Zack Smith makes a fundamental mistake in his Jan. 31 column, “Compromise DeLay-ing the Inevitable.” In it, Smith argues that Tom DeLay demonstrated ideological consistency by refusing to compromise with Democrats. Yet partisanship, as Smith writes, is not a “philosophy [that] may have intellectual teeth.” Instead, it is a methodology for attaining one’s political — or ideological — goals.
Confusing methodology and ideology is not trivial. Indeed, little evidence suggests former Rep. DeLay’s method of hyper-partisanship, demonization of opponents and refusal to compromise — even on trivial issues — was a function of a political philosophy, instead of a maneuver to maximize political capital.
Smith’s argument is endemic to those who associate ideological consistency with party allegiance, and the logical end of the tactics of Tom DeLay is the purging of the current Republican party of moderate candidates in favor of perceived ideologically pure nominees such as Christine O’Donnell. The justification Smith offers is that these candidates may better represent their constituencies, but nominating candidates in the extremes of a party would have the opposite effect.
One hopes, in future efforts, Smith would examine his words rather than merely seizing a counterintuitive position.
Editor's note: This letter refers to this column.
