Column:

Purity test excludes moderates

By Jordan Stein

Published Dec. 1, 2009

I figured the Thanksgiving weekend would probably be a slow news weekend, but one story, which seemed to start slowly, has gained momentum. Mary Matalin, a prominent Republican strategist, appeared Friday on “Anderson Cooper 360” to talk about a new strategy from the Republican Party.

Top Republicans are discussing instituting a "purity test" requirement for candidates who wish to receive party funds and an endorsement. Candidates would have to agree with at least seven of the 10 stances put forth by the party to receive true Republican status.

According to Associated Content, here are the 10 points:

1. Supporting smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills, such as President Barack Obama's stimulus bill

2. Supporting market-based health care reform by opposing Obama-style government run health care

3. Supporting market-based energy reform and opposing cap and trade legislation

4. Supporting workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check

5. Opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants

6. Supporting military-recommended troop surges

7. Supporting containment of Iran and North Korea

8. Supporting retention of the Defense of Marriage Act

9. Opposing health care rationing, denial of health care and government-funded abortion

10. Supporting the right to keep and bear arms

The guest opposite Matalin, Democratic strategist Paul Begala, had some sarcastic comments regarding the institution of such a policy, and he said Republicans are all about driving people out of their party. Although the über-liberal inside me rejoices at the idea of the Republicans self-destructing with such an exclusionary policy, the realist inside me is afraid alienating conservative moderates will result in fewer people voting.

Because there are only two parties that have enough money and influence to seriously participate in politics, those parties have to have huge tents. Both parties have cleavages, leading to further distinctions within the parties, such as log cabin Republicans or Christian Democrats. But if the Republicans decide to make all candidates pass a "purity test," whoever doesn't agree with most of the stances will feel excluded from the party. There are plenty of younger conservatives who are still fiscally conservative but take more liberal social stances than their older counterparts.

By requiring some sort of official party line, the Republicans take a very big risk. There are unofficial stances within each party, but no real repercussions in the legislature for departing from those stances, unlike the party systems in Canada or the United Kingdom. If the Republicans want to exclude everyone who varies from one staunch conservative ideology, you can bet the Democrats will be standing on the other side of the aisle with open arms.

Perhaps the Republican Party could be trying to combat the party system and supporting a diversity of parties. Maybe they think those moderate conservatives, without the refuge of the GOP and reluctant to join the ranks of liberals, will go out and form their own party. It would be a noble cause, something a lot of voters who feel disenfranchised by both parties have been calling for.

I don't think this is the case though. Because Obama is specifically mentioned in the first two points, I'm forced to think Republicans are not trying to root out "impure" Republicans, but rather con those who disagree with some of Obama's specific policies into thinking they agree with every Republican stance. They're equating "anti-Obama" with "pro-Republican," which is a gross simplification. Whatever the Republican Party hopes to accomplish with this purity test, I guarantee it will backfire.

Jordan Stein is a senior political science major, and she can be reached at jesf25@mizzou.edu