Unity of Character

It seems, to me at least, that no matter the issue or policy that we find the Democratic Party standing firmly opposed to the position of the President. The Republican Party on the other hand seems to lose a few Senators on just about every issue. In the last two issues discussed here at Conserva-Puppies, we are replete with examples. So it occurs to me that their must one of two options at work.

The Democratic Party is indeed unified. Well clearly that isn’t the case as the party is an amalgam of various special interest as much, if not more, than it is a party of ideology or worldview. We could argue that its opposition to the President unifies the party, but that isn’t the affirming characteristic that I’m looking for, and frankly it is not a basis for long term success in politics.

So I think it must be a matter of character. That is personal character, not political or ideological. Men of significant character are generally loath to claim the Democratic Party as their own in this day and age. Think Zell Miller. Though some stubborn men of character do remain, here I think of Lieberman, it is not only rare it is a political risk to him to be such a man. So does that mean that Republicans are men of character? No, what it means is that men of character are more likely to be Republican today, and that while men of character are loath to associate with a party of none, men of little or no character are capable and willing to join those who do possess character.

It is the Republican elected officials of little or no character who stand in name as Republican but on nearly every issue are tempted to, for political expediency, side with the Democrats and against the ideological view that they only mouth association with. Thus, the Democrats seem unified where there is little unity, and the Republicans seem to splinter at every turn.

What do you think?