Sen. Mike Williams, of Maynardville, has left/quit/defected (depending on which paper you read) the Republican Party.
Williams says he hasn’t changed; the Party has:
“Some in the party are leading us down a path to bitterness and divisiveness and in doing so have left me and the people I represent behind,†Williams said. “We have not left them. They have left us.â€
* * *
In 1993-94, I chaired the local Republican party through that year’s historic victory — an interesting 12-year ride which came to an end last year. Back then, it was very important to Republicans to be the party of the “big tent,” to allow for a great deal of diversity of thought while coalescing around a few basic principles: that government should be smaller and more focused on its core missions, that government should do only what people cannot do well for themselves, and that local governments should be empowered because they are closest to the people.
But just a few years later in the late 1990’s, change began taking place at the local level. The subsequent party leadership insisted on more ideological purity, shutting out anyone who differed on any issue — especially socially conservative issues that really run contrary to the principle of the government not doing what people can do for themselves (make moral decisions). I thought this was an aberration, a personality problem more than a change in the party; I did not think it related to power, as the new local leadership was completely disconnected from our state and federal Republican elected officials.
However, I’ve seen that change creeping up at the State level as Republicans squeaked out a majority four years ago, then accelerate with the election of a Republican Lt. Governor this year.
Power changed the Republican Party at the national level; exercising and expanding that power seemed to become more important than adherence to the principles that put them there in the first place. Losing power changed the Democrats too — after a while, it made them more agile, more willing to be open to a wider variety of voices in order to grow.
I think that power has changed the Republican Party at the State level as well, and I don’t like the change. Yes, we should have a Republican Speaker in the Senate, and we do. But that does not mean that the Party should clamp down like a vise on any divergent ideas or votes.
I don’t know what constituted the breaking point for Mike Williams, but I’ve known him long enough, and I think well enough, that I’m gravely concerned about what may have been going on behind closed doors to make him decide he didn’t want to be part of it any longer.
Our collective strength — whether as a nation, state, political party, or community — lies in our ability to maintain our individuality, yet work together on areas of agreement, while negotiating to find common ground in our areas of disagreement. Sure, it’s messy. But it works well when allowed to work as it should.
I hate to see the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot so early in the process.
I’ve always had a hard time seeing the Republican party being as “compassionate” as they claim, what with all of the moral judgements. Frankly, I’ve never been able to get past those judgements to see anything worthwhile in the party.
Pretty small minded moral judgment there AT.
None the less, the clamping down on divergent ideas and the goose stepping masses marching toward ideological purity are the reasons that I, as a life long Republican, no longer consider myself such.
I feel very strongly about my core conservative beliefs, but I also understand that other folks, many much smarter than I, disagree. I get to choose the path that I take and I have the right to vote my conscious. I don’t have the right to force anyone else to believe as I do, and wouldn’t want that responsibility either.
I made no moral judgement, sirrah, but a political one. It reflects my values, which is that equal treatment of every human being as a default supercedes political/government structural ideology.
And my point was that the stated core beliefs of the Republican Party are indeed focused on individual freedom and responsibility, while the “party” now seems to be more interested in regulating individual behaviors.
See guys? If they were adhering to their foundations, we’d all fit in.
We always have a spot available for you and Daco and we would welcome you with open arms. consider us.
The stated core beliefs of the Republican Party, as you linked to them, are identical to the core beliefs that I’ve held as a life-long Democrat. The reason I haven’t voted Republican is that I’ve never encountered a Republican who understands those fine words in the core belief statement as I understand them. OTOH, I’ve voted for many Democrats that do support the core beliefs of the Republican Party.
The core beliefs have flip-flopped between both parties historically several times.
Political parties are a direct result of the Constitutional Convention with the advent of the Federalists and Anti Federalist. It is my contention that in today’s world Abraham Lincoln might very well have been a Democrat. He stood against slavery (discrimination in today’s world is comparable). He stood for a strong national government evidenced by his position that States had no right to leave the Union once joining thus the Civil War (which was inevitable after the revolution, as in all countries i.e. Korea, Vietnam, and NOW IRAQ). In other words the Federal government was the supreme law of the land as the Constitution states. And finally he had compassion for the downtrodden especially in consideration of his reconstruction plan, which was much less “radical” than the Republican Radical Reconstructionists.
This stance flipped with FDR and his new deal to the Democrats as a result of the Great Depression. Hmmm? In times of crisis it appears that leadership tends to flow toward the Federalist POV? It appears to have worked at least twice.