This from Will Galston in the WSJ I found interesting for a couple of reasons. One, how much, surprisingly I think, I share in general with the 'Jacksonian' crew as he calls them [actually a term originally coined by W. Mead] about the nature of the current threat to the republic even though I would never consider myself a 'tea party' type - which reinforces idea that the divide in the GOP right now is more about tactics and temperament [aka wisdom or the lack thereof] than core beliefs - and also I would suggest the notion that true conservatism should distrust not embrace extremism, and that in the end is really what separates a 'moderate' Republican from a Ted Cruz type. The other interesting thing Galston suggests is something I've said repeatedly: that so enraging the Jacksonian wing of the right, whether it's deliberate or merely a byproduct of a push left [I strongly lean towards both deliberate and logical consequence], will not lead to a liberal wonderland where the right has been rendered irrelevant by internecine upheaval but rather to a bitterly divided country that is ungovernable.
I've always maintained that a country like America, at least as far as the executive goes, can only be governed successfully from the right with intermittent forays into pragmatic, moderate liberalism as with Kennedy or Clinton - and accordingly one of the main reasons I thought Obama would be a disastrous president was because I considered him a far left ideologue hiding cleverly behind a moderate mask who was not at all a good fit for the country but who would nevertheless with grave consequences be 'empowered' by the naive delusions of identity politics and a fervently biased media.
[a little sidebar here - I've noticed increasingly Kelly Ayotte taking lead as voice of moderate, reasonable conservatism when it comes to media parade - this interesting: I of course thought she could be a VP candidate in 2012 but moved away from her when I judged her presence in front of the cameras lacking - now, it's not like she's lighting it up here but she's definitely improving and this is important because I believe if it's Hillary in 2016 the GOP is going to have to put a woman on the ticket, either at the head or as VP - and right now the three most likely candidates are Martinez, Halley and Ayotte - so, Ayotte being out front this way I think is interesting]
I've always maintained that a country like America, at least as far as the executive goes, can only be governed successfully from the right with intermittent forays into pragmatic, moderate liberalism as with Kennedy or Clinton - and accordingly one of the main reasons I thought Obama would be a disastrous president was because I considered him a far left ideologue hiding cleverly behind a moderate mask who was not at all a good fit for the country but who would nevertheless with grave consequences be 'empowered' by the naive delusions of identity politics and a fervently biased media.
[a little sidebar here - I've noticed increasingly Kelly Ayotte taking lead as voice of moderate, reasonable conservatism when it comes to media parade - this interesting: I of course thought she could be a VP candidate in 2012 but moved away from her when I judged her presence in front of the cameras lacking - now, it's not like she's lighting it up here but she's definitely improving and this is important because I believe if it's Hillary in 2016 the GOP is going to have to put a woman on the ticket, either at the head or as VP - and right now the three most likely candidates are Martinez, Halley and Ayotte - so, Ayotte being out front this way I think is interesting]
