Sarah Palin’s book tour has had me thinking about the differences between fringe support in the Republican and Democratic parties. I was planning to write about how the right not only accepts but embraces extremism in the Republican party and how the Democratic party seems to be wary of accepting liberal extremists. Somebody more reputable beat me to it.
Instead, I intend to discuss the legitimacies that the parties provide (or don’t) to their wings. In the Democratic party, perhaps the most famous example of the party not embracing its wing is of Cindy Sheehan:
I am deemed a radical because I believe that partisan politics should be left to the wayside when hundreds of thousands of people are dying for a war based on lies that is supported by Democrats and Republican alike. It amazes me that people who are sharp on the issues and can zero in like a laser beam on lies, misrepresentations, and political expediency when it comes to one party refuse to recognize it in their own party. Blind party loyalty is dangerous whatever side it occurs on.
This was the post that alienated Sheehan from the DailyKos and eventually the Democratic party. She remains a force in liberal politics, but she is arguably quieter now that the Democratic roots are not allowed to support her.
On the right, we have Glenn Beck:
Glenn Beck is, of course, not exactly part of the Republican party, but many party members have lent their support. Notably, Chuck Grassley, Republican Senator from Iowa, appeared at a town hall event with the book. By Democratic standards, Beck would be well outside the mainstream, but when people like Senator Grassley support him, it lends him some serious legitimacy.
Herein lies the fundamental difference between the Democrats and the Republicans on this issue. Republicans build up a star that they know will not be accepted by the majority of Americans. By gaining support, these new stars attract criticism which, in turn, separates and strengthens their positions. Neither Glenn Beck nor Sarah Palin can be ignored any longer. Those who choose to seem more out of touch but those who engage risk setbacks.
Immediately following the election of Barack Obama just under a year ago, there was a great deal of talk about “bi-partisanship” or the more honorable “post-partisanship”. In building his cabinet, Obama gathered experts with a wide diversity of opinions with little regard for political party. The term “post-partisanship” has since become kind of a point of mockery among conservative pundits. Who knew that the Republican party would be the one forced to deal with post-partisan problems, not with moderates as Obama supporters were looking for but with the ideological right?