“Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels – men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower
How can a necessary revolution take place if those who would participate in such a revolution are punished for their dissent? The revolution must be worthy enough to warrant forward momentum even in the face of cruel, and unusual punishment. And so it is.
The Republican Party is divided. On one side are the establishment Republicans, who want nothing more than to go along to get along. These men, and women care little for truth, justice, and the American way, they simply want to keep their jobs, and placate their constituency with false promises to be forgotten weeks after the next election. They talk of reaching across the aisle to the Democrats, but the reality is that there is little separation between Democrats and these Republicans. On the other side are the tea party conservatives. These men, and women have come to congress to shake up Washington. They have come to deliver on the promises of fiscal responsibility, social conservatism, and strong security. They are actually fighting aggressively to get done what they promised they would get done. In other words, they are taking the fight to the Democrats, not sitting back in order to keep their cushy job. They are fighting the conservative revolution.
According to National Journal:
“House Republicans are quietly discussing a proposal that could fundamentally alter the way future speakers of the House are chosen…any Republican who votes on the House floor in January against the conference’s nominee for House speaker—that is, the candidate chosen by a majority of the House GOP during its closed-door leadership elections in November—would be severely punished. Specifically, sources say, any dissenters would be stripped of all committee assignments for that Congress.”
Allow me to lay this out to demonstrate the irony in the most accurate fashion. The House Republicans have a voting process to decide who should be their leader. Generally speaking, organizations participate in voting processes in order to uncover who would be the most well suited to lead their organization. Additionally, free, and open voting is a hallmark of the democratic process. These votes allow candidates to compete, so that those voting can suss out the best candidate, rather than have a lousy leader foisted upon them—ya know, like in a tyrannical dictatorship.
House Republicans voted for Boehner in 2013, but there were a number of dissenters who questioned his conservatism, and his willingness to do anything that would upset the Democrats. With this proposal (if in fact true), voting would mean absolutely nothing. Anyone who dares to vote for someone other than Boehner would be severely punished. That being the case, why even vote at all? Why not create a proposal that would eliminate voting altogether, and just have each Speaker of The House appoint their successor, like a dynasty?
There’s a reason behind the concept of free voting. You see, if voters are subject to punishment for dissenting, they are more likely to support the incumbent out of fear. This creates a cycle of dangerous and oppressive leadership. Imagine if this proposed rule were in effect for presidential elections. All who didn’t vote for the incumbent would lose their jobs. How would that alter the freedom of the voting process? The idea of punishing those who dissent renders the idea of voting moot.
Conservatives have a legitimate concern over the direction the Republican Party is taking. How can they take the necessary steps to push forward our sedentary Party if they are stripped of their committee assignments for dissenting? How can they revolutionize the Party if they are punished for having an opinion which differs from the establishment?
Let’s all welcome King John Boehner! Bow down, and don’t make direct eye contact.