And while we pay lip service to that phrase, the reality is that the Democratic machine has no tolerance for moderate ideals or moderate Republicans. Even moderate Democrats are a threat to the party base. Stephen Lynch probably would have won the general election for Senate — he just couldn’t win the Democratic primary because he was a moderate.
Electing moderates, however, is good for Massachusetts. The North Shore, with its contrasting communities from Lynn to Essex and North Andover to Gloucester, is a diverse community. We welcome that diversity. We go beyond tolerance — we embrace our differences.
The Democratic Party has realized that it cannot tolerate moderation. Moderate Democrats understand the fiscal crisis facing our nation and the need to control spending. Moderate Republicans appreciate that people have the right to as much liberty in their bedrooms as in their doctor’s office as in their school choice as in their choice for a partner. A fiscally conservative and socially tolerant candidate is a threat to the democratic order in Massachusetts.
In the past few elections, the Democratic Party has been given a gift of a few socially conservative Republicans on the national stage. These vocal extremist Republicans have helped the Democrats win election after election, in spite of the fact that most Americans are wary of the massively increasing size and scope of our federal government.
As a result of these victories, the Democratic playbook is to preach intolerance for political beliefs other than their own, and to paint everyone who is not a Democrat as a small-minded bigot. In reality, of course, a socially tolerant candidate like Richard Tisei is the Democratic Party’s worst nightmare. You would think that Democrats would welcome a shift in the GOPs social policies, but they actually fear it. Should moderates like Richard Tisei get elected, it will become apparent that real tolerance is about tolerating views that you don’t agree with.