When is a majority not a majority? | Eastern North Carolina Now

Question:     When is a majority not a majority?

Answer:     When the majority are Republicans.

They can't be herded together just for the sake of a win.

~~~Some~~~ of those guys actually have principals.

   Being part of a majority does not mean that everyone agrees on everything. It only means that they disagree with the minority. Nevertheless, when you get a majority of Republicans together, you do not really have a concensus. What you have is a group of people who think individually and occasionally agree enough to form a group opinion. I suggest that the philosophy of both parties are based on a simple philosophy.

  • Republicans believe generally in individual achievement and responsibility not hampered by too much government regulation.
  • Democrats believe in winning elections first and secondly using government to correct inequities as a result of human choices or create desired outcomes.

    While that might sound a bit simplistic, I have tried for the last few years to look for a middle ground between the two philosophies of governing. I did not do this because I wanted to find a compromise of my beliefs. The effort was more of an exercise in trying to understand how having a strong opinion automatically makes everyone else's opinion wrong. I have come to the decision that there is little if any middle ground. Both parties have gravitated toward the extremes of their philosophy.

    Having said that, it is clear that it is easier for the Democrats (Machiavellians)  to gather their crowd together than it is the Republicans.

    It would be a stretch to say that the Republicans will unite merely for the purpose of winning an election. Republicans have no problem throwing their own under the bus over some breach in protocol, moral mis-step or a deep mater of principal (whatever that is). Some would say that is not true since they hold a majority in the House, Senate and the Executive. However, if you look closely, you will see that there is a hard conservative group in the house that cannot be controlled by the leadership (Crusaders), and most of the Senate are nothing more than bureaucrats who are mainly interested in staying in office and appearing reagal. (My Good Friend). Then there are many in congress whose district is not homogenous in in a single philosophy.(The Wind-Testers). That leaves a whole bunch of moderates. I have always said that a moderate is just a person to damn lazy to make up their mind and that is where the danger to our society lies. It does not lie in the extremes of either side of the political spectrum. Our culture appears to be self centering; look at the ebb and flow of presidential elections over the years (FDR being the exception). It is my belief that a moderate just does not want to put in the effort required of a citizen in a self-governing society (The Rodney Kings). They are too easily swayed by the currents of the political stream, emotional appeal or .

   Below is what I think illustrates the inability of the republican majority to agree. You cannot expect a party based on individual liberty and action to always be in lockstep. Hell, they can't even Dress Right. I consider that a positive rather than a negative. It indicates that someone is actually thinking in stead of just trying to pass a bill for the sake of passing a bill.

    When it comes to President Trump, he is not a Republican but a pragmatist. I doubt that he has a core philosophical belief in governing. His forte is deal making and that requires flexibility without the anchor of principal. He has no problem from walking away for a deal that does not suit his goals. People like that usually do not have any hardcore right and wrong beliefs; they merely know what is practical. That in and of itself can be dangerous but it is not catastrophic. (this conclusion could come back to haunt me later) That is not a criticism of him but what I consider to be a fact. At some point in the next eight years, he will veer off course and alienate some of his base. When I talk about his base, I am talking about the hard-core supporters who show up at his rallies. I doubt that they represent the majority of the population. Many of his voters, myself included, found themselves between an obvious "NO" choice and the lesser of two evils. Hopefully, in the end we will get a more thoughtful solution without ramming things down each other's throat.
    I have always been suspect whenever any legislation is passed based on ideology. That path usually indicates a willingness of one party to impose their beliefs on the populace as a whole. I thought that was settled in 1776 & 1787 with amendment being the prescribed way to change the basic foundations of our government.

    We may be witnessing the disintegration of both the Democratic and Republican Parties into irrelevant factions unable to either change or convince the other side of their beliefs. Usually those factions disappear into the history books. Is it time to start over? Here is a primer on the various political parties since our countries founding. Timeline U.S. Political Parties
Go Back


Leave a Guest Comment

Your Name or Alias
Your Email Address ( your email address will not be published)
Enter Your Comment ( no code or urls allowed, text only please )



Comments

( March 27th, 2017 @ 6:56 pm )
 
Thanks Alex. You make a great point. I guess the white smiley faces represent that other group of Republicans that live in Blue States, or at least did in 1992. The voting constituency has a lot to do with the politician's philosophy. I can't explain Alabama, Alaska and Virginia though.

( March 27th, 2017 @ 11:48 am )
 
Allow me to address (you really have no choice) the Lock Stepping of the Democrat Party.

To this day Democrats say Clinton’s Impeachment in the House was a Partisan Vote.

These are the Republican Senators Who Voted Not To Remove Bill Clinton from Office. (Remember the charges were Perjury & Obstruction of Justice & not doing nasty things in the Oval Office.)
1. Slade Gorton, Washington ... Not guilty on Perjury Charge.
2. Tad Stevens, Alaska ... Not guilty on Perjury Charge
3. Fred Thompson, Tennessee ... Not guilty on Perjury Charge
4. John Warner, Virginia ... Not guilty on Perjury Charge
5. Richard Shelby, Alabama ... Not guilty on Perjury Charge.
6. John Chafee, Rhode Island ... Not guilty on both charges.
7. Susan Collins, Maine ... Not guilty on both charges.
8. Olympia Snowe, Maine ... Not guilty on both charges.
9. James Jeffords, Vermont ... Not guilty on both charges. (Became an Independent -really a Democrat- in 2001).
10. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania ... Not guilty on both charges. (Became an Independent -really a Democrat- in 2009).

Partisan Vote means all voters cast their votes strictly along party lines.

I say again...To this day Democrats say Clinton’s Impeachment in the House was a Partisan Vote.

This Is Not True Because...
• All Democrats voted Not Guilty (Partisan).
• 10 Republicans voted Not Guilty on at least one of the two charges (Not Partisan).

To this day I scratch my head every time I hear either Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe referred to a “Republicans”.



The sham of incidental surveillance - Exposed Views from the Right Seat, Editorials, Op-Ed & Politics Governor Cooper Issues Statement on the Passing of Al Adams

HbAD0

 
Back to Top