Redstate is the most prominent and influential group blog on the right. Its managing editor, Erick Erickson, works hard and does good work, and his success is evident in that Eagle Publishing recently bought the blog.
Three of Erick’s recent posts, however, evince a streak of overzealous activism that is misguided and gratuitous.
First, he posted a ridiculous and insulting interview with Ron Paul: instead of actually talking to Paul, he parodied him as a Martian.
Second, he attacked another straw man: instead of engaging Paul’s policy positions, he spewed venom on his supporters—”damn dirty liberal hippies in need of real jobs.”
Finally, today, he trained his ire on RNC chairman Mel Martinez, who yesterday chided Romney and Giuliani “for opposing and mischaracterizing the Senate immigration bill Mr. Martinez helped craft,” the Washington Times reports.
“It’s about leading on the tough issues,” Mr. Martinez told the St. Petersburg Area Chamber of Commerce … “It was easy to say, ‘This wasn’t good enough, this isn’t right, I don’t agree with Martinez’ … But at the end of the day, what is your answer? How would you solve this?
Erick argues that the party chairman must never attack fellow Republicans, and so he is demanding that Martinez be fired, and is urging Redstate’s readers to call their state parties to this effect.
The irony, of course, is that Erick is attacking a Republican for attacking other Republicans.
Moreover, Erick’s outrage—he calls Martinez an “incompetent fool”—is wildly disproportionate to Martinez’s alleged offense (a mild rebuke on its own, but especially mild when compared with Lindsay Graham’s bigot remark).
Related: “A 12th Commandment: Principle Before Party.”
Upon the recent death of religious right pooh-bah Jerry Falwell, Christopher Hitchens observed that having the word “reverend” before your name grants you immunity.* Jonathan Martin drew a similar conclusion about having an “R” after your name, specifically, Ron Paul’s, with respect to the Republican presidential debates.
Now comes news from Erick Erickson that the NRCC is holding a fund-raiser tomorrow for Ken Calvert, with special guest Jerry Lewis. Doug Bandow provides the context:
House Republicans . . . added ethically challenged Ken Calvert to the Appropriations Committee, to temporarily fill a vacancy created by Rep. John Doolittle, another California Republican, who resigned after the FBI raided his home (an increasingly common problem for Republican members these days). And the Republican ranking member remains Jerry Lewis, yet another California Republican . . . [who is] a big spender facing a serious criminal investigation as well.
Add this circle-the-wagons, strength-in-numbers, the devil-you-know-is-better-than-the-devil-you-don’t agenda to the NRSC’s vigorous attempt, in last year’s Rhode Island primary, to ward off a challenge to Lincoln Chafee (lifetime ACU rating: 35), and the message is clear: party trumps principle—even when the party is in the gutter.
It’s said that cops form a “blue line” around their colleagues when one stands accused of misconduct. This mentality, while appropriate in some circumstances, now infects the GOP leadership. Call it the Republican red line; or, as Quin Hillyer puts it (via e-mail), “Calvert leads to culvert”:
By elevating Ken Calvert to the Appropriations Committee, the House leadership has driven its ethics, its message, and its entire caucus into a culvert.
Accordingly, let’s replace Reagan’s 11th Commandment—”Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican”—with a 12th one: Principle before party.
*Maybe this is why former New Jersey governor Jim McGreevey, who resigned in disgrace after a gay sex scandal, is now on his way to becoming a priest.
TechRepublican, “a group blog dedicated to helping the Republican Party online,” went live on Monday. Maybe it’s just semantics, or maybe it’s just me, but I’m curious why, given the increasing divide between Republicans and conservatives—between those who want to harness government for right-wing goals and those who want to curb its growth—the site isn’t called Tech Conservative?
Co-founder David All, who is doing brilliant work with new media and from whom I have learned much, responded as follows:
“I had that same conversation with a close friend who I now believe owns tC. What the Republican Party and the conservative movement needs is more people that claim to actually be a ‘Republican,’ or will at least work toward helping to elect Republicans.”
Huh? What the Republican Party needs is not people who merely call themselves Republicans but those who actually believe in Republican principles, like limited government and a market economy and fiscal restraint.
Addendum: David replies:
“I was talking with Robert Bluey at lunch today and he said something wise so I’m going to steal it and use it here: To build the movement, we need to add and multiply, not divide and subtract. . . .
At the end of the day, it’s us versus them. We’re in this boat together.”
In other words, disagreement is dangerous because it disrupts unity. (Ironically, this is the exact same view of the liberal establishment bloggers, or netroots that Jonathan Chait profiles in this month’s New Republic. Quoth Daily Kos himself, “I’m not ideological at all. I’m just all about winning.” Translation: “What they cannot forgive is Democrats or liberals who distance themselves from their party or who give ammunition to the enemy.”)
To give this view its due, consider the endless infighting among libertarians compared to the stay-on-the-message orthodoxy of the GOP. Then look at the respective electoral results. There’s a lot to be said for the virtue of strength in numbers, as the Baker-Hamilton commission, the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board, and the netroots have all recognized.
But if it’s one thing to respectfully disagree and another to gratuitously censure, David seems to view even disagreement as unhelpful. I couldn’t disagree more. I do not indulge in the “us. vs. them” mentality, and I do not put party before principle.
For that matter, nor does Mike Pence, who is famous for calling himself a conservative before he’s a Republican. Indeed, even if you subscribe to Reagan’s 11th Commandment, I would hope that you agree with Pence—which is why, to bring us back to the original question, I prefer “techConservative” to “techRepublican.” (Incidentally, this is why the American Conservative Union is not the American Republican Union; that’s what the RNC is for).
Instead, I think in terms of what’s right, regardless of who’s saying it. And, as a matter of fact, I think David does, too. Why else would he play such a big part in the Open House Project, a beautifully bipartisan movement to increase congressional transparency among both Democrats and Republicans?
Ultimately, David is right: we need to “add and multiply, not divide and subtract.” But indulging in the latter does not undercut the former. It might technically be a distraction, but it’s a necessary and perfectly healthy one.
For the Internet is not a zero-sum game. If anything, it’s the exact opposite: a world wide playground where we can learn from—and improve upon—those we disagree with rather than seeking simply to “beat” them.
Posted by Jonathan Rick in 
Scholars “use an intellectual scalpel…