BCT Editorial – 8/24/06

This page was last updated on August 24, 2006.

Bitter divide; Editorial; Beaver County Times; August 24, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The coming congressional elections could be a disaster for the Republican Party, with many experts predicting that the Democrats could regain control of the House or Senate, if not both.”

[RWC] You just know the author wanted to lead off this sentence with “The coming congressional elections could be a boon for the U.S.” <g>

“But the real loser in the congressional elections could be centrism, meaning our government would become even more polarized. That’s because most of the GOP incumbents who are vulnerable are from the Northeast, and they tend to be more moderate than the hardliners who dominate their caucus.”

[RWC] Fortunately, the Times’ “centrism” is a myth that has never existed. If it weren’t, our elections wouldn’t be about ideas and principles. Since everyone would be of pretty much the same mind, our elections would center on who has the nicest smile, can deliver the best speeches, et cetera. Oh wait, that happens in a “polarized” world as well.

“If these moderates do go down to defeat, which is a distinct possibility in more than a few races, congressional politics could become even more divisive than it already is.”

[RWC] Remember, the Times definition of a moderate is a liberal, or a Republican that votes like a liberal. For example, while the Times likely considers Sen. Santorum not to be “moderate,” editorials routinely refer to RINO Sen. Specter as moderate. Check Sen. Santorum’s record and his stated positions, though, and you find he would have fit in quite nicely as a JFK-era Democrat. That’s how far to the left outlets like the Times have swung, or maybe they were there all along.

“The Washington Post reports what is taking place in the Northeast is part of a trend that started when the Republican Party became dominant in the South, culminating in the 1994 elections that saw many seats formerly held by moderate-to-conservative Democrats filled by more conservative Republicans. Now, a similar movement is taking place in the Northeast, only in reverse.”

[RWC] The editorial author seems to believe the liberalization of the Northeast is something new. It’s not. For quite some time, as a group elected Republicans in the Northeast (including Pennsylvania) have been leaning more and more to the left. For example, Sen. Specter is liberal as was Sen. John Heinz. Look at elected Republicans in state government and as a group they behave as JFK-era Democrats. For example, the General Assembly has gone along with most of Gov. Rendell’s proposals. In the eight years preceding Rendell when Republicans had the majority in the GA as well as the governorship, spending increased faster than it did in the previous eight years when Democrats were the majority and we had a Democrat governor.

“The problem here is threefold. First, our system of government was designed to encourage compromise and moderation. The absence of centrists in both parties is one reason Congress is the mess it is. Second, the American people are not as ideological or as partisan as their elected representatives. These ‘yes, but’ and ‘live and let live’ Americans have fewer and fewer representatives speaking for them in Congress. Third, Congress is splitting along geographic lines, which is never a good sign.”

[RWC] If you believe the Times actually believes the liberalization of the Northeast is a problem, I’m sorry, you’re gullible.

The Times may be genuinely worried about Congress “splitting along geographic lines” because the states with the greatest population growth, and thus greatest growth in representation, tend to be “red” states.

“Unfortunately, the short- and long-term chances of a move to the center are minimal. Barring some unforeseen political miracle, Americans are going to be stuck with an ideologically divided government that does not reflect their more moderate views. It’s a recipe for disaster.”

[RWC] If the Times ever got its wish for centrism, that would be a sure sign of a U.S. in decline.