Author unknown
October 14, 2015
Mr. Smith went to Washington with the 114th United States Congress in January 2015 under the campaign banner of "Either I'm dead right, or I'm crazy!" It's a little over nine months later and the results are in -- Mr. Smith is both dead wrong and crazy to boot. The average American voter is witnessing a very public, sometimes mean-spirited debate raging within the Grand Old Party. The debate is over who should be replacing US Representative John Boehner as the next Speaker of the US House of Representatives.The battle is not over who could be Speaker, but who should be Speaker.
Should the next Speaker come from the radical, right wing of the party, which by it's very nature is prone to reactionary outbursts? Should the next Speaker come from the mildly, conservative centrist wing of the party, which represents the corporatist donor class, and which has historically funded the two-party system, and historically had an over-sized influence on who should and should not be Speaker of the House? Or should the next Speaker come from the staunchly principled and partisan, conservative wing of the party, which has historically represented the truly loyal base of the party? In the long run I doubt very much any compromise outcome will yield positive results for the GOP, the Congress, or the nation.
Of course my fictionalized Mr. Smith, is just a caricature of the members of a hell-no caucus, who are at center stage of this struggle. The hello-no caucus is comprised of so-called citizen-politicians equipped with anger as their sword, and self-righteousness as their shield. The irony is that most all of these citizen-politicians got elected with campaign promises of brook no compromise, all compromise is evil, and compromise is treason, in newly gerrymandered districts, gerrymandered by the apparatchiks of the party. Party apparatchiks they are now attacking as either faux conservatives or RINOs (Republican In Name Only).
These Mr Smiths see themselves as ideologically pure warriors in an internecine war for the heart and soul of the Republican Party and ultimately, the Congress. Yet they have neither loyalty to party, nor respect for the Congress as an institution. The fact that they contribute heavily to the unpopularity of the Congress as an institution is undeniable. This obvious cognitive dissonance is only possible because they answer only to narrow, safely, gerrymandered districts. Their motto could be ideology over party, over Congress, over nation, but the party's motto has been win at all costs.
The Mr. Smith played by the actor James Stewart in the movie Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, campaigned on the liberty to be "free to think and to speak" tempered with "a little bit of plain, ordinary, everyday kindness,"-- the Mr. Smiths of the 114th Congress campaigned in 2014, in newly gerrymandered districts, in an election year that saw the lowest congressional voter turnout since 1978, with angry, hell-no, burn down the house campaign slogans tempered by nothing. The Republican party reaps what it sowed, but the nation also reaps what it sowed through it's indifference and apathy during congressional election cycles.
October 14, 2015
Mr. Smith went to Washington with the 114th United States Congress in January 2015 under the campaign banner of "Either I'm dead right, or I'm crazy!" It's a little over nine months later and the results are in -- Mr. Smith is both dead wrong and crazy to boot. The average American voter is witnessing a very public, sometimes mean-spirited debate raging within the Grand Old Party. The debate is over who should be replacing US Representative John Boehner as the next Speaker of the US House of Representatives.The battle is not over who could be Speaker, but who should be Speaker.
Should the next Speaker come from the radical, right wing of the party, which by it's very nature is prone to reactionary outbursts? Should the next Speaker come from the mildly, conservative centrist wing of the party, which represents the corporatist donor class, and which has historically funded the two-party system, and historically had an over-sized influence on who should and should not be Speaker of the House? Or should the next Speaker come from the staunchly principled and partisan, conservative wing of the party, which has historically represented the truly loyal base of the party? In the long run I doubt very much any compromise outcome will yield positive results for the GOP, the Congress, or the nation.
Of course my fictionalized Mr. Smith, is just a caricature of the members of a hell-no caucus, who are at center stage of this struggle. The hello-no caucus is comprised of so-called citizen-politicians equipped with anger as their sword, and self-righteousness as their shield. The irony is that most all of these citizen-politicians got elected with campaign promises of brook no compromise, all compromise is evil, and compromise is treason, in newly gerrymandered districts, gerrymandered by the apparatchiks of the party. Party apparatchiks they are now attacking as either faux conservatives or RINOs (Republican In Name Only).
These Mr Smiths see themselves as ideologically pure warriors in an internecine war for the heart and soul of the Republican Party and ultimately, the Congress. Yet they have neither loyalty to party, nor respect for the Congress as an institution. The fact that they contribute heavily to the unpopularity of the Congress as an institution is undeniable. This obvious cognitive dissonance is only possible because they answer only to narrow, safely, gerrymandered districts. Their motto could be ideology over party, over Congress, over nation, but the party's motto has been win at all costs.
The Mr. Smith played by the actor James Stewart in the movie Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, campaigned on the liberty to be "free to think and to speak" tempered with "a little bit of plain, ordinary, everyday kindness,"-- the Mr. Smiths of the 114th Congress campaigned in 2014, in newly gerrymandered districts, in an election year that saw the lowest congressional voter turnout since 1978, with angry, hell-no, burn down the house campaign slogans tempered by nothing. The Republican party reaps what it sowed, but the nation also reaps what it sowed through it's indifference and apathy during congressional election cycles.
Last edited:
