I’ve written that a fractious Republican Party, compared with a monolithic Democratic Party (now a Progressive-Democratic Party), demonstrates with that fractiousness that it lives democracy while that other party merely talks about it.
Are the Conservatives in Great Britain, with their own fractiousness, demonstrating that they live democracy, too, rather than merely talking about it?
Maybe. But there are differences between the Republicans’ internal arguments and the Tories’ internal arguments.
The Republican Party’s fractiousness centers on arguments over policy, whether immigration, health care provision and health plan provision reform, tax reform, or…. The Tories, though, their fractiousness seems more centered on personality.
Chancellor Philip Hammond must go. It’s not that Party members disagree with his policies and they want to debate in favor of different ones, he must be removed. Prime Minister Theresa May must resign. Not because Party members disagree with her policies and want to argue for the Party supporting others, she must resign. Foreign Affairs Minister Boris Johnson must be removed. Not because Party members disagree with his policies, he’s just a boor and must be removed; there’s nothing to debate here.
That’s not a recipe for democracy or for a party’s success. The Wall Street Journal closed its piece (at the third link above) with this:
If Conservatives think defenestrating Mr Hammond will help, that’s their choice. But they shouldn’t expect any better from a successor—on Brexit or in elections—unless the party unites behind an economic growth plan.
Indeed. A policy debate, instead of a personal argument.