And it seems as though the Republicans really should have expected Jeffords to be liable to leave. I've been chasing up a bit of background, and found this:
it will mark the convergence of two political trends in New England: the region's alienation from a national Republican Party dominated by Sun Belt conservatives and its growing comfort with independent, or third party, politics.
...
"In the state of Vermont, for at least the last 20 years, there has been a strong and successful political movement outside the Democratic and Republican Parties," Mr. Sanders said. "Many people appreciate the fact that political life can exist outside the two-party system."
In last year's election, 42 percent of New England voters identified themselves as independents or something other than Democrats or Republicans, according to exit polls conducted by Voter News Service. By contrast, 34 percent said they were Democrats and 24 percent said they were Republicans.
...
"If truth be known," the governor said, "a person who's a fiscal conservative and a social moderate, which describes about 60 percent of the American people, there just isn't a party that speaks to that." That is exactly the niche that many New England Republicans try to fill, many analysts say. But, as in Mr. Jeffords's case, it puts them out of step with their national party.
Darrell West, a professor of political science at Brown University, said, "The thing that's unusual about New England is we don't have a strong religious right. And the cultural conservatives who have risen in power elsewhere simply aren't very numerous in this region."
"Republicans in New England do tend to be conservative on fiscal matters," Mr. West said, "but not on the social or cultural agenda."
nytimes.com
Interestingly, this is very much the strength of the 'New' Labour party in the UK. It's dramatically more respected now on its handling of the economy, and most businesses seem comfortable under it (to be sure, many of the individual richer CEO's are more likely to be Tory). However, socially it still tends to be redistributive and liberal. The key is recognising what can be afforded, and balancing that with what should be provided by the state - via public or private means.
The problem with extremes of left or right is that they start from an ideological view - the state must provide, or taxes must be cut - so there isn't really a balance.
A last thought from the NY Post article <g>
Mr. Weicker, a Republican senator from Connecticut who lost his seat in 1988 and then won election for governor on a third-party ticket, said tonight: "Let's dispel the idea — whether it's Jeffords or Weicker or anyone else — that we left the party. The party's changed radically. They left us."
Mr. Weicker said that he visited with former Senator Barry Goldwater shortly before his death and that "he was bemoaning the fact that even someone like him would be considered too liberal for the Republican Party."
...
As for the reaction back home, Representative Sanders said, "I suspect the next poll will show Senator Jeffords to be much more popular than President Bush."
LOL. Maybe there'll be a new Reform party, represented entirely by independents. |
