Rush Limbaugh is one of the most polarizing figures in American politics. The Left simply can’t stand him. As soon as his name comes up, so does an inordinate amount of bile. Almost without exception in some circles. It was no surprise then, that Rush’s suggestion to Colin Powell to “go be a Democrat” has caused much consternation, even from some on the right. The GOP, we’re told, must be more inclusive! “Stop pushing out people who disagree with you,” critics tell us. I think that’s horrible advice, and I’m not alone.

National Review’s Jonah Goldberg wrote column today that touched on the subject. The immediately relevant section says this:

But the lesson runs deeper than the impending Sotomayor battle. Conventional wisdom also tells us that the GOP needs to become more inclusive. On this score the conventional wisdom is right, if by “inclusive” you mean getting more people to join the party and vote Republican. But many people mean something else by “inclusive.” They think the GOP needs to become the Pepsi to the Democrats’ Coca-Cola, indistinguishable save for small matters of taste and marketing.

Other than having Coke and Pepsi reversed, he makes a great point. There has to be something beyond simple matters of taste that separate the two parties. If our stances are the same, why are there two parties? Just to have the squabbling? Frank J. at IMAO makes a similar point:

They keep saying we can’t be a stronger party if we keep just tossing people out, but those people complaining never seem to say what makes one a Republican other than the choice of registration. Are we just going to be “the other party than the Democrats”? It seems the “moderate” strategy is to be as inoffensive as possible and hope to pick up votes from anyone whoever is currently dissatisfied with the Democrats. So basically, just bank on the Democrats being unpopular eventually, but that’s not enough. We have to be for something, which means being against other things. That means laying down some real differences between the Republican and Democratic Parties other than that they are spelled and pronounced differently. And that means excluding some people who don’t fall on the Republican side of the newly drawn line. We can attract new people for those we leave, but that only happens if we’re strong enough to actually stand for something.

I know I’m committing a mortal sin here, but, in the Church, we have a similar issue. For a given denomination, and, to a lesser degree, the Church as a whole, we have a pretty clear definition of who we are and what we believe. When someone consistently and defiantly violates or rejects those, we have a well-defined process for remediation and, if necessary, ultimately the expulsion of the offender. A healthy church/denomination doesn’t just welcome in every Tom, Dick, and Harry simply to drive up numbers.

Despite national politics being far less important than orthodox theology, I see no reason a party (Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or whatever) should be so limp-wristed in its dogma that holding any old position should be expected. I’d even argue that it’s necessary for a group of any kind to enforce some sort control over what gets official sanctioning or the group loses any real purpose. There must be room, of course, for the official dogma to change, but it can’t be done on an ad hoc, per-person basis as that splinters the group, diminishing its focus and relevance.

So, yes, Mr. Powell, if you’re going to hold the views you do, and support a president that is diametrically opposed to just about everything Republicans believe, maybe it’s time for you to switch parties. It’s clear that the rank and file don’t agree with you, so I don’t see the party moving, and I’m sure Specter and Jeffords could use some company at the turn-coat’s table.