FLASHREPORT

The media is making much of the perceived split between moderate or establishment Republicans and conservative, activist Republicans.  And while it's interesting to watch, it's really nothing new to the Grand Old Party.  Nor is it really such a bad thing, for either party.  We see this push-pull today in the NY23 flap, and in the move, reported here in Politico, from conservatives to run primary challenges against moderate/establishment/incumbents with whom the former are displeased.

And while the media may focus on this as if it's big news, the reality is that political parties are messy; representative democracy and a two-party system is messy business. 

The internecine battle (in both political parties) is nothing new.  I was reminded of a distantly similar example of this recently when I stumbled across a biographical listing for Peter Robinson, former Reagan speechwriter who hosts the excellent "Uncommon Knowledge" broadcast produced by the Hoover Institution and viewed via National Review Online.  What I read about Robinson, didn't strike me until I read something this morning from former senior Reagan official Ken Duberstein.  Quoted in a Politico email update about this new book, he said, in effect, that Reagan will be remembered by most Americans for one moment: the "Tear down this wall!" line in his 1987 speech at the Brandenburg gate.

So if Duberstein is right, that for which Reagan will be remembered best, was an incident that provoked a division in the party similar to the one seen in recent days. 

Which brings me back to the Robinson biographical listing.

On his own Wikipedia page, and a similar "Tear Down This Wall" speech page, a conflict over that famous line is noted, sourced to a 2007 US News & World Report article.  It was reported, that after visiting Berlin, speaking with residents and getting a sense of the dynamics on the ground, Robinson pushed to include the line.  White House Chief of Staff (and former Senator) Howard Baker--and Colin Powell, then Deputy National Security Advisor--both objected to including the line in the speech out of fear that it could stir the pot and needlessly upset Soviet leader Gorbachev.   Reagan insisted, and the rest, pardon the cliche, is history.

So what's at stake in the party battles today?  Not much really.  Except the comfort and power that comes with complacent incumbency.

The other night, I skimmed through George Will's "Restoration" the book he wrote about term limits.  In it, he charted the increasing predominance of multi-term incumbents retaining seats in Congress.  Despite the book's age (late 80's or early 90's, I believe), the trend still holds true. 

It's not about guns, or abortion or even health care and taxes.  These issues all orbit around the center of what's really driving the skirmish with the party.  It's about people being fed-up with complacency, the establishment, backroom deals--conciliatory compromises and D.C. bargains.  To the activists, they're fighting because their governing officials have forgotten to whom they report. 

And while a turnover in incumbents may be tough to take for the media and their long-cultivated sources, it's also not a bad thing for constituents looking for something new.  Too often we see politicians inherit seats for life.  And from time to time folks rally up to remind politicians that maybe they should return to that which they did before politics.  Sadly, there are a whole lot who will find there's no place to go because politics is all they've known.

There's nothing to fear in turning over the crop of politicians from time to time, and maybe even a little to celebrate in the reminder that the republic still functions as it was designed.