The Republican "Renaissance"

As this year's elections are drawing to a close several Republicans are talking about the rebound of the Republican party and, as GOP Chairman Michael S. Steele calls it, the Republican "renaissance." Just one question: how is a party that has been out of the White House for one year on the rebound?

Sure they are coming back as people get over their anger at the Bush administration, but it hasn't been long enough for a rebound. Sure, the Republican's haven't had a majority in Congress in three years, but that still isn't long enough. A rebound requires an amount of time more like the decade that the Tories in the UK have been out of the majority.

As for "renaissance," how is there a renaissance when moderate candidates are still having to become more and more conservative just to get nominated? Then they are stuck for the actual campaign because if they go back on what they said they sound like they only say what the people want to hear rather than do what they say. The moderate politicians should be able to campaign what they believe and for what the people want, not what the Washington elites want. They especially should not have to bend to the will of people such as Sarah Palin or George Bush.

Since I have made this criticism, I will back it up. George Bush and Sarah Palin are conservative to the point of ignorance, just as Nancy Pelosi is liberal to the point of ignorance. These types of people are completely single minded without any sense of real time situations that take precedent over what they want to do For example, George Bush continuing to cut taxes in the middle of an increasingly expensive war. Granted Obama isn't doing much better about being responsive to changes in situations such as the economy, but at least he isn't stupid enough to continually cut back his monetary base while he is increasing the government's spending.

With that said, politicians are being forced more and more to become more extreme, which is sadly the opposite of what the majority of people want. Most people lean one way or the other. Yes, they identify with one party, but they are rarely only liberal or only conservative. So why are their politicians? Politicians should be responsive to the people, there to represent the people. They are not there to represent the elites that are already in Washington.

So why do politicians continue to go more liberal or conservative? It's because they need a party's support. Without a party's support they do not have the funds, or the access to people who have the funds, to run a successful campaign. This is evident in New York's election where Sarah Palin essentially chased the REPUBLICAN candidate Scozzafava out of the election because she was too moderate. Palin instead endorsed a Conservative party candidate.

While people are wanting more moderate candidates, the actual politicians who are getting elected are no more moderate than they were under Bush or any other recent president. Neither party can claim to be going through a "renaissance." Democrats are no longer on the rebound, and the Republicans were never out enough to be on the rebound. It's more political jargon to gain popularity, and it's a disgusting tactic.

As GOP Celebrates Wins, Internal Ideological Battles Remain
This link is the article that more or less brought about this post. The article focuses on the GOP, where as the post is more politics in general with several GOP examples simply because they are the most current. The problems that are brought up in the post are true of many parties around the world.