Do Predator Conservatives Make Healthier Democrats?

Ken Burns “National Parks” documentary had an interesting segment about wolves. As a young biologist, Adolph Murie, dedicated much of his life to studying wildlife, and wolves in particular. He had a theory that wolves and other predators should not be hunted into extinction. His studies showed that predators actually improve the health and population of the prey in the wild. This came at a time when they were all shot on sight, anywhere. He argued that predators should left alone; they should be allowed to live their lives, nature would take care of itself, and be better in the process.

His studies showed that wolves only preyed on the vulnerable animals- the old, and sick or very young unprotected animals. As a result, they performed a natural culling of the herds that strengthened and developed a stronger population. He was very unpopular for having this view. Even the Park Service he worked for was very opposed to his ideas- even hated him because of it. Some fifty years later, the Park Service released the first Gray Wolves back into Yellowstone, ultimately concluding that his theory was correct. President Clinton awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his life's work.

If predators cull out the vulnerable, and the result is a healthier flock, is it possible that this works in politics too? If the predator conservative talk/news hosts cull out the vulnerable and weaker Democrats, are they actually helping the party by making it leaner, stronger and healthier too?

Think about it. Some Democrats are well intentioned, but they may inhibit achievement of the party’s goals, either by distraction, because of their firebrand spirit, or by lapses of judgment. They’re actions make them predator targets, and divert people’s attention away from the real issues that need to be addressed. People and organizations like Van Jones, Wright, Daschle, Richardson, Edwards, and ACORN have been systematically culled from the herd by the likes of Limbaugh, Beck, and Co.

While Democrats hate this predator action, they may be doing the Democrats more good than harm in the process- actually cultivating a stronger Democratic Party. If these Democrats stayed around, they would suffer prolonged attacks, sapping the life out of the party, turning away centrists, and inhibiting the ability to make progress toward priority goals.

The converse may also be true, at least it's an interesting thought- if the Democrats don’t apply predator tactics on the vulnerable Republicans like: Palin, Sanford, Wilson, etc, does the absence of culling out their herd weaken the party? I think it does. They stay around and sap the energy out their party too. It diverts the Republicans from staying on their message of- no.