A favorite author wrote that you had to be on the side of underdogs “[n]ot because they were pure or noble, because they weren’t. You had to be on the side of underdogs because they weren’t overdogs.” Trent Lott disagrees.
Seems Rand Paul and Michele Bachmann proposed a Tea Party Caucus (insert egg-counting joke). Some Senators, like John Cornyn, think voters should dictate policy to Washington:
“The candidates are not ours to choose,” said Cornyn, chairman of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee. “They’re the choice of the primary voters in the states, and I think we should respect their choices.”
Other D.C. elites have a different concept concerning who gets to run our great republic:
Former Senate majority leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), now a D.C. lobbyist, warned that a robust bloc of rabble-rousers spells further Senate dysfunction. “We don’t need a lot of Jim DeMint disciples,” Lott said in an interview. “As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them.”
Lately I’ve been slagging Democrats for whining, finger-pointing, and infighting. Republicans like Lott, who favor establishment over progress, and worship at the alter of their own power, deserve no less ridicule or disdain. The question isn’t Republican or Democrat; that’s just convenient short-hand. The question is always freedom, creativity, responsibility, and equality under the law, or paternalism, patronage, capriciousness, and corruption. Political party doesn’t always predict where someone falls on that question.