Another take on the purge
“As leadership, you have some obligations to the caucus. It doesn’t mean dissent is stifled.”
That quote is attributed to the DFL’s Gordon Voss, chairman of the tax committee in 1987. Michael Brodkarb notes that it was published by the Star Tribune in May of that year.
As much as I am loathe to, I must take issue with Don’s post on the state Republican Party’s purge of the “infamous six,” in which he concludes:
This is not a government of, by and for the party.
The reason we have political parties is because it is simply impossible for every citizen to get to know every candidate on a personal level. As such, parties are established with a clear set of platforms in order that voters feel more comfortable with the ideology of a given candidate.
Over the years, both parties have engaged in purges. In the example above, Voss was referring to the decision by DFL Speaker of the House Fred Norton to remove two DFLers from the tax committee for voting against a tax bill. There are other examples as well.
In 1998 DFL Senator Bob Lessard was voted out of his committee chairmanship for endorsing Norm Coleman, and if current is what you are looking for, DFL Rep. Ann Lenczewski is being challenged from within the DFL for voting against the “best interests of her constituents.”
Perhaps the most famous purge was that of Sen. Joe Lieberman, who was thrown under the bus by the national Democratic Party in 2006 for having the (as Don might put it) “audacity” to vote his conscience on the Iraq war.
Don suggests that purging elected members of the Republican Party will hamper its chances for victory this fall. That may very well be so, but I would suggest that victory is about more than what letter is next to a legislator’s name. It is also about making sure those elected will represent the party’s (and therefore the constituents who voted them in based on that affiliation) interests.
Far from “politics as usual” these purges take place from time to time in order to further strengthen the ideology of both parties. That is good for everyone, as it helps more closely define what each party stands for and makes voting booth decisions easier.
While Don may very well be right that the “infamous six” will be rewarded at the ballot box this November, recent polls suggest otherwise. A KSTP poll shows that 63 percent of voters oppose the transportation bill and 50 percent would be less likely to vote for anyone who supported it.
If the infamous six are forced to change parties, what is the harm? It is entirely plausible that the change will more accurately depict the ideology of the candidate. That is good for voters, who face enough tough choices as it is.
Furthermore, I would suggest that the Republican’s Party’s willingness to risk losing seats in order that the party ideology be clearer is something that should be praised, not criticized. It shows the platform of the party is more important than hollow political victories. Isn’t that the kind of “conscience” we should expect more of, not less?