Posted on 01/05/2015 5:39:04 AM PST by LeoMcNeil
When Jeb Bush announced he was running for President conservatives accused him of being RINO. (Republican in name only) Conservatives have said the same thing about Mitt Romney, Chris Christie and a laundry list of moderate to liberal Republicans. The fact though is that the progressives in the GOP aren’t the RINO’s. The Republican Party was founded as the party of big government in 1854. They were the remains of the Whig Party, which at the time was the party of Hamiltonian big government. It was the Democrats who favored Jeffersonian small government. The RINO’s aren’t big government progressives, the Republican Party has always been their party. The RINO’s are conservatives who have been trying to find a landing place since FDR began pushing us out of the Democrat Party.
If we look at the last 60 years of Republican Presidential nominees we can only count three times when a conservative was nominated. In 1964 Barry Goldwater was nominated, he was arguably conservative despite the fact that later in life he favored abortion on demand. He was basically a Kennedy Republican who favored tax cuts and opposed LBJ’s expansive welfare state. In 1980 and 1984 Ronald Reagan won the GOP nomination. Reagan was largely a conservative but let’s not kid ourselves about how conservative he actually was. As Governor of California he signed into law bills allowing abortion and no-fault divorce. He later said he regreted those decisions but not enough to stop him from nominating progressives like Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court. He also raised taxes and the Federal debt while in the White House.
Other than Goldwater and Reagan, the Republican Party has nominated one moderate progressive after another. Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Bush 41 and 43, Dole, McCain and Romney were all party progressives. If we want to pretend these nominees are RINO’s then we have to pretend like most of the Republican Party is a fraud. In reality all of these nominees are in keeping with the historic Republican Party. The GOP gave America its first progressive President in Theodore Roosevelt. It gave us a laundry list of progressive Senators and Congressmen, including the progressive La Follette dynasty in Wisconsin the elder of which ran on the Progressive Party ticket in 1924 and won 17% of the vote. There hasn’t been a Republican President who has reduced the Federal budget since Calvin Coolidge in the 20’s. Coolidge is perhaps the most conservative President of the 20th century. His replacement was Herbert Hoover, a typical progressive Republican.
No doubt that party philosophy can change over time. For most of the 19th century the Democrats were the party of small government. They looked to Thomas Jefferson rather than Alexander Hamilton for guidance in governing. By the 20th century the Democrats had shifted to the progressive outlook, having been swept away with the progressive movement which started gaining steam after the Civil War. President Woodrow Wilson represents the Democrats formal break with their historic conservative past, which in the last election or two has been finalized with the elimination of the last blue dog conservative Democrats. By the time FDR was elected, the Democrats had moved well to the left of the Republicans. That doesn’t mean the Republicans had moved to the right, only that the Democrats shifted left. The Republicans have stayed remarkably consistent, the difference between Hoover and Romney is negligible.
Conservatives have no party to flock to. The Democrats largely pushed conservatives out decades ago. The Republicans have only taken us on because it helps them retain their power. While the Republican Party is more conservative today than the Democrats, its core philosophy isn’t small government but rather a slow shift to bigger government. This is in contrast with the Democrats who want a shift to bigger government immediately. Make no mistake though, conservatives are the RINO’s. We’re the outsiders in the Republican Party, we always have been. The GOP wasn’t created as a party of small government, it was created as a Hamiltonian party of expanding Federal power and expenditures. The GOP has remained true to its core philosophy, the Bush’s, Romney’s and Christie’s of the party have made sure of that.
The problem is that there aren’t enough conservative voters to create a sustainable conservative party.You are absolutely correct - for now. Yet more and more Republican voters are trending towards more conservative candidates, so the interest is there and building, but not to critical-mass yet. Which is why I said no one expects a conservative party to win it all, right off the bat.
The idea is only offensive to libs. Most (not all, but most) republican voters are not reflexively turned off by a conservative candidate. I would wager there's a significant percentage who vote for who they think will win -- heavily influenced by media driven polls and purchased-popularity -- not necessarily who they think is more (or less) conservative. Example: the re-election of Boehner & McConnell. How many voted for them because they truly liked the two chronic capitulators over a conservative -- as opposed to -- they saw Boehner's/McConnell's name and face the most on TV and really were just voting *against* Obama with the candidate the TV told them would win. How many Boehner/McConnell voters really know (or for now, care to know) the difference between RINOs and conservatives? How much have conservatives tried to promote their values, goals and benefits to those Boehner/McConnell voters?
There's no better time to get started than right now. For just one idea that even I (being an avg idiot) can think of, start with a more prominently P.R.'d conservative congressional caucus in the house and senate made of GOP registered (for the obvious practical reasons) conservative congressmen who caucus in a tightly coordinated fashion, bucking the GOP on line-in-the-sand issues. With every election season, keep fighting to build seat-count. One at a time if you have to, but I think it will grow better than we predict.
This isn't rocket surgery. I'm highly confident there are folks smarter than me who can provide better options for strategy and tactics.
Someone capable just needs to be brave enough to stand up and run *hard* with it. All I've seen so far is someone will leave the conservative huddle, go stick his toe in the water and decide it's too cold, then scamper back to the huddle where all we seem to do is wring-hands and gnash teeth.
Not true, Conservatives stayed home in '12 because there was no conservative to vote for. Man, did you ever bite the MSM bait - hook, line and sinker. Find some pliers and pule the BS out.
Define conservative, because I'll be damned if I can not on Free Republic that's for sure. This forum can't even agree on a candidate.FR is a great forum, but it's entire membership combined including lurkers and just occasional readers equates to what percentage of the total Republican voters? Probably not a majority.
I'm not denigrating - I'm just saying that judging possibilities by a bunch of occasional curmudgeons on an internet forum is probably not a sound assessment of conditions.
"Conservative" does not need to be defined to suit some FR curmudgeons. I'm no source to be highly regarded, but most folks agree that a return to the original intent of the constitution, fiscal responsibility, capable national defense, minimizing govt and maximizing liberty are some of the core principles to work towards. I think the biggest disconnect here on FR comes when folks start digging into the details. And then we all start expending enormous amounts of brain-power and effort looking for any way to say ""NO" when it is easier to say "YES" and work towards common goals. We are spoiled brats in that regard. And with that in mind, judging national consensus on any specific conservative issue by passionate arguments on FR is probably not a good idea.
GET A CLUE.
Conservatives way out number liberals and indys by far.LOL!
They've confused the issue by talking like conservatives at home and acting like progressives in DC.
The RINO tag is meaningless.
There may be some conservatives who, in a primary, are swayed by the argument that so and so the moderate can win in the general. The problem is that in order to vote for someone like Mitt Romney or John McCain in a primary a conservative has to suspend their principles. Romney was a pro-abortion Governor who signed into law a state version of Obamacare. Even if we grant that a program like Obamacare is a states rights issue and thus something to be decided by each state, it still suggests a big government philosophy. How could any conservative vote for such a person, particularly in a primary?
The GOP hasn’t nominated a conservative for President in 30 years. We have to face the fact that the party isn’t as conservative as it pretends to be. The south isn’t as conservative as it or the media pretends. While people might say in a poll that they’re conservative, their votes don’t match their responses.
I didn’t vote for Mitt Romney in 2012, though I voted in the dozen other races in my state. I agree in the general election several million conservatives didn’t vote for Romney. The problem isn’t that those people didn’t show up in November, the problem is that they didn’t show up in the winter and spring. In the alternative, they didn’t rally around one conservative candidate and spread their votes too thin as a result.
You are mistaking a broken system with demographics....
Not in the voting booth where it counts the most. Line 10 citizens up and ask for a show of hands as to who is a “baseball, Mom and apple-pie” patriot and likes a traditional, conservative way of life. Most will agree. Put those same folks who just self-identified as “conservative” in a voting booth and have them choose between a declared conservative and a GOPe stooge - you get Boehner, McConnell, Graham, Cochran, etc. If conservatives dominated the voting booth and voted conservative, we wouldn’t be in this political pickle.
Regardless, just because we can’t always get the candidates we like, should we just lay down and quit trying to grow and solidify the conservative caucus (that includes candidates) and *voters* — LIKE I WAS TALKING ABOUT? One-by-one each election, if we have to? Did we not just gain some more conservative congressmen in this last election? Granted, we didn’t get every one we wanted, but we still got some. Is there no hope in that?
We’re way off track here. The original post was that the GOP is not a good fit for conservatives and looking at it from that viewpoint, conservatives *do* more accurately fit the acronym, “RINO”. I agree with that sentiment and it logically leads us to the conclusion that a new party will need to emerge — *EVENTUALLY*. My point is that conservatives won’t/can’t win EVERYTHING WE WANT right off the bat but we should NOT allow that fact to stop us from trying to grow within the GOP until we can replace it internally -or- separate from it with a new party and force it down to minor party status, whatever the outcome is... For sure, it will not be as fast as flipping a light switch.
If anything, you certainly do reinforce Defconw’s point that FR does have a penchant for circular firing squads. Even when we agree, someone has to come along and disagree and accuse folks of not having a clue. I’m not the brightest bulb, but I’m pretty sure I *at least* have a clue. You gotta love us!
How could any conservative vote for such a person, particularly in a primary?Mind-boggling; yet they do. In majority-vote tipping numbers.
The GOP hasn’t nominated a conservative for President in 30 years. We have to face the fact that the party isn’t as conservative as it pretends to be.Full circle to the orginal thread subject! At some point, sooner or later (I think likely later), politically active conservatives will either grow into a new party -or- replace the GOP. Personally, whenever it gets around to happening, I'd prefer a new party. The GOP brand is tainted to me. But as long as conservatives set the agenda, I'll take either.
Hoo-boy. This load of neo-Confederate hooey again.
the difference between Hoover and Romney is negligible.
Herbert Hoover didn't believe in "gay marriage" or state ownership of the medical profession.
For the record, Thomas Jefferson was a notorious free thinker and supporter of the Jacobin revolution in France. Alexander Hamilton was a true American conservative.
Believe it or not, not every issue comes down to the size of the government (and Hamiltonian government is not "big government" by contemporary standards; to equate Hamiltonian government with "progressive" government is simply ridiculous).
The Democrats were against big government because they were afraid government power would be used to free their slaves.
They were perfectly fine with the government forcing free states to hunt down escaped slaves and return them.
This.
Widey: check out the attack on the historical origins of the Republican party in the post at the head of this thread.
The problem with that argument is that South Carolina is usually the third state to hold a primary. This supposedly conservative state backed Bob Dole in 1996, John McCain in 2008 and Newt Gingrich in 2012.
I’m not a neo-confederate. The Republican Party was founded by old Whigs after that party broke up. The Whigs believed in spending money on massive infrastructure programs. These programs in the 19th century, just like today, were wasteful boondoggles. The old Whigs also supported a national bank, which you’ll recall President Jackson had disbanded via a veto.
Homosexual marriage wasn’t an issue when Herbert Hoover was alive and as such it’s an irrelevant point to bring up. After the stock market crash Hoover increased taxes and Federal spending. He created many of the welfare programs that FDR later expanded into the New Deal. Romney is little different, he believes in massive government spending. Sure, he would like to spend on different things than Obama but it’s spending all the same.
I never suggested Jefferson was a perfect man. In the 19th century the debate was whether Jeffersonian or Hamiltonian government would be followed. Jefferson had argued for limited government, low taxes and little government spending. Hamilton on the other hand argued for higher taxes and massive Federal spending on internal “improvements”. (infrastructure) Hamilton also argued for a Federal bank and Federal oversight of finance. He also pushed the notion of “implied” powers in the Constitution. In other words, he lay the groundwork for the modern notion of a “living” constitution whose words don’t really matter.
1)The Whigs were the conservatives; the Democrats were the radicals. 2)George Washington (ever hear of him?) signed the First Bank of the United States into law on 2/25/1791. Despite this fact the Confederates and their apologists hypocritically and dishonestly maintain(ed) that Washington was one of them.
Homosexual marriage wasn’t an issue when Herbert Hoover was alive and as such it’s an irrelevant point to bring up.
No it is not, for the simple reason that the moral issues are what conservatism is all about. The whole "size of government" and economics issue is a sideshow. Only someone who believes that only matter exists would put economic issues in the center of his worldview.
After the stock market crash Hoover increased taxes and Federal spending. He created many of the welfare programs that FDR later expanded into the New Deal.
And yet Hoover was a hero to minarchist palaeoconservatives like Robert A. Taft.
Romney is little different, he believes in massive government spending. Sure, he would like to spend on different things than Obama but it’s spending all the same.
I am opposed to Romney, but primarily because of his moral stands. There is no such thing as a government that spends on nothing. Honestly, the world is falling apart from an inversion of good and evil and you're worried about money???
I never suggested Jefferson was a perfect man. In the 19th century the debate was whether Jeffersonian or Hamiltonian government would be followed. Jefferson had argued for limited government, low taxes and little government spending. Hamilton on the other hand argued for higher taxes and massive Federal spending on internal “improvements”. (infrastructure) Hamilton also argued for a Federal bank and Federal oversight of finance. He also pushed the notion of “implied” powers in the Constitution. In other words, he lay the groundwork for the modern notion of a “living” constitution whose words don’t really matter.
Yes, Hamilton believed in "implied powers," but so did about half of the people in the country at that time, including those who created the Constitution in the first place (which included Hamilton, but not Jefferson). The Federalist interpretation of the Constitution, like its Jeffersonian opponent, goes all the way back to the Founding. They form the basis of the original two party system. The notion that the Constitution was originally interpreted strictly and that the loose Hamiltonian construction was a later "heresy" is palaeoconservative garbage. Among other Federalists who believed in "implied powers" were George Washington, John Adams, John Jay, Fisher Ames, Gouverneur Morris, John Marshall, Noah Webster, and Paul Revere. Even anti-Federalist Patrick Henry, who opposed ratification of the Constitution, became a Federalist after it was ratified, arguing against the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (authored by Jefferson and Madison respectively). Their successors the Whigs included such icons as Daniel Webster and Henry Clay. How anyone can seriously argue that all these great men were "heretics" from the original sense of the Constitution is beyond me. Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans were in the very best of Constitutional company.
In Hamiltonian thought "implied powers" did not grant the omnipotent power to the government or do away with limits. In order to be legitimate, an implied power had to have as its end a legitimate Constitutional objective and to not itself be proscribed by the Constitution. There is absolutely no comparison between Hamiltonian doctrine and that of the "progressives" and New Dealers (which began with William Jennings Bryan and the Populists, by the way).
Had Hamilton's will not prevailed over Jefferson's the Union would have lasted a few years and then fallen apart . . . or perhaps been conquered by Spain or some other foreign power. Hamilton's ideas turned the United States into the greatest industrial engine in world history.
Thomas Jefferson is the hero of every anti-Semite, bankophobe, and conspiracist who has ever come down the pike. At the exact same time he is an icon and rallying point for the Left because of his notorious freethought and his support of the Jacobins. FDR (your alleged "Hamiltonian") virtually deified Jefferson as the patron saint of the New Deal.
The Republican party did indeed contain radical and subversive elements at its inception because it was a single issue party (non-extension of slavery). This was a very "big tent" and encompassed people from religious fundamentalists to radical "free thought" and "free love" types. But these latter soon fell away to join the Democrat party (ironically, helping to elect palaeocon hero Grover Cleveland). What was left was the public morality element: the crusaders against slavery, polygamy, gambling, liquor, prostitution, and other such vices. The Republican party is the party of morality, puritan virtues, and rural America (outside the Solid South). I am proud and privileged to be able to say that my family has been Republican since Abraham Lincoln . . . and it is a Southern family!
Jeffersonianism, when detached from its Hamiltonian twin and promoted as THE "one true original" interpretation of the Constitution, is nothing but hot air.
I find it amusing, if historically obtuse, that Jefferson - an infatuated admirer of the world's first totalitarian regime (the French revolutionary government) - would be considered a "conservative" in comparison to Alexander Hamilton.
In the context of contemporary politics, Jefferson's wild-eyed radicalism seems tame today I agree.
But Hamilton, who wrote The Federalist in collaboration with the Constitution's author, probably had a firmer grasp on the document than the faux "Constitutionalists" of today who criticize him.
I don’t appreciate your implication that I’m anti-semetic because I support Jeffersonian small government. You have no basis with which to even bring that issue up. It hasn’t been discussed in this post at all and as such there’s no reason to even bring it up.
Conservative didn’t mean the same thing in the early 19th century that it does today. Neither did liberal. An early 19th century conservative was a monarchist if he was in Europe and if he was in America he believed in that sort of system adapted to the election of a President and Congress. While obviously we did not invite a member of the Royal family to serve as our King, Hamilton and the conservatives did want to adopt that system of government. It included massive spending on infrastructure, a national bank with close ties to the state, high tariffs etc. The liberals believed in limited government with few expenditures, they opposed a national bank and believed in free trade. The term liberal was co-opted by the progressive movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and the term conservative shifted to little more than opposition of the progressive movement.
I agree that part of being a modern conservative means believing in Christian morality. Opposing abortion, homosexual special rights etc. usually tells us a lot about a persons character. My issue with bringing up Hoover is that he was a progressive and I’m not sure we know what his view would be on these issues if he were alive today. Yes, he wasn’t as progressive as Wilson or FDR but he was a progressive nonetheless. He undid much of what Coolidge put in place. I would caution anyone to assume about what he and other politicians from the 20th would have done with modern issues. Just look at all the supposed conservatives who have shifted their position on homosexual marriage in the last decade. It is presumptuous to assume that progressives from long ago wouldn’t be caught up in the same tangled web today.
There are plenty of reasons why Christian conservatives such as myself wouldn’t vote for Romney. Let’s begin with the elephant in the room, he isn’t a Christian. He’s a Mormon cultist. The conservatives who stayed home in 2012 were largely Christians who couldn’t bring themselves to vote for a pro-abortion, sodomite loving, damnable Mormon heretic.
I understand half the country in the early 19th century believed in implied powers. Like I initially said, in the 19th century the debate in this country was between Hamiltonian big government and Jeffersonian small government. In the 19th century, Jefferson largely won out. In the 20th century, Hamilton’s view has been widely adopted and expanded well beyond where he would likely stop.
Washington signed the US Bank charter Hamilton supported the charter and you’ll recall he was Secretary of Treasury in 1791. This was 4 years before his resignation due to adultery which interestingly was taking place in 1791.
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.