent the thugs in Venezuela and Cuba. A political party like the democrats that mirror the ultimate purity test in commusnist ‘one-party rule’ countries should intellectually know better but we all understand the independent and intelligent thinkers jump ship on the demwit party a looooong time ago.
"It seems to me that the GOP would have a hard time building a Congressional majority out of people scoring 80% or better on this list."
Oh Wes; in case your browser is stuck on Daily Kos, HuffPo and MSNBC. From Gallop 11/23/09. It seems that unreachable GOP majority is coming along quite nicely. LOL
"Republicans Edge Ahead of Democrats in 2010 Vote
Registered voters prefer Republicans for the House, 48% to 44%
November 11, 2009 Republicans have moved ahead of Democrats, 48% to 44%, in Gallup’s latest update on registered-voter preferences for the 2010 midterm congressional elections. Over the course of the year, independents have grown increasingly likely to vote Republican on this measure."
That's true. But owing to structural changes over the past twenty years and a transformed (hyperpolarized) political environnment, they may not see a Congressional majority as necessary anymore. A determined minority of 40% can make the country ungovernable. They did it in California and they're in the process of doing it nationally.
There's a very real danger here. Nooshans don't command a majority and aren't going to command one any time soon. But they are grimly determined to block measures the majority of the country want and need. To the extent Extreme Rightwingers are skilled (and get extraordinary help from the media) at evading responsibility and Alway Blaming Others, and to the extent (some / too many) Democrats harbor delusions they can be reasoned or compromised with, they may be able to both block badly needed changes AND avoid being blamed for the catastrophic results.
This isn't exactly the Weimar Republic but there are enough parallels to make me nervous.
Tom, I researched your “SEIU thugs” story and, wow, it turns out to be beyond ridiculous.
Since the substance of the SEIU organizers’ alleged threats (“lose wages and benefits”) aren’t even in a union’s power to bring about, but are the employers’ prerogatives, it seems quite clear this was just a campaign over representation, i.e., basically: “the other union is too weak to protect you against your employer doing X to you. We are stronger and can protect you and prevent bad things from happening. Vote for SEIU.” That's not a threat, it's a campaign.
Beyond that, it’s nonsensical to threaten people over their union votes, because they are secret ballot. That’s what the whole controversy over card check is about, remember?
This one doesn’t even come up to your usual poor standards.
1) in some (many?) districts, the GOP could have a difficult time finding candidates who are "80% pure" by this list.
2) Just as conservatives have their groupings (social, fiscal, moral, et cetera), so too do the voters. If you force public fealty to these points, you're going to turn off those voters who might appreciate fiscal conservatism but have no stomach for moral conservative points. Call them, for lack of a better phrase, the "yeah, government should fix the deficit, but gay marriage is no big deal" voters. Hard-core party-line conservatives aren't going to be an easy sell to that crowd - and they NEED that crowd.
The RNC seems to want to join the party.... But we haven't forgot their roll in allowing this country to drift from it's constitutional principles of individual liberty and economic freedom.
The usual suspects (institutions) are against the progressive agenda. But then you'd expect that from them. But there's a whole 'nother set of folks that are self orgainizing or as we prefer 'networking'. You ain't seen nothing yet.
Winston;
Spin that story to your hearts delight. I'm sure those Latino women made-up that intimidation by SEIU from thin air. Poor SEIU, they get a bad reputation by no fault of their own. BTW, ask Kenneth Gladney what he thinks of the SEIU who beat him to the ground and sent him to the hospital last August in St. Louis for not passing the "purity test."
What a passing strange belief system it is where pointing out wild accusations make no logical sense is dismissed as "spin."
Believe whatever it pleases you to believe, Tom. You always do. And to hell with logic.
Winston you and any others are welcome to check out my "spin." Un-like your b.s., I have proof.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqpfU_AC7Ls
Somehow we’re lurching around in a drunken meandering senseless argument that as far as I can tell goes something like this:
“Whaddaya mean conservatives are rigid? It’s actually Democrats who are the rigid enforcers of ideological purity. I know this because SEIU organizers intimidated Fresno home care workers into casting secret ballots for their union. The indisputable proof is caught on this video, shot at a Missouri healthcare town hall.”
Tom, you insufferable psychotic rantmeister, I don’t know what you imagine your video “proves.” I guess you think it “proves” Ken Gladney was attacked in Missouri (it doesn’t) which in turn “proves” home care workers were intimidated in Fresno, which in turn “proves” Democrats are ideologically rigid.
When it comes to logic, my friend, you are stark raving mad. Why am I engaged in a battle of wits with an unarmed man?
"I have proof." What a sick joke.
Aw, c’mon. You think I could make this up?
Winston;
I went back and looked at the video because I couldn't figure out how anybody could be so stupid to say the things you did above. The YouTube video is a replay from a local STL news affiliate that shows Gladney was beat to shit. Are you fucking blind? Then I realized when I searched the Gladney video in big type there was Media Matters claiming the Gladney video was a "hoax." Now it makes sense why you gagged up the idiotic crap above, because MM told you so.
You truthers & birthers are a sad bunch.
Are you? I’m looking at it right now—you preposterous clown—and of course it shows nothing of the sort. And your most lovable quality is that the wronger you are, the louder and more insistent you get.
You do realize, don’t you, that the man you see lying on the ground as the video begins is a disabled minister and SEIU staffer? (CLUE: his purple T-shirt.) And that Gladney is the character on the right of the frame in the tan short-sleeved shirt who gets pulled to the ground about frame # 175 and gets back up again to his feet in about, oh, three seconds flat?
“Beat to shit”? Helloooo? Even Gladney himself never claimed he’d been beaten, only that someone hit his hands. Tea Party operatives took it from there, the story getting more lurid every day, including claiming Gladney’d been “sent to the hospital.” (After walking around and giving multiple interviews Gladney took himself to a hospital . . . the next day. Only then do we see this clown suddenly require a wheelchair.)
That’s complete, shameless nonsense. The Media Matters story never used the word “hoax” (though a couple of their commenters said that's what the TeaPartiers' story, NOT the video, was). Say, what’s with winguts always putting the made-up parts INSIDE the quotation marks [as in "invented the Internet"] ?
MM never claimed th the video was a “hoax”--you shameless liar. Why would they? it shows what happened: a big nothing. A bit of confusing shoving and yelling followed by a lot of provably bogus malarkey from Teabaggers itching for a martyr.
See, that’s the way fascists work. And fascist sympathizers and fellow travelers like you eat it up like chocolate candy, prompting you to convince yourself you see things happening in a video that simply aren’t there. To the point where you ask someone who doesn''t see in that video anything remotely resembling a brutal beating if they are fucking blind. "Seeing is believing" is meaningless when it comes to people who let their beliefs rule their perceptions.
You are so sad. I mean that sincerely. You have eyes and ears that don't function anymore because your grotesque ideology overrides them.
winston;
From that video that you said proves nothing. Here is a newspaper link that probably also proves 'nothing.' Those SEIU thugs that did 'nothing' in the video which as you said proves nothing were charged yesterday.
http://www.kmox.com/Charges-filed-in-Carnahan-health-care-forum-fight/5760101
Why don't you supply us with the full quote in which Media Matters claims the video is a "hoax"? After all, you place that word inside quotation marks and tell us it was "in big type" so it shouldn't be hard for you to find.
Like all wingnuts, you are an impossible, irrational goofball with an immense persecution complex and no hesitation whatsoever in making things up at the top of your lungs.
Where's the quote, Tom? Why don't you stop rolling your eyes like a junior-high-school Heather for two minutes and back up one thing you've said? Where's the quote?
I read your newspaper link, and looked up a few other stories besides. There appear to be six people charged. Three of them—Spitz, Matthews, and a reporter named Wagman—are charged with interfering with police officers (and apparently nothing else).
A fourth person, a woman, was charged with assault and property destruction for pushing another woman (i.e., not Gladney) and breaking her cell phone. Elston McCowan, the man you see lying on the ground as the video opens, and another man are each charged with assault (on who, we don’t know, possibly Gladney?) and interfering with police.
That’s what we know so far. We don’t know how many of these people are associated with SEIU (only McGowan for certain). So far, I don’t see a single charge that unequivocally supports the story that an SEIU official assaulted Gladney.
I’d tell you you’d do well to start reading a few paragraphs deep into entire news stories instead of just glancing at the headlines and presuming they confirm your pre-existing beliefs, but it would be a total waste of breath. That’s the very essence of how Nooshans function in the world.
Still, your level of hysterical goofball buffoonery on this one is right off the charts.
From here on out, wingnuts will trumpet every criminal charge as conclusive proof of wrongdoing. However, they’ll see every acquittal and dropped charge as conclusive proof authorities are colluding and discriminating against them. That's how they run.
Now where's that quote?
Just to be crystal clear, what your newspaper story "proves" is this: some charges have been filed in connection with that incident. It isn't yet clear even whether an SEIU staffer has been accused of assaulting Mr. Gladney.
However, not only do you seem certain that such an criminal charge has been lodged, you further seem convinced the newspaper story "proves" it's true. That's Goofballism.
Located your quote yet?
It's the least you can do for the cause of Goofballism.
Otherwise someone might get the idea you make things up.
Tom, I’ve repeatedly demanded that you back up these deranged and manifestly false claims. You consistently ignore me, because you can’t.
Any political philosophy that relies as heavily as yours does on simply making s*** up is morally repulsive. Let’s call it for the Goofballery it is, OK?