A Wiser Republic

The great philosopher Plato always spoke of the dangers of democracy, as he realized the unhealthy tendency for voters to choose as they so believe, regardless of hard facts or common sense. In an olden analogy, he uses the example of a ship floundering in the bowels of a tempest, led by a weak captain who represents the majority, and a crew of sailors, who show themselves to be as politicians, anxious to dismantle and then seize control. And even as this remains intensely applicable in the modern day, many seem to defend democracy as the only way, disregarding what could be a singular yet decisive change for the best in its clockwork: a prerequisite test for each registered voter. 

Of course this move brings immediate scorn and hate from members of the more socially liberal, who feel it would be disadvantageous to their average supporters, however a quick analysis of this past election campaign can prove otherwise, in states both in the east and west coast. 


To be clear, the following assessments of the Maryland, Oregon, and Washington races are not meant to be overtly partisan; on the contrary, they can be applied in 2008 to the Senate Race in Georgia, in which voters failed to elect a good man over a sleazy Republican insider. Depending on the circumstance, the disease of voter ignorance can permeate across both red and blue states, though for practical purposes it focuses on the blue in this election. 


When Bob Ehrlich announced his bid for reelection in early 2006, he should have cruised to victory, even as a conservative in the Democratic haven of Maryland. Instead, voters moved to elect Martin O'Malley due to his party affiliation, letting Ehrlich leave office with immense budget successes despite his earning of a second term. But in 2010, as the former governor launched a comeback bid, Maryland voters, clinging desperately to their Democratic leanings, would not reelect him, regardless of O'Malleys blatant failures to keep the state;s fiscal house in order. All because of Baltimore, a haven for welfare recipients and the average ignoramus when it comes to politics, the entire state was forced to loose a hope for economic recovery. 

Democrats have argued that background is important in any election, and so they propped up failure ex-governor John Kitzhaber to battle the imposing Chris Dudley, who was bulleted  as inexperienced and unprepared to lead--notwithstanding the 28 years of Democratic rule in the state which has led to a budget shortfall and 25% of the state budget meant for public sector retirement pay. True Dudley was a novice, yet he swept the entire state, only losing because of Portland's strong Democratic lean, and equal lean away from sensibility. If thirty years cannot solve one's problems, is it not time for a change?

And to the north, Washington's vote, decided predominantly by King County, went to veteran Democratic Senator Patty Murray, ignoring her categorically corrupt associations with Wall Street lobbyists and special interests in the nation's capital. Never mind that her opponent, estate agent Dino Rossi, carried most every county of the state--it is only the population center which counts. 

So are these outcomes really sensible or fair? Should each race be hinging on the largest portion of the states, which according to studies are the least educated and intellectually deficient? There's no forcible right or wrong answer, yet this should not stop the country from adopting a test for would be voters before they may pass their ballots. Nothing extreme, but a quick test on constitutional law would be enough to encourage individuals to read up on the issues before going out to vote, thus resulting in at least closer or more logical election consequences. 

Melanie Bryant

National Alliance Vice President for Education

Believing in the Future

Perhaps there has never been an organization of political interest that has fallen so hard in agonizing defeat as the GOP establishment did in yesterday's Delaware and New York primaries. For the purpose of being direct, I will pass over the New York results for this article, and instead focus on the ruthless results of the First State, and how they relate to the climate of the nation.

Notwithstanding partisan views, any American with a generally impartial attitude could fully appreciate the incredibly poor sportsmanship and ungracious attitude of Congressman Michael Castle as he delivered his concession speech on Tuesday night. The brief and clearly rushed statement, which mostly worked in a self serving manner to promote the liberal Republican for his work over the past 40 years failed to mention the name of victorious nominee Christine O'Donnell, despite Castle's supposed honor and respect in politics. It could be that facing a 6% point loss was just too much for the old moderate to take, yet his less than cordial response to the people's decision is still inexcusable.

Before facing the voters, Castle attempted to simply run a popularity campaign, slinging mud in secrecy at O'Donnell only after her own organization received a boost from the activist Tea Party Express. According to his campaign, Castle's young opponent was both a con artist and a fraud, a person incapable of paying her bills and with views far outside the centrist path of Delaware's political history. And now, his career finally ended, the Congressman only helps spread the fire by refusing to endorse O'Donnell's victorious campaign.

It might be true that sometimes politics get out of hand, but failing to help one's own party in a critical year because of a humiliating defeat is unbecoming of good public servants. More so, its is a simple reflection on the type of man Michael Castle is: a disconnected, self-interested opportunist. His career certainly stretched long and far, from service in the state house, to governor, and finally to the representative seat, which he has held for almost eighteen years. Truth be told, he had ample attempts to run for the Senate--perhaps even the presidency, but turned them down for the sake of political expediency and comfort. Assuming Castle would only run as a governor or congressman, he might have tried to take Delaware's upper house seat in 1990, 1996, 2000, 2002, 2006, or 2008, yet he stood aside out of respect for Joe Biden. Only once the playing field was absolutely leveled did Castle wade into the possibility of becoming a United States Senator, and his campaign still failed to reach out to the common voters, instead clinging to his poor political credentials like a dog to a thrown out bone.

Regardless of Castle's behavior however, it is time for America to embrace the prospect of Christine O'Donnell as the next United States Senator from the State of Delaware. Not only has she stood up consistently for American values, but her platform is also in line with much of Delaware's population, which according to Gallup Polling dissents from the healthcare package, tax increases, and even elements of cap and trade.

Even beyond the obvious, it is entirely possible for O'Donnell to route Democrat Chris Coons come November, especially if Republican forces fall behind her campaign and promote a positive, small business message to the voters. As an insurgent conservative in a liberal state, O'Donnell is the test of Republican traction with even more moderate voters for the election in 2012. If cards are played correctly, she can win, and even by a respectable margin.

It is important to remember two major elements to this possibility. First, O'Donnell has run two state wide campaigns, the latter in 2008, when she captured 35% of the popular vote, despite running against a vice presidential nominee and having only $100,000 for the effort. Now she stands able to beat the opposition with both the absence of the Biden name, and his candidacy for the vice executive post.

For all that is claimed and advertised, Chris Coons is not a very impressive candidate, having served as a county executive for only five years, and prior to that possessing little national experience with a federal campaign. In fact, despite his seemingly impressive array of degrees from Amherst and Yale, Coons is employing tactics rather under handed for such a proposed intellectual. His movement recently listed O'Donnell as being bizarre and out of touch, even going so far as to imply she might be mentally delusional.

Victory in 2010 is about values, not convenience. Michael Castle would have represented everything wrong with our system: the status quo, establishment picks, and little change in government. Yet Christine O'Donnell has the capacity to change what is wrong in our nation and create a new future of prosperity for us all. Were the National Alliance Party to field a candidate in a race such as this, they would embody the same qualities as Miss O'Donnell, and thus she receives our utterly complete support and encouragement. To change Washington, we must change the process, and as a senator she will be part of that revelatory shift in policy.


Cate Ashton

National Alliance Vice President for Operations