Taking the Power from the People Says You Don't Trust Their Vetting

   With yesterday's news came the most interesting development in all the recent history of the Republican Party. These Repubs are considering requiring potential candidates to sign a statement promising support of the party platform.
   Or the candidate can't run as a Republican.
   Oh, and the candidate would have to go through a vetting interview with someone from the party. You don't pass the interview, you don't run.
   'Tis late, and I don't have time to properly edit, nor even time to properly format this, but here are some thoughts I gave while discussing this on Facebook tonight.

 I am guessing the party will come around to Todd and Steve's reasoning. Vetting? That is what the election process is about. The Republican voters vet the candidates. It is the voters who should decide if they approve of the ideology of the candidates. If it is fine with the entire membership that the candidate favors allowing more immigrants, for example, then that is what the vetting process approves.

To take the power from the people is to say you don't trust the voters to do the vetting.

Freedom of thought, freedom to hold an opinion of ones own, and not that of the party leadership, is at stake. Oh, Cherilyn. You speak of shutting down freedom of speech. In a way, that is what this move does. It forces the candidate to think and act and talk only within the box given by the party leadership.

The republican form of government is a good one. It has not survived well. We were set up that we should be electing our president in a republican fashion, but we don't. That said, the republican from of government should not rob democracy. What belongs to the voters should not be taken from them.

What the party is proposing actually runs counter to the spirit of what a republican form of government seeks to achieve, to me. I view the value of having someone select the candidate for you to be that that person will weigh the candidate not on a predetermined list of standards given to the representative, but just using the wisdom the representative has. The elector uses his own wisdom and criteria, not something imposed upon him or her. You select a wise person to select the candidates, rather than giving him or her a list of standards and saying, in effect, You are not wise enough to pick a candidate just using your own wisdom, so use this list of requirement we are providing you.

Some organizations fit that description. I am not sure political parties do. I believe parties need to allow broader ideology. Question: If those who choose to affiliate with the party should be required to pledge to support all the things in the platform, then does this mean the the full membership should do the same? Should we require a voter to pledge not to cast a vote for a candidate who does not meet our standards? Do we say, You can't join the party unless you are with us on this and this and this and this?

Parties can have core values, but they run a danger when they insist membership comes off an assembly line on every issue.