I disagree with Francis Wilkinson’s assertion that the Freedom Caucus in the House are anti-democratic. I think they are anti-republican. As Plato said the virtue most necessary in a republic is moderation, because moderation gives you the ability to compromise and compromise is necessary in a republic.
I have occasion to meet with Republican state officeholders and with our congressman. At the state level, just like at the federal level, they have to deal with a group of radicals who think it is wrong to compromise in any way. They threaten to run non-compromising idealistic purists against those who do compromise. I certainly hear it in my Tea Party email group. They want capitulation, not compromise and governance.
Steve
I found Francis Wilkinson’s piece to be nothing more than partisan hyperbole, especially when ranting about “voting restrictions, probably referring to voter ID legislation, which is depicted as restricting the vote rather than simply providing legal authenticity of a voter.
As for the impact of the Freedom Caucus — it is one of those right-sided groups, similar to the groups inhabiting the dems, such as the Black Caucus, who staunchly stand by very narrow goals of achieving “smaller government,” whether or not it is practical or achievable.
The very nature, though, of Obama’s presidency has invited push back of this type, as he has also staunchly stood by his very social progressive agenda, despite polls or public backing showing massive disagreement with the policies he is pushing through, via either a unilateral vote by his democratic cohorts or by the injection of Obama’s own EO’s.
The Athenians had the Thirty, the GOP has the Forty or so.
Compromise with anything?