Where Is That Elusive Middle Ground? - Granite Grok

Where Is That Elusive Middle Ground?

Grassroots is at the root of all politics in New Hampshire these days (most days really) and in response to that, the Sunday News has taken notice, publishing an article this morning by Shawne K. Whickham which highlights a handful of groups from around the state.

The New Hampshire Liberty Alliance is mentioned in regard to their Bill review training.  Andrew Manuse gets some ink for the Natural Rights Causes (NRC) but not for the RLCNH which is arguably larger and more influential.  Kathy Sullivan gets some space to talk about her not yet formed ‘Pragmatic and Progressive’ democrat group as does Steve Marchand, former democrat mayor of Portsmouth, for championing NoLabels–which claims to be a un-labeled effort at partisan problem solving.

But some readers may get confused and assume that these groups all have some shared purpose.

Following the initial reference to NoLabels, and Sullivan’s group, Kevin Smith speaks to the point.  No elected official should assume that simply because the group advocates an issue or issues favored by one party that they are automatically going to get their support.  And this is where the contradictions begin.  While the purpose of the piece seems to be to demonstrate a growing sense of moderateness across the spectrum, where party is less important than issues, the reality is exactly the opposite.

Kevin’s real point is that there are morals and values which cannot be sacrificed to bipartisanship.  If you are a pro-abortion Republican, it will be difficult for someone who views that as murder to get past it unless the alternative is so much worse they feel compelled to accept incrementalism as a way to advance the greater goal of defending life.

Likewise, Sullivan’s group has been advertised elsewhere–by Kathy–as the liberal-progressive contrast to the influence of Cornerstone and think tanks like Josiah Bartlett, and will be a decidedly hard left project funded by wealthy DC liberals.  They are and will be all democrat, all the time, the further the left the better, though if tradition stands, they will vote in anyone with a ‘D” and then assume they can strong arm them into voting with the caucus.

NoLabels is also driven by squishy left-wing money just like the LFODA and the Coffee Party, using a non-partisan approach to advance the center left’s goal of promoting pro-government solutions without as much screeching.  The end result is still more government a situation that is diametrically opposed to everything the right is working towards.

Anyone not paying attention might get confused.  If we stick to fiscal issues on the right the NHLA, RLCNH, NRC, and Cornerstone are all pro-liberty, small government efforts.  Even Abortion, which the liberty groups shy away from, has a fiscal component they will have to oppose.  This all works in direct opposition to groups like NoLabels and Sullivan’s unnamed non-profit which are going to seek pro-government solutions that will tend to grow government and taxes, thereby infringing on seeking smaller government to ensure liberty.

And nothing demonstrates this more than Sullivan’s quote at the end of the article.  In an obvious reference to earlier remarks by Manuse to Article 2 of the New Hampshire Constitution, “enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; and in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness,” Sullivan offers up her own version.  “A real return back to the fundamentals of what this country was founded on and to have people talking about the real issues; What does life, liberty, and equality for all mean?”

We all know what they mean to Kathy Sullivan.

Even if we can ignore the absurd fact that Sullivan’s ideology is in direct opposition to the fundamentals of the founding, this is really just a rhetorical place marker; a finger in the eye meant to infer that we have not been talking about life liberty and equality.  That the election wipeout had nothing to do with that at all.

The problem for Sullivan is that we have been talking about them in the context of the founding of America, not the founding of the progressive-socialist movement of which she is a part.  Take equality for example.  While the pro-liberty and Republican groups are trying to get the government out of the way to defend equality of opportunity so that all may have equal access through their own hard work to whatever success they choose to make for themselves,  Sullivan and the NH democrats want to step in and define equality, legislate it, and use the force of an expanding and imposing government to punish success of which they do not approve.

Good luck finding the middle ground on that.

>