Posted on 09/08/2004 2:49:44 PM PDT by writer33
Much of the feedback that I have had concerning this series has been focused on the idea that the Republican Party has not drifted away from its foundation, but rather has abandoned its core principles effectively becoming a big government socialistic party like the Democrats with the major distinction between the two being only how big and how quick. Against that back drop, most of the people who support a movement to restore the Constitutional limits on government have suggested to me that they believe the only way to overcome existing Republican opposition to such a move would be by organizing a third party. They would hope to grow grass roots support sufficiently to overcome the Republican resistance or preferably, to even bring the Republican base into the third party itself effectively making the new third party the balance of power to the Democratic Party.
Reagan has been quoted as saying, "Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I’ve come to realize there is a very close resemblance to the first.” My definition of a "professional" politician is one who is more interested in securing their own lifetime career in office through repeated re-election than in fulfilling the duties of their elected office. And because they are more interested in their own re-election, they are willing to subvert the Constitution in order to use the public treasury to buy blocks of votes from the public. In effect, "professional" politicians have converted our "republic" into a democracy by surrogates. Where the Founders envisioned statesmen winning elections based on principles, unhampered by term limits and with the entire US treasury at their disposal, "professional" politicians began the wholesale buying of various blocks of voters.
I do not disagree with the notion that there are some "professional" politicians in the Republican Party and its leadership. Nor would I dispute that they are growing in number. And I have clearly stated that I believe "professional" politicians are the reason that socialism and big government are a threat to the American people. But I think organizing a third party would be the wrong approach for a number of reasons. There are still a great many constitutionally conservative Republican office holders because for such people the chance of being elected has been greater as a Republican than it was for any other alternative.
The flip side of that coin, is that the conservative voters a would-be-third-party would need to attract are conservative Republicans with a long track record and history of casting their ballots, donating their campaign dollars and of habitually supporting Republicans. I think it will be easier for them to support a conservative candidate running as a Republican than to convince them to support the same candidate, but who is now running on a new party label completely unknown to them. Brand names are important in politics just as they are in business and marketing. Generations of families have been voting Republican for more than a century. Convincing them to change their party allegiance would almost be the equivalent of asking some Americans to move to France and become Frenchmen.
What is true for the voters would also be true for our prospective candidates. Put yourself in the position of the Constitutionally conservative citizen candidate that we are seeking to run against "professional" politicians. Once you were able to get your name on the ballot, would you rather run against the Democrat as a Republican or as a candidate from an unknown party with no history or track record? Another negative in the same vein, history says third party candidacies tend to pull most of their votes from only one of our two major parties sometimes allowing an underdog from the other major party to win. Did Ross Perot's third party candidacy allow Bill Clinton to defeat Bush I? Could a third party competing for conservative votes actually reduce the number of conservatives winning elections? No matter how many conservatives hope that this would not be true, the unequivocal answer has to be a resounding yes.
Many of the incumbent Republicans including some that are "professional" politicians, are very conservative. If a third party is to be taken seriously, would it have to mount a complete slate of candidates and maybe waste financial resources as well as waste our own conservative candidate resources to oppose an office holder that shares our views? And during any transitional period would we run the risk of confusing our third party members by saying support this Republican with your money and vote for the Republican in that race, because we could not field a candidate in that race? And during the early part of any transition, it will be a certainty that a new third party would not be able to field candidates in the over whelming majority of races. Furthermore, the number of conservative Republican office holders is not only significant; I think there are considerably more than most people recognize. I think some of the elected Republicans believe that they cannot admit or manifest their actual conservative beliefs if they are in a fairly liberal congressional district or state. If this is true, then we would be wasting valuable time and resources to defeat someone that could be persuaded to actively support and advance our position under the right circumstances or conditions. I don't think there are enough of us that we can afford to be duplicitous and wasteful of resources or candidates.
Winning an election is one thing; exercising power is something else. It is no small feat for a charismatic candidate to win an election as a third party candidate, something that remains illusive and rare. Mounting a slate of candidates that can win enough seats in a legislature has never occurred in this country. History is not on the side of third parties. Repeating the mistakes of the past is a proven formula for ensuring failure. All that said, Republicans lay claim that Lincoln is the only third party candidate to ever win the Whitehouse (Teddy won as a Republican, but lost as the Bull Moose candidate, another third party fiasco that gave us Woodrow Wilson and what might eventually prove to be the beginning of the end.) Republicans also claim that Lincoln turned their third party into one of the two parties in our historically more or less two party government. In contrast to Lincoln's day, we would like to avoid a civil war, especially as the means for the building of a successful political party. In countries with many "third parties", power and influence can only be garnered by forming coalitions with other parties. In the United States, is there any party with whom a conservative party could form a conservative coalition other than with the Republican Party? And what would be the incentive for Republicans to form a coalition with another party whose implied if not stated purpose is to supplant the Republican Party?
Given our history of the last 150 years, how long would it take to build a politically effective new third party? And would it not be a fact that it would simply be a re-incarnated Republican Party under a new label? And is there any reason that would prevent what I would like to call the Reagan Wing of Republican Party from shifting the whole Republican Party dramatically to the right? And I would argue if the Reagan Wing is not successful at shifting Republicans to the right, how likely are we to move enough independents to the right to over come the opposition of Democrats especially if Democrats are joined by some of the left leaning Republicans in the Republican party?
I would argue that the bottom line is that the Reagan Wing must gain enough power to move the Republican Party substantially to the right. In turn, the Republican Party must win elections on a platform of meaningful Constitutional reform to re-impose the limits of the Constitution on government. And we must do this within the next four elections (2006, 2008, 2010, and 2012.) I am suggesting that if the Constitutional restraints on government are not restored by then, the staggering liabilities to be incurred as a result of the boomers becoming of age all but guarantee a financial catastrophe of unimaginable magnitude for the people of the United States.
The tragic effects of socialism are going to be compounded by the outsourcing trends that are already in place. Capitalism will ensure that manufacturing will be done in the most efficient place possible. To believe otherwise would be a reckless mistake. Getting government and socialism off the backs of the people and the economy will unleash the ingenuity and enterprise of the American people to find the best possible ways for Americans to survive the difficult days that might be in our future and then thrive and prosper in the years ahead. Shackling our best and brightest in a misguided effort to keep the disadvantaged or less able Americans above water is not the way out of this mess. Unfortunate and disadvantaged Americans will learn to float, tread water, and then to swim as soon as they know they have to rely on themselves, but not before.
If government has a role in helping the unfortunate and disadvantaged, it is not by using tax dollars or mandatory programs. There is nothing, however, that prevents government from collecting voluntary contributions like any other non-profit group and using those funds as trusts or ordinary charities to help the disabled or disadvantaged. Americans are historically a generous people. Private charities and trusts are quite capable of providing these services and in assessing not only the need, but who would benefit the most. Government's record for assessing need, determining priorities, and who will benefit is unsatisfactory. It is an undisputable fact that some, maybe many or even most, people will be harmed by the current system of public entitlements. It is a virtual certainty that far more are harmed than anybody recognizes. Government is a complete failure at recognizing such people. And by analogy, history suggests that hunger is more prevalent wherever and whenever government assumes the responsibility of providing food. Life is full of "golden rules." The golden rule of government is: whatever government subsidizes, you get more of it.
If we are going to stem the tide against socialism, we need to present a slate of candidates that can successfully debate in the arena of ideas. The debate must be centered on the threat posed to freedom by socialism and the economic threat that socialism poses to the United States itself. The facts are all on our side. Emotion plays a powerful role in human action. Democrats have been masterful in appealing to voters' emotions. The major media outlets have been extremely effective propaganda tools for the Democrats. Public schools have been effective recruiters for Democrats and have misinformed many young susceptible minds. Facts, reason, and logic presented by able spokesmen must be the foundation of our arsenal if we are to succeed in the mass election of conservatives. Half-truths, lies and emotions will be their weapons. Forced to do battle in an arena where our media support has an audience composed primarily from the choir, and facing almost universal media opposition that is targeted at the population at large, it will take large sums of money to get our candidates in front of the public to convincingly present our side of the great debate. And we will require these sums in every election until we succeed or until the Gokhale-Smetters clock runs out. But getting the money is not a hurdle or a barrier for this effort; it is already there waiting to be used.
The hurdle we face is finding our candidates, getting them to come forward, and then giving them time in public debate to present their arguments directly to the people of the United States before it can be filtered through our political parties or the major media outlets. The unvarnished truth will be the standard by which we will succeed or fail. With the truth as our standard, we will have the luxury of being able to make some mistakes as long as we acknowledge and correct them whenever they are discovered, irregardless of whether they have come to the public's attention. In contrast, our adversaries, socialistic "professional" politicians, do not have this luxury. Since they obtained and have held their offices based on half-truths, lies and emotion, the revelation of the truth is something they cannot bear. For socialistic "professional" politicians, the truth is like the sunrise to Dracula. And only when the truth dawns in the minds of voters will we pierce the lies that are at the heart of socialism.
Does what you have seen so far seem doable? Does it have a substantial chance of being successful if executed in a reasonably reliable way? Do you have, or have you seen, any other proposal that even comes close to being as feasible? Is there any other way that relieves citizens capable of statesmanship from the necessity of chasing and raising money? Without term limits, does campaign fund raising play a role in converting statesmen into "professionals?" The time and effort saved by our campaign funding mechanisms will free our candidates to perfect the arguments needed to carry the day with voters. And the time saved will give our candidates the opportunity to learn how to present our arguments directly to voters in the best possible way and importantly, without the debate first being filtered or slanted by the major media.
Ping!
I'd agree, but under the circumstances, we need to just get one party straightened out.
Seems this fellow never heard of Teddy and The Bull Moose party.
Aren't you overlooking one thing?
BTW, we don't have long in getting control of that one party. If we don't wrest the reins of the GOP from the RINOs (and somehow keep the RATs out of power while we do so) by 2012, it's financially over.
O.K. Let me in on what I'm overlooking. Of course I'm not the author and would be happy to give you a contact e-mail address. However, you can just post it here and he'll see it.
I completely agree. We have to get rid of these darn rhinos.
BTTT! BTTT! BTTT!
This is a very good article.
By all means let the conservative, anti-socialism Republicans come forth! I'm eager to vote for them. :-)
(Just don't expect me to put my support behind the other kind.)
Actually, he has. Teddy Rossevelt's Bull Moose candidacy gave us the original New World Order Prez, the 'RAT Woodrow Wilson.
There has been exactly one successful third-party; the Republican Party (which knocked off the Whigs between 1856 and 1860. Even then, it took the Pubbies two elections to win (and the Civil War followed as the Southern RATs refused to abide by the results of the election).
gives me an idea, actually. many of us who live behind enemy lines in NJ, NY, CT, etc are somewhat more "fiery" out of necessity. maybe it's time for us to organize "renegade Republicans"
Most "conservative Republicans" would not support the following "meaningful Constitutional reform."
Minimum wage law violates Amendment V
Airport searches and siezures by "federalized" employees violates Amendment IV.
Federal laws limiting or banning the unconditional use of "drugs" by free citizens,whether for medicinal or recreational purposes, violates Amendment IX.
The Patriot Act requirement for banks to hire a dedicated employee to monitor financial transactions violates Amendment V.
"Compelling state interest" is not a constitutional position to justify our government denying and disparaging rights.
Discrimination for any reason is a private property issue and any federal law to the contrary violates Amendment IX.
Current "commerce clause" interpretation is grossly expansive beyond the founders original intent and needs to be reeled in.
This would invalidate most federal regulations which would include overtime rules, 40 hour weeks, health insurance, OSHA, age, race, and gender anti-discrimination laws, etc.
Social Security membership is "voluntary."
In other words, most "conservative Republicans" support the "socialist" system that exists in this republic today.
Minor correction, Spiff. It's the National Federation of Republican Assemblies.
We just formed a chapter here in Pennsylvania.
I am convinced that once we run truly principled conservative candidates, we will bring coutless millions of disenchanted conservative 3rd party voters and non-voters back into the revived GOP. As it is now, too many candidates are worthy of a vote.
I know that I don't get excited over candidates like Lesser Of Twoevils or Hesnot Asbadas Theotherguy.
On behalf of the author, I'll say thank you. He appreciates you comments. And I totally agree with you. Were working on it as well.
First things first. Get President Bush elected and then focus the long term strategy from the grass roots up. Make America all it can be.
Here is a contact e-mail for the author: eig@padre-island.us
Don't make me Howard Dean you, tahiti! I'm rolling up my sleeves now.
And you're right. Exactly right. But we've got to change it and we can't sit here and wish it were changed. We've got to try. Otherwise, what's the point. Wouldn't you agree? Or am I alone on an island full of self-doublters. ;-)
Sounds like a winner.
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.