Posted on 02/01/2012 1:36:41 PM PST by servo1969
In 1831, Henry Clay formed a new political party. He called it the Whig Party. His goal was to ensure Jeffersonian democracy and fight President Andrew Jackson, a Democrat. Over the course of the next 20 years, the Whig Party achieved several presidential victories. But as slavery assumed more and more national importance in the political debate, the Whig Party began to shatter. Southern Whigs were slave owners; Northern Whigs were industrial gurus who hated slavery. In 1849, the Illinois Whig leader, one Abraham Lincoln, quit politics completely in frustration with the party's inability to come together. With the Compromise of 1850, in which Whig leaders strengthened the Fugitive Slave Act on the one hand and admitted California as a free state on the other, the Whig Party was fractured beyond repair.
In 1852, the anti-slavery faction of the Whig Party prevented the nomination of the incumbent, controversial president, Millard Fillmore; the party settled on a compromise choice, the bland, boring and elderly Gen. Winfield Scott. He lost in dramatic fashion to the handsome, young cipher Franklin Pierce. In 1854, with the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Whigs were irrevocably split. Northern Whigs joined the Republican Party. Southern Whigs vanished.
By 1860, Abraham Lincoln was president of the United States -- as a Republican.
Why tell this story? Because the party of Lincoln seems about to splinter the same way its predecessor did.
The center of the Republican Party cannot hold. With Mitt Romney's victory in the Florida primary, it's clear that large swaths of the Republican establishment have rejected the Tea Party; it's similarly clear that the Tea Party has largely rejected Romney and his backers. While Republicans hope that the party will unite behind Romney in opposition to President Obama, that hope seems strained. Democrats, optimists think, fought a brutal Hillary vs. Obama battle in 2008, then united to defeat Republicans. They forget, however, that the Hillary vs. Obama battle was not so much a battle over message as a battle over messenger. More than anything, it was a fight over whether to push for the first black president or the first female president. When it came to ideology, however, Obama and Hillary were virtually identical.
The same is not true within the Republican Party. On what basis will the party unite? On fiscal responsibility? Romney and his cohorts have said nothing about serious entitlement reform; the Tea Party, meanwhile, calls for it daily. On taxation? Romney has a 59-point plan that smacks of class warfare; the Tea Party wants broad tax cuts across the board. On health care? Romney and much of the establishment aren't against the individual mandate in principle; the Tea Party despises the individual mandate as a violation of Constitutionally-guaranteed liberties. On foreign policy? Paleoconservatives want a Ron Paul-like isolationism; neoconservatives want a George W. Bush-like interventionism; realists want something in between.
There is the very real potential for the Republican Party to spin apart in the near future. It could easily become a set of regional parties knit together by opposition to extreme liberalism. Chris Christie and his followers don't have all that much in common with Rick Perry and his followers. Never has that chasm been so obvious.
The Republican Party is like a bed of nails. It works so long as the nails are relatively close together -- but as the nails are moved further apart, the chances of winding up spiked from head to toe grow. Right now, the nails are too far apart. The Republican Party is about to be cut to shreds, even as the establishment declares victory over those redneck insurgents from the Tea Party. Romney's victory may very well end up being pyrrhic for the GOP in the end.
It's possible. The GOP nominated Gen. Fremont in 1856, and neither he nor the party were ready for prime time. The Tea Party isn't quite ready now, most of its stars are still too inexperienced (hence the need to fall back to Newt, as the surviving standard-bearer).
Four years could make a big difference. Palin, Pence, Ryan et al. will be in a great position by then to flush out whichever half of Rombama is in the WH. And by then, most citizens will be so fed up with neosocialism, foreign policy capitulation, and judicial tyranny that the Jackass Party should break apart, too.
Take the Vow—Not one cent to the GOP—They have all of Mittens wealth—they don’t need your ten bucks—Starve em out of existence. They are out of ideas and when someone has a decent thought—he (or she) is branded a nut with a screw loose. They make the Democrats look bold. The Republicans are running on empty.
The majority of Florida Primary voters cast their ballots for a candidate other than Romney.
>>Northern Whigs were industrial gurus who hated slavery.
They were gurus? Poor word choice, and a bad editor.
The GOP has failed to achieve its animating purpose. In the US, there is a Leviathan party, which comprises most of the Dem party and about half of the GOP. There are a few doctrinal differences within the Leviathan superparty, but there were also discussions and squabbles in the USSR or China under communism.
I heard it the same way. I think he has had it with the Republican party. He gets thoroughly trashed by conservatives for supporting the Republican candidate in the NY-23 debacle, and deservedly so. But I think his rationale for doing that may have been to curry favor with the Republican establishment as he looked forward to a run for the nomination. Now that he is seeking the nomination, he is unrelentingly assailed by the Republican establishment, in large measure via half-truths and outright lies.
I think his speech last night was very effective. He laid out exactly what he is going to do right out of the gate. His experience in the House gives him a huge advantage over Romney in the ability to actually get things done. And his appeal to everyone, not just Republicans, to give him the chance to get this done, tells me that a 3rd party-run is a definite possibility. His conclusion that he was pledging his life, his fortune, and his sacred honor to this cause, sounds like a commitment to more than just a run for the Republican nomination.
For me, the attacks against Gingrich about his support for Ronald Reagan are just too much to take. They tell me that the Republican establishment is not serious about fixing what ails our country. They tell me that the establishment wants to pretend that some of the Republican party's greatest achievements, the return to a House majority and the passing of balanced budgets, didn't really happen. Gingrich has the message to run against Obama - under his speakership, the budget was balanced and it can be balanced again with the right leadership. I am now convinced that that is a message the Republican establishment does not want to hear. Although I consider the Supreme Court vacancies that will likely arise during the next presidential term to be of the utmost importance, I now feel as though that is not enough to keep me on the Republican reservation. I will not be voting for Romney.
The GOP died when Reagan left office. The two Bushes buried it.
The GOP died when Reagan left office. The two Bushes buried it.
To Hell with the Neo-Whigs and Vichy Republicans if they select ORomney.
I think Rockefeller Republican is the worse pejorative I can think of for the establishment.
In other parts of the world, the fight continued as one between Whigs and Tories. Tories today continue the fight by trying to rewrite history by making the great Republican Cromwell into the villain and the Cavaliers into the heroes. Tories tend to look down on Americans and their revolution as unjust and sneer at Whigs as anti-democratic and freedom loving. Tories claim they tried to preserve the moral order that Whigs tore apart, which is laughable since Tories were the favorite of the Hollywood elite of their day (Shakespeare and the playwrites).
Canada produced a great Whig Prime Minister in Wilfred Laurier who was probably more of a classical liberal in his day that his American contemporaries.
Today Canada produces the likes of David Frum, advisor to GW Bush, and great apologist for milquetoast anti-Tea Party conservatism.
That’s right. If Romney’s the nominee, he can GTH and take the GOP with him.
Rebellion is ON!
GO SARAH!
GO NEWT!
GO TEA PARTY!
Ummmmm, bye?
Actually, I hate you anti-mormons. I don't give a flying hoot what religion mittens is. He is a wolf in sheeps clothing.
You need some serious help. I don't know if there are any pills out here to help you, perhaps some shock therapy.
I will ask politely never to respond to me again.
Perfect case, the new Republican party in 1860 is already beginning to fracture.
You cannot change human nature.
Thanks aomagrat, nice one, here’s the wiki-wacky-pedia summaries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1852_Whig_National_Convention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1852_Democratic_National_Convention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1852
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.
click on image