Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Romney win, now almost certain, won't decide future of GOP
Salem News ^ | April 7, 2012 | David M. Shribman

Posted on 04/07/2012 3:10:04 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife

SILVER SPRING, Md. — Five different political contests are being conducted right now. Only two are evident to the naked eye.

The first of the visible contests pits Mitt Romney against Rick Santorum for the Republican presidential nomination. The results here in Maryland and in Wisconsin this week tell us who has a commanding lead there.

The second visible contest pits Romney against President Barack Obama. That one began this month with their twin addresses to the convention of editors in Washington. Obama has a 4-point lead, according to a Gallup poll conducted last week for USA Today.

Now to the three contests below the surface.

One is being mounted by Romney to wrest control of GOP convention delegates most people assumed were the property of Santorum and Newt Gingrich. This is a subterranean game Romney likely will eventually win, quietly, slowly — but decisively.

The second contest barely beneath the surface is over the character of the GOP. It is part of the eternal struggle between populists and plutocrats.

Don't think of this as a proxy for Romney vs. Santorum no matter how many times the former senator goes bowling. This class struggle began before they arrived on the scene and will continue after their departure. It is the mirror of the struggle among Democrats between the circle around Franklin Roosevelt, rooted in the faculty offices of Harvard, and the Southern Democrats, rooted in county courthouses and in the kennels of the yellow dogs.

The final contest is over the nature of conservatism. It may look like the struggle for control of the GOP, but it's larger than that. Conservatism is a movement; the Republicans are a party. For many years they lived separate lives and may do so again. The struggle over the character of the party is fundamentally being conducted in the heart, the struggle over the nature of conservatism in the head.

The week that the founding father of modern conservatism, Barry Goldwater, won the 1964 Republican presidential nomination, political scientist Andrew Hacker assessed the new movement — planted in the same soil that created John Kennedy's New Frontier and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society — this way: "The new conservatism is the result of the democratic process itself: the widening of new opportunities for millions of Americans who have risen to a better location in life and who at all costs want to ensure that they remain there."

That description now looks antiquarian. Modern Conservatism 2.0 — created in a world where Goldwater is a memory for all but a few; where his protege Ronald Reagan is a symbol, but not an intimate presence; and where vast swaths of working Americans have a conservative impulse — has an economic component and a social component. It is chary of government involvement in the economy but open to government restrictions in social and cultural life.

How wealthy a country this must be to afford, or to tolerate, five vital contests at once! But this is a time of economic privation and of political riches; not since the 1930s, when the economy was ailing and the Democrats were remaking themselves, did America have so many parallel contests. And during that period — indeed for much of the era between 1916 and 1960 — the Republicans snoozed, putting up worthy candidates with formidable records (Charles Evans Hughes, Herbert Hoover, Thomas Dewey) but who did not stir the drink, nor roil the waters.

Today, passions among Republicans run high — itself a great departure from the norm for almost a majority of Americans, who recall the GOP as a sleepy outpost of politicians who defined themselves by what they were against (the New Deal, mostly but not always fervently) and what they wanted to promote (prudence and thrift, mostly). When the Republicans of yore held a shootout, it was over the identity of their nominee, not over the ideology of their party. This was true even in the principal ideological struggle of the era, in 1952 between Sen. Robert A. Taft of Ohio and Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower. Eisenhower, without any discernible ideology, prevailed.

Now the party is packed with passion, but not necessarily primed for resolution. Indeed, the emergence of Romney probably postpones the resolution of much of the Republican dispute.

He personifies the managerial wing of the Republican Party, the strain that included Hoover, 1940 nominee Wendell Willkie, to some extent Dewey and certainly both Presidents Bush. But he is at best a convert to movement conservatism and, to some in that movement, a sheep in sheep's clothing.

Indeed, to conservatives he is reminiscent of Averell Harriman's 1967 assessment of Maxwell Taylor: "He is a very handsome man, and a very impressive one," Harriman said, "and he is always wrong." Probably unfair to both men, but there are no points for fairness in war or politics.

While the 2012 primaries and caucuses likely postponed the resolution of the battle over the character of the GOP, they intensified the conflict over the nature of conservatism, one that Reagan kept under the lid of the boiling pot but which began to spill over in 1988, scalding conservatives to this day. Santorum is one of the first Republican politicians to electrify both economic and social conservatives, but his hopes in the visible part of this campaign are dwindling.

Santorum may in fact be conducting his last stand in his home state, which ordinarily would be an advantage but in this peculiar year may be peculiarly unfortunate for the onetime Pennsylvania senator, who was soundly defeated in his reelection battle six years ago.

Santorum forces continually point to May for their breakout — the terrain there favors him and the issues will be in his wheelhouse — but his campaign may not endure that long, in part because of Romney's diligence in one of the invisible contests, the process of peeling away delegates that look as if they are in the Santorum and Gingrich columns, but in reality are not settled anywhere.

There is a tropism to politics, and it favors the front-runner. Watch how Romney, who lost the Iowa caucuses in January by a handful of votes, will look like the triumphant conqueror of Iowa in August.

The subterranean contests count. Some of them last decades. Some of them choose nominees.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; US: Maryland; US: Massachusetts; US: Pennsylvania; US: Wisconsin
KEYWORDS: 2012election; backstabberromney; bigdigs4all; conservatives; deathpanels4u; election2012; establishment; gopprimary; kenyanbornmuzzie; loserromney; maryland; massachusetts; mittromney; newtgingrich; obamacare4ever; pennsylvania; republicanparty; ricksantorum; romney; romneycare4ever; saboteurromney; superdelegates; wisconsin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 next last
To: Cincinatus' Wife

TX (155) proportional


The Texax SREC is making noise about trying to change the Texas allocation method to a ‘winner take all’. Apparently some are trying to get enough votes and then call an emergency session to pass the change. Not sure what the possibility of it passing is.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2868680/posts


21 posted on 04/07/2012 6:05:34 AM PDT by deport (..............God Bless Texas............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
In a perverse sort of way, it just might reform the national GOP.

A lot bigger delegate allocation to states which actually deliver electoral votes to the GOP in the fall and a lot less to those which have a consistent history of delivering none.

DC, for example, should not get any more delegates than American Samoa. No way should California get more than Texas.

22 posted on 04/07/2012 6:07:19 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
In a perverse sort of way, it just might reform the national GOP.

A lot bigger delegate allocation to states which actually deliver electoral votes to the GOP in the fall and a lot less to those which have a consistent history of delivering none.

DC, for example, should not get any more delegates than American Samoa. No way should California get more than Texas.

23 posted on 04/07/2012 6:07:32 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kjo
In a year...the GOP Washington types will be sitting around looking at the devastation...Obama reelected, the Dems picking up twenty seats in the House and holding the Senate...and they’ll be saying...maybe we should have nominated a conservative.

No they won't. The GOPE would rather lose the election to Obama than win with a conservative. They hated Reagan and they hate Newt who is the only conservative in this race.

24 posted on 04/07/2012 6:08:32 AM PDT by Amntn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

I agree with the Dodo picture about the future of the GOP.

The GOP has shown itself to be uwholly unworthy of protecting this country.

In the 20 years since 1992, the GOP has been feckless in defeating the Dems, in spite of our efforts to infuse conservative principles and candidates into it.When they were put into power withthe House, the Senate and the White House, they failed to lead and to get the problems under control, but made things exponentially worse. Thye failed to do the hard work of convicting a lawless, impeached President. They have failed to counter a lawless, ineligible President in the face of his constant trashing of the Constitution.

This is the most important election of our lifetimes, and I rank it among 1860 and 1980 in the effects on the future of America. And for this, we are beign given Romney, who does not have a Reublican or conservative bone in his body.

I’m all in for Newt and praying he gets to Tampa and we have some kind of showdown in Tampa. My back-up position is ABO in case Romney becomes our nominee.

But win or lose after 11/6, I believe it is time for the GOP to go the way of the Whigs. Conservatives need their own party to get America back to greatness, and the GOP is no longer the vehicle to do so.

Just like there comes a time when the old clunker needs to be retired and money for repairs directed towards a new vehicle, thus it is such for the GOP.

After 2012, we need to have a third party. America will survive. And thrive if we do so.


25 posted on 04/07/2012 6:17:15 AM PDT by exit82 (Democrats are the enemies of freedom. Be Andrew Breitbart.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: exit82

There’s no reason to wait.

http://www.selfgovernment.us/


26 posted on 04/07/2012 6:19:50 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (You can be a Romney Republican or you can be a conservative. You can't be both. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Amntn
No they won't. The GOPE would rather lose the election to Obama than win with a conservative.

I agree. They'll use it to blame conservatives and push someone even more liberal next time.

As far as I'm concerned, the GOP doesn't want to fix anything anyway. After all, once a problem is fixed, they lose the threat.
27 posted on 04/07/2012 6:48:07 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

Exactly. I won’t support a GOP that backs Mitt.


28 posted on 04/07/2012 7:35:05 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

The only way to make the GOP take notice is to cut off their funding though the RNC.

I have a friend who is a longtime party operative and she actually thinks that everything is fine, that they are raising more money than ever, etc.

There are many lemming GOP members. The question is whether or not there are enough of us Conservatives to make our voices heard.

I fear not. It’s ALL about the money for the future of the GOP unless big donors cut off the party’s allowance.


29 posted on 04/07/2012 7:41:00 AM PDT by Mountain Mary ("This is OUR country and WE will decide"... Mark Levin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: exit82

After 2012, we need to have a third party.


Plenty out there now. Just make your choice.

Some but not all.......

America First Party
Christian Liberty Party
America’s Party
American Party
Independent American Party

Americans Elect
Citizens Party
Independence Party of America
Modern Whig Party
Reform Party of the United States of America
Unity Party of America
Justice Party USA

Working Families Party
Labor Party
Socialist Party USA
Communist Party USA
Socialist Labor Party of America*
Party for Socialism and Liberation
Socialist Equality Party (United States)
Socialist Workers Party
Freedom Socialist Party
Socialist Action
Socialist Alternative
Workers World Party

American Populist Party
Boston Tea Party
Jefferson Republican Party
Objectivist Party
American Reform Party

Constitution Party
Green Party
Libertarian Party


30 posted on 04/07/2012 7:43:46 AM PDT by deport (..............God Bless Texas............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

“Romney win, now almost certain, won’t decide future of GOP”

Yes it will. A Republican party that would nominate a man whose record is left wing enough to be a Democrat is not a party that any conservative could support. It is a sign that the GOP is willing to move to the left. And if so, so be it. I won’t go with it; I would think some others would not also.


31 posted on 04/07/2012 7:50:48 AM PDT by GenXteacher (He that hath no stomach for this fight, let him depart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: deport

Anyone looking at the creation of a new party needs to take a look at history and how its been done in the past. The transition from Whig to Republican wasn’t a simple step. It required the transition through the short lived Freesoil party which few people have ever heard of.

They never elected a president but did elect a fair number of congressmen. Most important they attracted abolitionist Democrats and Whigs who became the GOP.


32 posted on 04/07/2012 8:12:33 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Amntn

If what you say is true...and it may be...why are we still voting Republican? What good is this party? What’s the point?

I voted for Bob Barr in ‘08 and was roundly castigated by some on this board and others for admitting such...if the GOP is going to allow the msm to pick our nominee every four years...what is the point of having the GOP?

What’s the party good for?


33 posted on 04/07/2012 8:16:44 AM PDT by kjo (+)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Good analysis CW, the author has a good grasp on most everything, except to the point where he says that Texas is in Santorum’s favor, based on his “economic” stand. The “issues” on his “Social” stand are also troubled, but the biggest miscalculation is Santorum’t complete lack of economic understanding, as well as his plagiaristic use of the other candidates previous ideas, that Santorum has adopted as his own and claims that they were his ideas from the start.

As far as the illustration of the shape of the GOP, he emphasized the size of the “Populist” branch in the party as being much larger than it actually is. The “Plutocrat” branch is correctly in charge, and always will be, because they have the ability to organize.

The “Populist” branch is nothing more that a fragmented, disorganized herd of cats and never will get it together like they keep threatening to do. Ross Perot is the epitome of that branch and took it to the limits of it's potential.

Ronald Reagan was a rare politician who, through his vast ability and pragmatic approach, was able to gather these groups together for two election cycles in a row. And Reagan clearly admitted that the “Populist” branch, was the most difficult to appease or influence, mainly because of their incessant malcontent and nearly psychotic negativity.

34 posted on 04/07/2012 8:20:15 AM PDT by PSYCHO-FREEP (If you come to a fork in the road, take it........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
If Romney is the nominee there will be no national GOP in 2016. There may not even be a national GOP after August 2012.

The party is bigger than the presidency. The GOP was 'dead' in 92, 'dead' in 96, 'dead' in 2006/2008. The problem is most conservatives are too uninformed and more-so too impatient to fight the party battles needed.

How many people are precinct delegates or precinct captains? How many are involved in local parties? How many have been delegates to state conventions? State convention is also were our state RNC reps are chosen.

35 posted on 04/07/2012 8:35:04 AM PDT by Darren McCarty (Time for brokered convention)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

The future of the GOP may have been decided in 1936, when Alf Landon promised to implement the New Deal on a business-like approach. How many conservatives have been the nominee since that time?


36 posted on 04/07/2012 8:46:52 AM PDT by Theodore R. (Past is prologue: The American people have again let us down in this election cycle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kjo
I will happily vote for a third party candidate if he/she can beat Obama.

The problem is Obama. He is not the typical democrat that we can continue to put up with for another 4 years. He is EVIL and MUST BE REMOVED at all costs!

37 posted on 04/07/2012 9:02:53 AM PDT by Amntn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
The GOPE would rather lose the election to Obama than win with a conservative

Didn't George W. Romney essentially endorse LBJ in 1964? He said that he "accepted" but did not "endorse" Goldwater.

38 posted on 04/07/2012 9:05:55 AM PDT by Theodore R. (Past is prologue: The American people have again let us down in this election cycle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
Romney is the NEW Juan McLAim.... WE’RE GONNA LOSE!!!!!

Who's the candidate who could win?

39 posted on 04/07/2012 10:03:42 AM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Darren McCarty

“How many people are precinct delegates or precinct captains?”

Generally, people who keep threatening to go third party lack the foresight and discipline to work inside the party to reform it. They wrongly think that threats work. nope - VOTES work.

The biggest myth around here is that the elites dictate what happens. Actually, its the GOP primaries, and GOP primary voters, who dictate the course of the party. and who influences that vote? precinct captains and those involved in primary campaigns are key. the top dogs (’elites’) have sway but its actually not much compared with the power of the grassroots.


40 posted on 04/07/2012 11:49:59 AM PDT by WOSG (Anyone But Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson