What I'm referring to is that if a party becomes so... uniform, that it becomes detrimental. My party has differences, but we have enough similar ideas that we function well enough. The General and I disagree about education, but we agree with lower taxes, tariffs, and foreign policy. But because of our differences, we would never get on, as you say. That is not the case, it forces us to compromise, to refine our arguments. A uniform party, though runs the risk of simply stating a policy and having everyone back it, with no critical thought, no basis for that policy. Simply because a party leader called for it, and your party prizes solidarity, it runs the risk of bad policies, and weak primaries, allowing less competent leaders to rise to power in those structures.
We have similar views in the Republican Party, but we have different ideals, different world-views. We all seem to support less government, but only in differing degrees. Perhaps I made an erred when I spoke about the dangers of 'groupthink,' but I believe that a party must have some differing of opinion to make that party strong, to allow inner debate, and to promote the best policies.
That you believe that internal conflict is inherently bad is a flaw on your part sir, because, as I've said earlier, it forces one to refine their argument, to compromise, to better craft policy.
Senator Henry J. Jarvis of California, Champion of the Constitution and Republican Vice-Presidential Candidate
