Posted on 02/08/2008 12:06:54 AM PST by verklaring
A Conservative Caucus within the Republican Party, a concept (vanity)
Historical perspective: In 1968-9 there was a movement within the Democrat party to form a new left alliance. This alliance was formed of neo-communists, socialists, far left liberals and antiwar activists. It’s purpose was to effectively move the direction or take over the Democrat party. The intention was, first, as a caucus within the party to direct and shape national policy. Its long term goal was to take over the party. It partially succeeded when McGovern was nominated. It has continued to this day. I was a college student, what Rush Limbaugh calls an empty head full of mush, in those days. I was at one of the meetings in Detroit, MI. This is not fiction. If this sounds like David Horowitz, it is similar. I would suggest that this approach has worked. Bill and Hillary must have been part of the same movement.
The trouble is, it has also driven JFK type moderate Democrats or those to the left of JFK into the Republican party. Some like Reagan became genuine conservatives. But others have not changed and are not conservatives. McCain, Giuliani and Huckabee are of this type. They are not all liberal Republicans. They are really closet Democrats at heart but of the JFK type in varying degrees: Pro-America, pro-military, pro-tax cuts and capitalism but also social and liberal. Mccain and Huckabee are of this type but left of JFK. This is the big tent.
The point: There are within the Democrat party various caucus elements, based on race, agenda, etc. While, negatively, this atomizes the party into special interest groups, it also, positively, gives to each group a position of power at the table within the party. It gives them a seat at the table of power and a voice.
There may be a similar situation, I believe, in the New York Republican party, a conservative caucus, within the party. The purpose of it is to have conservatives band together, work together and present one unified candidate or a unified position on issues.
The concept is not difficult. Conservatives work together to form a united position among themselves, then stick together to present a united front as a block on either nominations or issues. This might be a solution to the problem of fragmented conservatives, which we are seeing. The three legged stool, as it is called, of social, economic and foreign policy/national security conservatives. It would eliminate a one issue, one leg of the stool, candidate. Examples of the one issue candidate would be Tancredo - immigration, Huckabee - social conservative+ plus taxes (but liberal on everything else).
The problem with this approach is that it requires working together. Socialists and collectivists are better at this than independent minded conservatives, each with his own issue, guns, abortion, taxes, national security.
To implement this you would need also a set of standards to unite such a caucus, such as federalism + consistent national security principles. The libertarian, isolationist and non-free trade approaches would have to be excluded. The reason for this latter statement is there are already third parties for this, and we do not need another Ron Paul, Pat Buchannan, or Ross Perot drawing off energy, votes or efforts.
It would have to be a kind of new Republicanism, (conservative, constitutional but republican in principle) in its approach. For some who have advocated a Third party move, this might be a better option. It could also be used at the local, state and at the congressional level as well as the presidential level. It would have to have the character of a movement, which is more than CPAC. The concept is not really new. But if Conservatives are to have a future voice in the GOP. It is one which needs to be pursued in an organized way, which has not been done. The concept is more than a think tank and a forum. It starts at the precinct level. It extends to a group or caucus within a group all the way to the House of representatives and the US Senate.
This is a tactic of the liberal left and it works. The problem with implementing such a strategy in the Republican party is that politics and political power for the left are their religion while for conservatives it is not. But for some who are frustrated, thinking third party, or not voting it is a long term answer or suggestion. It also requires a certain kind of work and conservatives unlike liberals have a life.
It’s called CPAC.
You mean the CPAC that slobbered all over McCain?
Herein lies the problem with all of this talk (this thread being just one example) of trying to create a large-scale "conservative" movement, whether within the GOP or as a 3rd party -- everyone has their own definition of what "conservative" means, and trying to come up with a common enough definition to please everyone will result in something so vague as to really not mean much.
I think a better focus is on the more immediate problem and issue: American government is broken. It would be a much better use of effort, in my opinion, to push issues aside for the moment, and instead work on developing a guideline for what the appropriate role of government is, at each level and branch of government. The first priority after that would be to develop plans and policies to reallocate and restore the proper functions of government.
What is the proper role of the federal government? What is the proper role of the state governments? What is the proper role of county and local governments? There needs to be a unified approach to these questions that puts the responsibility and authority (but no more!) at the appropriate levels. As far as determining the role, the general guideline should be "what is the lowest level of government necessary to do the job?", as government that is closer to the problem, and the people it serves, is most responsive.
Within each level of government, and at that level, the proper functions of various branches and agencies can be determined as well. For example, at the federal level, each of the three branches has their own specific roles to play.
This type of approach should appeal to most of the folks who call themselves "conservatives", and certainly economic and defense conservatives, as well as a large number of libertarians (minus the anarchists posing as libertarians). What I worry about are the subset of conservatives (typically "social" conservatives*) who would have no problem with big government, as long as it does what they want.
Once the framework for fixing government is in place, then it would be more reasonable to focus more heavily on issues. But I really do believe that a government that is reined in and brought back to its proper role would likely act much more conservative by default, anyway.
This must be the designated morning of hilarity. The posts directed at me so far have been very funny.
I did not go to the link. I have pretty much explained why.
Bring up the subject again in a couple of weeks and I’ll give it the attention it deserves.
I hear ya. Exactly right.
LOL... way to go.
No.
Thank you. I appreciate it.
I’ve not said I disagree with his plan.
Small 'l' libertarians can't be excluded. Various polls put them between 9 - 15 percent of the electorate. A fair number of them voted and two Senate seats, in Virginia and Montana, IIRC, were lost in 2006 due to their reaction to the ban on online gambling passed by the Congress in the early fall of that year. Thank you social conservatives. Could we limit it to opposition to abortion/embryonic stem cells and opposition against unnatural lifestyles. Human nature does have its way. That's why the war on drugs will never be won. Small 'l' libertarians are a natural part of the GOP "big tent," especially in the west.
Smackdown! By Independents & Moderates(2006)
Why? Because exit polls show there's a large chunk of the electorate that is moderate, independent-minded and turned off by partisanship. In exit polls, 47 percent of voters described their views as moderate, 21 percent liberal and 32 percent conservative. And 61 percent of the moderates voted Democratic this year.
On party identification, 26 percent said they're Independent, which is in line with recent elections. But this year, Independents went Democratic by a 57-39 margin. That's what gave the day to Democrats. In the 2002 midterm, by contrast, Independents went Republican in a 48-45 split.
Only 32 percent described themselves as conservative. No doubt that included some blue and yellow dog donkeys. Conservatives by themselves can't cut it. Somehow the GOP has to keep the religious right and the small 'l' libertarians as well as appeal to the moderates and independents because the left will bankrupt our economy, get us killed and surrender our sovereignty.
It looks like we're stuck with RINO McCain mainly for three reasons. Independent voters are allowed to vote in the early primaries. States with relatively early, closed GOP primaries like NY and NJ have at lot of RINOs. Too many folks were claiming to be conservative as well as conservatives were competing in the GOP primaries. Conservatives somehow need to settle on one candidate before the primaries and caucuses start.
I hate to say it, but social conservatives did it again. Those who voted for Huckabee, who is only a social conservative, also knocked out Thompson and conservative convert Romney. Now it looks we got the booby prize, McCain.
And the Bush anti gun, pro amnesty republican party is UNAMERICAN.
I’m not sure what event/date you mean, but I’m sure that there are many symbolic events/dates in that movement. Another event/date would be the Port Huron Statement in 1962.
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.