How the GOP Lost Its Way

Washington Post ^ | April 22, 2006 | Craig Shirley

[MC Miker G]

The immigration reform debate has highlighted a long-standing fissure in the GOP between the elitist Rockefeller business wing and the party's conservative populist base. Whether the two groups can continue to coexist and preserve the Republican majority is increasingly doubtful as conservatives begin to consider -- and in some cases cheer -- the possibility that the GOP may lose control of Congress this fall.

The two camps are deeply divided. The business elites are interested in a large supply of cheap labor and support unfettered immigration and open borders. The populist base supports legal immigration but is concerned about lawlessness on our border, national sovereignty and the real security threat posed by porous borders.

There is nothing new about this division. It is a 40-year-old fight that has its roots in the cultural, economic, regional and ideological differences between the two camps. Still, most conservatives felt that after the victory of Ronald Reagan and the Republican Revolution of 1994 their point was made and the country-clubbers would know their place. They were wrong. The Rockefeller wing is now attempting to reassert its control over the party and is openly hostile toward the Reagan populists who created the Republican majority in the first place.

[inquest]

If we can dominate the Republican party we win, if we come in second within the party, we influence them heavily, if we drop out or do some third party thing, the media loves us and we become irrelevant to the challenges of our times.

Consistently voting Republican no matter what they do is about the best way to guarantee complete lack of influence. Politicians generally don't pay attention to voters whose votes are unconditional. They pay attention to voters whose votes are conditional.

[ansel12]

"So I have no hard & firm answers...only the belief that great troubles are coming, and that the Republican party as we know it is not capable of addressing them."


We are sure on the same page, if guys like you and I don't get some conservative leadership soon, many of us will simply fade away from the struggle.

I'm a fire breathing conservative, and if I don't get a little red meat occasionally I get very discouraged, and the Republican party hasn't thrown us any red meat for a while.(Actually they did, with the new supreme court appointments, and the strong defense of Rumsfield)

Rush Limbaugh is very important to me. While I'm ready to grab the pitchforks and man the barricades, Rush is there to laugh and ask, so did you get that out of your system?

Rush reminds us that this is America, that to implement change we have to win electoral politics. We have to take a long view and win the majority of voters to our side.

I have to remind myself that conservatives are making headway on campuses, among the judiciary, in media, but without the umbrella of Republican party we don't stand any chance at all.

If the Democrats take control of the three branches again it will truly be over.

A lot of the younger people think this is hell, but being old enough to see what the "Greatest Generation" did to this country during the sixties and seventies, I know what hell looks like when the left runs everything.

Look at all the evils that plague us now, almost all the legislation, and court decisions that permanently altered the American destiny was passed during those years.

[inquest]

I have to remind myself that conservatives are making headway on campuses, among the judiciary, in media, but without the umbrella of Republican party we don't stand any chance at all.

The advances in the media and on campuses had been picking up steam all through Clinton's presidency. In fact, I wonder how successful they would have been if the first Bush had remained in office.

[ansel12]

"Consistently voting Republican no matter what they do is about the best way to guarantee complete lack of influence. Politicians generally don't pay attention to voters whose votes are unconditional. They pay attention to voters whose votes are conditional."



The Republican party is simply a collection of people, change the people you change the party, that is what we mean by fighting.

Ronald Reagan and his supporters took over the Republican party, against the desires of the Rhinos.

The struggle is within the party, on a daily basis, not when you pull a lever every 2 or 4 years.

[inquest]

The struggle is within the party, on a daily basis, not when you pull a lever every 2 or 4 years.

I'm not doubting that. But when it comes time to pull that lever, a decision has to be made. If you always pull it for the Republican, no matter what, then your ability of your vote to influence the Republicans diminishes to zero.

So by all means we should also do things other than voting, to influence the Republicans. But if those efforts don't come to fruition when election day comes around (which unfortunately is the case all too often), then there has to be one final stick to wield.

[ansel12]

"I'm not doubting that. But when it comes time to pull that lever, a decision has to be made. If you always pull it for the Republican, no matter what, then your ability of your vote to influence the Republicans diminishes to zero.

So by all means we should also do things other than voting, to influence the Republicans. But if those efforts don't come to fruition when election day comes around (which unfortunately is the case all too often), then there has to be one final stick to wield."





The most constructive thing you could ever do with your political life would be to spread that view among the Democrats.

Please work to convince them that the way to further their goal for political control is to sit out elections, or even better, siphon off people and financing to a third party.

Personally I wish all the best for the Green party, I only wish the liberals would splinter into even more parties, or just become so frustrated they refuse to show up at the polls at all.

[inquest]

The most constructive thing you could ever do with your political life would be to spread that view among the Democrats.

Is that why the MSM featured Ralph Nader so prominently in the last two elections while barely mentioning at all the Libertarian and Constitution Parties?

One thing that liberals understand - and all too many conservatives don't - is that it's more important that their views get prominence than that they win every election.

[x]

Good article, but does it all come down to elites vs. populists? On immigration, it's quite likely. But discontent with steel tariffs or prescription drug benefits isn't all populist in nature. There may be some "elitist" opposition in there as well, and some "populist" support. It's similar with pork barrel spending. Everyone opposes it in other states or districts, but many favor it in their own. Was Gingrich truly a populist, or someone who used populist discontent to become part of the elite?

Reagan and Bush both lead complicated coalitions. Some parts of the coalition are more or less libertarian and for smaller government. Others -- not so much. As the country's grown more conservative, expectations have been raised for Bush, even though he's not likely to undertake major steps, that even Reagan didn't undertake. That's not an excuse for Bush, but it may be an explanation: you can't win 51% of the country with a strong "less government" program.

[ansel12]

I just wish you would devote all that anger and energy to depressing the Democrat vote instead of the Republican vote.

[inquest]

It's similar with pork barrel spending. Everyone opposes it in other states or districts, but many favor it in their own.

I'd venture to say that a lot of people would be willing to give it up in their own districts IF everyone else had to give it up as well and the savings went to lower taxes overall.

[inquest]

Why did the MSM feature Ralph Nader so prominently in the last two elections while barely mentioning at all the Libertarian and Constitution Parties? Why was it that in any online MSM poll you went to during those elections, your choices were Bush, the Democrat, or Nader? Never the Libertarian, never the CP candidate. Any theories at all?

[DoctorMichael]

"....GOP Lost Its Way....."

Coming from the scumbags at the WashCom-Post, this article amounts to a kick-em'-while-they're-down piece. Nonetheless..............Dats fo shur!

[Democratshavenobrains]

50 years ago most of the populists would have been Democrats. The Democratic Party has traditionally been the one more reflective of the public at large while the Republicans were mostly about the business interests or the very religious.

[Let's Roll]

Yes you said "dominate" and "influence" - that is consistent pressure year round - not just pulling levers every two years.

Well said.

[NHFREE]

We are seeing he same future I'm afraid. There are columns to write, people to talk to, and letters to the editor.....it all matters. Let's hope the House stops this amnesty colds !

[guitfiddlist]

Written by a pontificating pinhead named Craig Shirley from the Washington Post. Gee, there's a real manly and reliable source, who truly "knows" us.

I'm sure any change in direction we might make will trample this clueless little schmuck - with only a perfunctory warning of, "Excuse me, dipfrikkles - now get the hay out of the way!"

[no dems]

This is typical WAPO editorial crap. This is one Conservative who is NOT cheering the "possibility" that the GOP might lose control of Congress this fall.

First of all, it ain't happening.

Secondly, Conservatives are too smart to bite their nose off to spite their face (well, some are anyhow) and we need the Chairmanship positions.

[MissAmericanPie]

It certainly doesn't help on other issues as well, spending, and not having Ben Laden standing tall before the man.

Average Joe's are not satified with only having Saddam, a fat, dumb, oaf, in the dock, given us, rather than Ben Laden who is the only one that can satify our need for justice.

[Icelander]