The Shape of the MAINstream to come??
In 1933, famed science fiction writer H.G. Wells wrote a book called The Shape of Things to Come which dealt with a future history for the century after 1936.
Much like that future history, after I did the post on the South Dakota Mainstream Coalition, I find myself wondering about it’s future history. In five years will it be consigned to the dust heap of bad political ideas, or will it develop into something further? And if it does develop into something further, what form will it take.
I think we need look no further than what the organization has become in
They're pretty strong in their statements, and that's ok. They're entitled to their opinion. But now, here's the part that I think that South Dakota Republicans ought to pay particular attention to. Here's the part of their newsletter where they're endorsing candidates.
Granted, this is a primary election. But I'd also assume the Kansas organization will soon be endorsing candidates for the fall. And if so, how many Democrats will they be endorsing over Republicans? Because on this list, I count far more D's than R's.
What is my concern on the future history of a South Dakota MAINstream?
If the South Dakota MAINstream coalition follows suit and begins a process of endorsing candidates, we can probably expect that this "non-partisan" organization founded by Republicans legislators could soon be endorsing Democrats over the Republicans who stand with the organization's founders in the GOP caucus.
This concern is a perfect illustration why House Majority Leader Joe Barnett demanded (or so the story goes) that there would be no caucus or groups outside of the Republican caucus. And he would wield his authority of bill and committee assignments to enforce it.
Because if we consider if the SD MAINstream group could soon do what the Kansas group is doing (aside from spying on churches) this group founded by Republicans might be working in general elections against Republicans.
And for this Republican, where's the sense in that?
I think the leadership of the party needs to put their foot down and require that those elected Republican party members who comprise the caucuses to knock off the coalitions, or face a penalty for their dissent.
Does stripping people of their chairmanships seem a little harsh? Possibly. But if they keep publicly biting the hand that feeds them their lofty positions, those of the opposite party will get elected, and they'll lose those lofty position anyway, because I have yet to see the day in South Dakota where a Democratic legislative chamber allows a Republican to hold a chairmanship.
That's been my objection to the MAINstream coalition all along. It does nothing to make the Pary stronger. And if the shape of the MAINStream to come holds true as predicted, it could work actively to defeat the party that spawned it.
And that's a valid concern. Unless it was the goal of the founders in the first place.