Wayne Gilchrest is ‘The Lonely Guy’

May 9, 2007

When it came time for Congress to vote on a spending bill for the war in Iraq with a timeline for withdrawal, four Republicans stood with the Dems — two in the House, two in the Senate. Of the four, Maryland Republican Wayne Gilchrest is perhaps the least well known. What motivated him to buck his party on the biggest issue of our time?

David Weigel, an associate editor of Reason, chatted with Gilchrest about his perspective (thanks to D.D. for the tip). It’s a fascinating read, which I highly recommend. A few excerpts that jumped out at me….

On Congress’ role in war policy making:

There’s been a strong message from Congress about the present policy. Next we need to get the funding out there and look at other ways to address the policy. We [in Congress] hold the purse, so for anybody to suggest that we don’t have a constitutional right to influence the executive branch is absurd — really absurd. We’ve been on the sidelines for four years just watching this policy unfold. It is our right and responsibility to have an impact on this policy. Respect for other members of the government doesn’t seem to be apparent to the president.

On voting to authorize military force in 2002:

What I failed to consider was whether the executive branch was competent, informed, and had integrity. Under the circumstances, I don’t think it was.

On House Republicans who wanted to break ranks against the president’s escalation policy, but didn’t:

There were around 30 to 60 people saying they didn’t agree with the surge unless the surge was of 120,000 troops and it came with a surge of diplomacy. The amount of troops going over for this surge, without any increase in diplomacy… they felt that was an extension of failed policy. I won’t say who, but there were more than 30 in the Republican conference. Why would there be a change of mind? There was political pressure from the White House, from our leadership, from constituents who misunderstood the issue.


On war supporters’ evolving rationale:

The goalposts are moved on a regular basis. This football field isn’t 100 yards. This football field has gotten about 3000 yards long. In 2005 the president had recommendations for the Iraqi government to reconcile the differences between the Sunnis and Shiites with the oil distributions, with elections, de-Ba’athifaction, with a whole host of things. And none of that’s moved forward. You couple that with a weak Maliki government, with the Iraqi people seeing a weak government being propped up by occupying forces. Then you see the Maliki government being supported by Iran, an enemy of this country that we might invade or attack. We’re looking at chaos.

On the impact debate has in the Middle East:

When we do this we tell Al Qaeda that their days are numbered. The Sunnis don’t want Al Qaeda there and the Shiites don’t want them there. Sending the message that we’re going to leave prods the Sunnis to stop fighting with the Shiites. A timeline sends signal that your days are numbered, your time is up.

On what’s left of his Republican Party:

I think the GOP was dissolving. Now it’s drying up and the wind’s going to blow it away. I just don’t think we have the depth of knowledge, intellect, and experience necessary for a viable political party any more.

One gets the sense, reading the interview, that the Rove-ification of his party really hurts a reality-based guy like Gilchrest. And the more the GOP drifts into “crazy base world,” the less Gilchrest and people like him will feel welcome in a party that’s gone over the edge.

It’s a genuine shame. I suspect the Republican Party will eventually come to its senses, and will look back at the last 15 years with considerable embarrassment, but I wonder how long, exactly, it will take to get there.

“I suspect the Republican Party will eventually come to its senses, and will look back at the last 15 years with considerable embarrassment, but I wonder how long, exactly, it will take to get there.”

oh, i’m kind of hoping it takes 30 or 40 years or so………

  • This is exactly why I do my best to distinguish between “Republicans” and “Neoconservatives.”

    My dad is a “Republican.” Gilchrest seems to be a “Republican.” Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, et al, are “Neoconservatives.”

    Republicans can be persuaded by facts, logic and reality. Neoconservatives? Not so much …

  • As a Marylander, I am happy to see that Gilchrest is not just one of the GOP sheep on this issue.

    And as a Democrat married for 27 years to a Republican, I can verify that they aren’t all bad (even if he and I can’t usually watch political debates in the same room…*g*)

  • There was political pressure from … constituents who misunderstood the issue.

    Gee, I wonder why Republican constituents would misunderstand the issue? [/snark]

  • Gilchrest represents Maryland’s Eastern Shore, which along with the Western panhandle, is the most conservative part of the state, but Maryland is still one of the most liberal states in the union. Though its doubtful that his district will ever turn blue, it’s hopeful that perhaps it can push Gilchrest into greater moderation and positions more in line with the rest of his congressional delegation.

  • I was one of the very early — 2001 — leavers of the party, for (partly) the reasons that Gilcrest lists. They’ll need to take a serious pounding over the next several election cycles before common sense returns.

  • Glenn Greenwald recently made the same argument as ny upstate neighbor Mark D. (@2) that the current political dynamic is not between Republicans and Democrats, but neoconservatives and the rest of us. I think that assessment is pretty spot on, I just hope that the people that have been duped into following the neocons wake up before it’s too late.

  • It is refreshening to see that a sense of honesty by some can prove to transcend party loyalty. Nation before party, democracy before unitary executive, free speech before state-controlled messaging – our continued vigilence in stopping this run-away WH will be our only saving grace. -Kevo

  • And the more the GOP drifts into “crazy base world,” the less Gilchrest and people like him will feel welcome in a party that’s gone over the edge.

    The Roverized GOP doesn’t deserve Gilchrest. They deserve to become firmly linked with President Quacky McLameduck and Dick “Dick” Cheney and their band of whores until they fade into obscurity. I doubt even Gilchrest would shed a tear.

  • This is exactly why I do my best to distinguish between “Republicans” and “Neoconservatives.”

    I agree with Mark D, but I would change “Neocons” to Republican’ts.

    Republicans can be persuaded by facts, logic and reality.

    Republican’ts…can’t.

  • “Respect for other members of the government doesn’t seem to be apparent to the president.”

    “What I failed to consider was whether the executive branch was competent, informed, and had integrity. Under the circumstances, I don’t think it was.”

    “It always irritates me when they say “We’re going to listen to the generals.” They haven’t listened to the generals from day one.”

    So he says Bush doesn’t respect Congress, and has no integrity or competence. He says Bush has never listened to his generals. He recommends that people read the book “FIASCO”. The author of that book says that the Bush administration is deliberately destabilizing the middle east:

    “I think the Bush Administration doesn’t really like “stability” in the Middle East. In its view, “stability” has been the goal of previous administrations, but pursuing it led to 9/11. It is not the goal, it is the target.”

    So given all that, I supposed Wayne Gilchrest would be willing to call for Bush’s impeachment?

    I guess some people are better at talking than doing anything.

  • “I think the GOP was dissolving. Now it’s drying up and the wind’s going to blow it away. I just don’t think we have the depth of knowledge, intellect, and experience necessary for a viable political party any more.”

    This is what happens when you perpetrate a scheme to drive out everyone except a) spineless hacks who follow without question anything that’s put in front of them from the White House, and b) mindless zealots who couldn’t care less about facts or thoughtful consideration as long as they’re told that Bush is in favor of it.

    And as we’re seeing now, when the chips are down and the old tricks don’t work anymore, there’s no one left with either the brains, the courage or the integrity to pull the party out of its tailspin. Thus are the deceivers devoured by the fruits of their own deceit.

    Good thing, too. It’s one of the only things we have on our side for the next year or so.

  • I agree with the several other posters, who see the immediate struggle as less R v. D, than as an attempt to change the character and composition of the Republican Party.

    Only instead of “neoconservative” or “Republican’ts” I would suggest the term, “authoritarians”.

    I recently read Bob Altemeyer’s The Authoritarians and it gives a lot of insight into the underlying foundation for the dynamics of our politics. Highly recommended.

  • I don’t thnk Republicans were ever “okay”. The only difference betweeen neoconservaties and less venal Republicans is their position on the evolution continuum. Republicans have always had the simple minded intolerant traits that manifest so clearly in neoconservatives. Republicans are just neoconservatives that haven’t hatched yet.

  • I have to say, Wayne Gilchrist reminds me of the Republicans I used to know – and work with – in Sacramento 30 years ago. Yes, it’s likely I’d disagree with a whole helluva lot in detail if Representative Gilchrist and I ever sat down to talk, but we would never disagree on the true basics, the principles on which the republic was founded. That’s what’s important. The republic needs real conservatives as much as it needs real liberals – not to get all “touchy-feely” with each other, but to fight it out, to fight fair.

    Unfortunately that sort of Republican is not a “movement conservative” true believer. It may be necessary for Gilchrist to turn himself into a “National Republican” the way the pro-Union Democrats turned themselves into National Democrats during the War of Southern Treason.

  • I’m heartened by comments like CB’s and Tom’s at #15. As we push back against the threat of the Bush Gang and the leaders of the Zombie Army, let’s not fall into their trap of absolute certitude in our answers, tangible reality be damned. I don’t want the Republicans to die out; I want them to re-acknowledge the Enlightenment and start proposing policies that have utilitarian value rather than the madness they’ve been pushing since the late ’90s.

  • I don’t want the Republicans to die out — dajafi, @16

    Not die out, no. But a few years of coma, while the rest of us are mopping up after them, might be nice. When my son was little, I always found it easier to get some serious work done when he was napping, even though he was delightful while awake. With the ‘pubs being less than delightful…

    • Comments are closed.