Unlike now, right? 
Posted on 12/03/2012 7:31:09 AM PST by Brookhaven
Every party has its wings–different sub-groups that are part of the larger organization. The Republican party has three wings that the Republican leadership believes is so dangerous to the future of the party, that they tried to suppress their influence in the last election, and pointed fingers at them as the reason for the GOP’s poor showing in the 2012 election cycle.
The Tea Party
It originally sprung up in opposition to out of control government spending. It has become a grass-roots movement centered around government fiscal responsibility. It has a tendancy to work outside the Republican party machinery, which has engendered the wrath of the GOP establishment.
It’s not unusual for a primary candidate to be scorned by the GOP establishment, simply because the candidate is considered a tea partier. Tea partiers felt like they were locked out of the 2012 convention. The GOP is highly critical of any tea party slip ups and magnifies them into major failures. Conversely, the GOP establishment seems to conveniently fail to give the tea party credit for its successes (Marco Rubio for example). It seems as if the GOP establishment now wishes the tea party would just go away.
Social Conservatives
They are concerned about government using its influence to push the country socially to the left. While they get pigeon-holed as the pro-life/pro-traditional-marriage group, in the larger sense they are concerned about government policies that undermine family integrity (such as the welfare state) and an activist judiciary that (1) creates new rights out of thin air that push the country socially to the left, and (2) thwarts any attempt to reign in government social activism.
And, the GOP establishment hates them. They want their votes, but they don’t want them to speak. The aftermath of the 2012 election produced another flood GOP consultants blaming the loss on social conservatives.
Libertarians
You sometimes forget there is a libertarian wing of the Republican party (because it is so loosely tied to the party), but it’s there. When a libertarian leaning candidate emerges (as Paul did in the last primary), you realize how sizeable (and vocal) this group really is. Unfortunately, this group tends to pack up its toys and go home when it doesn’t get its way. Which, is exactly what the GOP establishment wants. If a group can’t be controlled, they would rather it not be part of the GOP. Libertarians (because they are so focused on individual liberty) are the least controllable of all. This is why they (like tea party activists) were shut out of the 2012 convention.
The core philosophy of libertarians is (1) the government should be limited to its constitutional functions, and (2) individual rights trump government and group “rights.” Not that far out there at all, really. Unfortunately, it’s easy to confuse the libertarian messenge with the libertarian messager. Both Ron Paul and the actual Libertarian party are much farther out onto the edge on a host of issues than the typical libertarian leaning Republican, giving many people the impression that libertarian is a code word for wacko. It’s not. It is though, the only wing of the GOP that attracts large numbers of college students and young voters (something conservatives of all stripes should be very aware of; if you can’t pull in young people, your movement will grow old and die).
The GOP establishment sees all three groups as more trouble than they are worth. Hence its constant maneuvering to silence, shut-out, and shut-down all three. But, without these groups, what would the Republican party be left with? Without tea partiers (fiscal conservatives), without social conservatives (family values and judicial restraint), and without libertarians (individual liberty and adherence to the Constitution) what would be left; what would the Republican party become?
The party of business and defense.
Is that enough? Can the GOP survive (much less flourish) emphasizing business and defense, while deemphasizing everything else? Obviously not, but that would seem to be the path the GOP establishment is taking the party down, as it continues to attempt to suppress the influence of the tea party movement, social conservatives, and libertarians.
Maybe it’s time the red-headed stepchildren focus on working with each other, instead or working with the GOP establishment. I’m not sure if this would take the form of another party, or a redheaded coalition within the GOP, but whatever form, it would certainly be more effective than the current situation.
Don’t think the three groups can work together? Social conservatives tend to be fiscal conservatives, which lines up the the tea party. Tea partiers want government to stay within its constitutional bounds, and so do libertarians. Libertarians are concerned about judges who legislate from the bench, as are social conservatives. When you lay it out, the three groups’ goals, they mesh nicely. Not perfectly, but there is a lot of overlap. Enough, certainly, to form a coalition.
Perhaps it’s time the redheaded stepchildren get together and quit being children.
PS
And, for those that think libertarians are inherently pro-abortion, consider that Ron Paul (the libertarian wing’s poster boy from 2012) is pro-life, Bob Barr (the 2008 Libertarian party nominee) is pro-life, and Michal Bardnarik (the 2004 Libertarian party nominee) is pro-life. Support for abortion does not seem to be a litmus test for libertarian thought. Most libertarians believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and the matter returned to the state level. A position a significant number of social conservatives also agree with.
Yeah, people might actually have to do a little hands-on parenting. They might not be able to raise them free-range with a bunch of government school sports and clubs funded by property taxes extracted at the barrel of a gun. Ye gods...they would actually have to spend some time with the little bastards, and we can't have that!
You don’t have to back it or like it at all, and I don’t think homosexuals should get any special rights, I also don’t believe anyone should be forced to cater to them.
My whole point is that we shouldn’t write laws that prevent 2 consenting adults from doing as they please together behind closed doors.
You don’t have to call it marriage if you don’t want or even accept it no matter what the name, I support that right.
As for a business, they shouldn’t have to offer benefits to a gay couple if it violates their religious beliefs, no one should have to preform any actions that violate their beliefs, no matter the religion.
Having to offer benefits and various tax exemptions for married couples that gays would have if they are allowed to marry shouldn’t be a deciding factor in the discussion because those are forced under federal laws that shouldn’t exist to begin with, to include the tax code.
I also don’t support the militant in your face gay community, I don’t want to see straight couples making out and getting frisky in front of children any more than gay couples, it’s all the same to me, that’s private behind closed doors activity and should remain that way.
I missed the secondary portion of your post, as for the whole animal thing, Libertarians as a whole are against that also.
An animal can not make an informed decision, that’s just out and out animal abuse and should remain illegal.
I will illustrate my perception of social conservatives. Our County Board of Supervisors starts each meeting with a public invocation. The Supervisors have done this for 150 years and all wish to continue, even though there have been challenges to this practice elsewhere. Usually, the invocation is done by a Christian, but a few months ago, the Board invited a Hindu gentlemen to do the invocation. The Board is strongly in support of freedom of religion and respect for individual conscience. It is a government of all the people and representation of all religions is welcome. I consider this a libertarian point of view.
Boy did the social conservatives come out of the woodwork to protest what they considered paying homage to a false God.
I see this in a lot of things social conservatives do. We even have a fundamentalist run summer camp that believes they should be exempt from building codes because they are doing “God’s work.”
I often see intolerance of other’s beliefs, life-styles and property rights coupled with a sense of righteousness and a desire to impose restrictions on others. There is even a sense of communitarianism - that the Christian God-fearing community should be able to dictate how others use their property.
Some social conservatives are even into big into nanny state welfare programs. Look at Gov. Mike Huckabee’s record.
Maybe you shouldn’t belong to the social conservative party if you dislike them so much, social liberals have the democrat party and the libertarian party to choose from, along with the greens and all the other liberal parties.
America used to be much, much, much, more Christian and social conservative than they are today.
If so, then the so-cons may be closer to the Taliban than they appreciate.
No troll, Christians are what stand between you and the Taliban.
Your anti-Christian agenda has ruined most of the West and made it weak and demoralized, without purpose or identity, or culture or community.
Sixty years of your victories has pretty much destroyed the West.
Not true of 2012 nominee Gary Johnson. Or 1996/2000 nominee Harry Browne. And not really 100% true of Badnarik either. From what you can find online, his position is not entirely clear. Beyond abortion, there's always gay marriage and drugs to divide libertarians from social conservatives.
No Republican nominee or president can satisfy both libertarians and social conservatives. No Republican candidate or president has fully satisfied either group (except possibly George W. Bush with the social conservatives). Ronald Reagan had support in both groups, but he didn't fulfill the agenda of either group. Though he was a great president, ideological groups didn't make the same demands on him that they do of today's candidates.
The Tea Party is still too new to make sweeping statements about its relationship to the other groups mentioned. Clearly, if you take on a longstanding Republican Senator there will be bad blood whatever happens. And if a candidate makes "gaffes" he or she will lose support, but just where the Tea Party fits into the equation is hard to say.
I don't actually disagree with your argument. A lot of people didn't vote for Romney because of the "47%" and the "corporations are people" quotes. The rich corporate image hurt him and foreign policy alone didn't win him many supporters. The next candidate is going to have to have more appeal to the three groups you talk about. But I'm not sure any electable candidate is going to fully satisfy those groups -- or that social conservatives and libertarians are going to flock to the same candidate.
Perhaps it's time for 4 parties, not a duopoly. From left to right it would be the socialists, Democrat government hireling party, country club Republicans, and the conservatives, each with about 25% market share. I'd rather win 25% of the time than the current 2.5%.
To win and get anything done you’d have to go into coalition with another party, so you’d be just about where you are now.
If you don’t believe in freedom, if your view prevails, then we will drift into fascism, or worse by default.
you forgot about the free pot!
Strangely enough I think most people would rather be lied to.
Libertarianism always leads to a perverse society, that become ungovernable. The founders wisely rejected it as they did democracy.
bump
do you Liberaltarians will stop at drug legalization for adults?
Of course not.
They see no reason to deny children the same drug and sex rihts. They will eventually go there publicly.
Get over it Goldwater lost for many of the reasons that posters have outlined on this thread. If he had ran as a democrat, likely he would have won.
Apparently you don't either if you think otherwise.
Ever heard of the marriage penalty tax?
Rejected it? It was the heart of their plan. Liberty. Learn to love it.
Unlike now, right?
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.