What’s Wrong With Principle?

I was both amused, and saddened, by the rank speculation and poor analysis of Sunday’s DuvaFiles post on the Andy Harris campaign for the 1st Congressional District seat currently held by Rep. Wayne Gilchrest. The “potential problems” proffered run from the sad to the ridiculous.

Start with the first obvious question the man in the street will ask;
to wit: If you: (a) earned a medical degree from, and (b) were on the
faculty of, the Johns Hopkins University Medical School, why would you
chuck all of that ( Congressional rules prohibit outside employment)
and even give a second thought to becoming an obscure back-bencher in
the den of iniquity called the U.S. House of Representatives?

There is no plausible answer unless Harris is on some sort of messianic mission that conjures up visions of zealotry.

Has Mr. Duval ever heard of public service? Believe it or not, most people who run for public office (irrespective of party or ideology) don’t do it for the paycheck. Mr. Duval despises Rep. Gilchrest, yet appears to buy right into Gilchrest’s “extremist” label of Sen. Harris. It does not matter that there is no evidence to back it up. Of course we should not be surprised by this apparent ideological schizophrenia.

Mr. Duval seems to be concerned by my repeated description of Andy Harris as a “movement conservative” (yes, I am evidently the “self righteous sanctimonious fringe”). Since Mr. Duval has definitely been around long enough, if he were the true blue conservative Republican that he claims he would know what the conservative movement is about AND what a “movement conservative” is. Since he doesn’t, I would suggest that he read George H. Nash’s “The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945“. The SU Library has it available if he doesn’t want to buy a copy. I would then start to tackle Morton Blackwell’s famous “Read to Lead” list.

The conservative movement is INDEPENDENT of the GOP. It is also more an intellectual movement than a strictly political (electoral) movement. Those of us who are “movement conservatives” hold principle above politics. The conservative movement is not some monolithic group of zealots. This is why people like Mr. Duval may find it so difficult to get their heads wrapped around the concept. The modern conservative movement has always been made up of people who share certain core principles but may not agree with each other on many others.

A recent example is the war in Iraq. Some movement conservatives supported the invasion of Iraq. Others, like myself, did not.  I do not believe in the concept of “nation building”.  One thing that we do have in common is a core belief in a strong national defense and a general opposition to totalitarianism.

Another example of conservatives agreeing to disagree is abortion. True, few if any movement conservatives are “pro-choice” as we view the term today (relatively unlimited access to abortion throughout the entire term of a pregnancy). Some want a total ban at the federal level (through either legislation or the adoption of a constitutional amendment). Some, such as myself are pro-life, believe that the Roe decision was fundamentally flawed and that abortion should be regulated by the states. There are also conservatives who believe that abortion should be legal but limited and regulated but that, again, Roe was flawed and the availability of legal abortion should be a decision left to the states. As a constitutional originalist I am ideologically more in agreement with a pro-choice individual who opposes Roe than I am a fellow pro-life believer who wants a federal ban. The vast majority of us do agree to disagree and bother to understand the other guy’s position rather than take a lock step view in opposition of someone who we agree with on many other core principles.

People like Mr. Duval need to understand that the greatest successes of the modern Republican party have been due to the conservative movement and have been idea based. The people in the conservative movement who came before my generation took a massive electoral beating in 1964. Did they give up? No. They continued to expound their ideas and persuade more and more Americans that the direction being taken by liberal / moderate Democrats (there were actually conservative Democrats back then) and liberal / moderate Republicans was leading our great country down the wrong path. In 1976, Ronald Reagan may have lost the Republican nomination in Kansas City but millions of us were energized for the battles that ensued between 1976 and 1980. In 1980, Ronald Reagan was considered “too old” and “too extreme” to win the GOP nod. Why did he win? Because his message was one of ideas - principles to stand on, solutions to problems (based on those principles), hope for the future and the confidence that the American people needed. In 1994 the Republican party seized control of both houses of Congress. Why? Because the “Contract with America” outlined a series of principles and policy proposals that showed the American electorate what CONSERVATIVE Republicans stood for and what they would do. Unfortunately, when the American people became tired of the Republican majority (since the ouster of Newt Gingrich as Speaker) not living up to the principles of the “Contract” we were justifiably ousted from the majority.

Mr. Duval also appears concerned that Andy Harris goes to church too often:

Nonetheless, the nagging suspicion lingers that this guy may be a moonbat zealot, a Pat Robertson with brains if you will. I hope not, because all the invocations of the sainted Reagan will not be enough to get that monkey off his back should he get to the general election.

Mr. Duval, on what evidence do you base your suspicions? Dr. Harris challenged, and defeated, a moderate Republican incumbent to win his senate seat.  He’s fiscally and socially conservative.  To the best of my knowledge Andy Harris is not some bizarre, right wing religious ideologue. How many Catholic zealots have you met in your life Mr. Duval?  Do you consider Lowell Stoltzfus a zealot?  I am willing to wager my life that Lowell would have NEVER signed on to Andy Harris’ steering committee if he did not believe that Andy’s ideology is sound and that his character is above reproach.  Of course I guess that’s because I can understand the difference between political ideology and religious zealotry. I understand that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles but that the founders took great aims to prevent the formation of a theocracy.

As for Mr. Duval’s concerns that Andy Harris is not from the Shore merely provides evidence as to his parochialism and overall lack of political savvy. Prior to Gilchrest, this district was represented by someone from St. Mary’s County. To the best of my knowledge, during my lifetime the 1st District has only been represented by a Shore native during Tom Johnson’s two terms and Bill Mill’s short tenure. Rogers Morton was from Kentucky, Bob Bauman from Pennsylvania, Roy Dyson from Southern Maryland and Wayne Gilchrest is from New Jersey. I’ve got a feeling that Mr. Duval wants E. J. Pipkin to run. While Sen. Pipkin represents Queen Anne’s County he is from Baltimore, and he is no more than a nominal conservative.

As Michael Swartz has pointed out, this district is no longer dominated by the Eastern Shore. Cecil County, except for the southern portion, is more of a bedroom community for Baltimore and New Castle Co., Delaware than the agricultural community that it once was. When I was a child, Harford County was politically and economically more in tune with the Shore despite it lying west of the Susquehanna. This is no longer the case. Throw in the number of people who have moved to the Shore from elsewhere and the notion that Andy Harris will face difficulty because he lives in Cockeysville is ridiculous. The current District is distinctly conservative despite a fairly even split in party registration.

I am sure that there are some Shore voters who will not vote for someone from the Western Shore. If Mr. Duval actually believes that the number of parochial voters is enough to stop a quality candidate like Andy Harris he is deluding himself.

Personally, I am looking forward to a campaign that will be dominated by ideas and one that will activate many folks at the grassroots who will be excited by Andy’s record in the Senate and his vision for the future.

Technorati Tags: 2008, DuvaFiles, AndyHarris, conservatism, GOP

Sphere: Related Content