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.
lolol
I don’t find that strange at all. In fact, I think you nailed it..
Exactly. But we don’t have to cheer about it. Or giggle like a fool.
Or do you want a SoCon with values and beliefs that you can trust who will work against the status quo we now have politically?
Abortion is a contentious issue for libertarian leaning Republicans and I've heard a lot of libertarians stand for a lot of things, but never anything remotely similar to socialism. For that, you have to go the the SoCon only types who will trade almost every right for the ability to dictate when and where I can have a beer or what I can and can't teach my kids. No thanks, I'll stick to the Constitution.
What does that supposed to mean?
and what exactly are you teaching your kids?
RINO File.
That, "sir", is none of your damn business.
Ladies and gentlemen, case in point. This is what these so-called "Social Conservatives" want: to enter our homes to dictate how we teach our own children.
No, pot shouldn’t be free...
We should legalize and tax it like any other product, alcohol causes more deaths per year than pot.
It’s already been show in Amsterdam and Portugal that when pot was made legal use of more harder drugs went down, because when you have to buy from a dealer, like any business, they’re going to push their more expensive and profitable stuff (cocaine, heroine, crack), but when people are able to purchase pot from a legal source, there’s no push for the harder stuff, so use goes down.
None the less, yes, we should legalize it and tax it.
Well, I don't either. It's a sin; that's God's business, and he will take care of it Himself. After all, He hasn't delegated that to anyone else. But we should warn our erring brothers.
As for the point about marriage and the tax laws: well, we got into the current mess one step at a time, and will have to extract ourselves from it either the same way, or the wa the Founding Fathers did. Until then, though, there is no point in making it worse.
I've always argued that Libs are for more taxes which, of course, leads to bigger government. Thanks for proving my point.
You’re right with regards to God sorting it out, but that’s something that you and I believe, others may not see it as a sin within their own belief system, that’s the other reason I feel the whole issue isn’t something the government should be involved in, you can’t and shouldn’t try to legislate anyone’s belief system on another.
In the same breath, we shouldn’t use the force of government from forcing any religion to conduct gay marriages if it’s against their belief system.
In many areas the government should stay out of peoples lives period.
I also believe that a persons religious views shouldn’t be forced on people through the government either, our founders saw what the Church of England was doing and felt that people should be free to worship as they choose and that the government shouldn’t enforce any religious beliefs on another.
Politicians are always going to shape their opinions based on their faith at times, and there’s nothing wrong with that, but they shouldn’t go so far as to force their beliefs on others through law.
It’s a fine line, but it’s one that always needs to be walked, as long as they realize in the end that personal freedoms should always trump all.
Actually, no that doesn’t lead to bigger government, we already have the agencies in place to manage the regulation of pot.
As calling me liberal because I think we should tax it, that’s just your knee jerk reaction since you’re obviously unable to debate in an intelligent manner the subject at hand, so you resort to insults.
There’s nothing wrong with taxing a product and using the revenue to offset the cost of regulation and they allow state and local governments to generate revenue through a use tax since the product isn’t a necessity, it’s a choice to use it or not, so taxing it is perfectly fine.
Latest polls show no matter what, Republicans are going to be blamed which means Democrats will not want a "compromise"--they want the fiscal cliff. It will happen in spite of the fact this nation will suffer for it but it won't matter, we have a nation full of idiots. The idiots will get what they want, they control the Senate and the presidency.
Well, I don’t see that we have a disagreement about the use of the government.
But I also believe that such rules as exist should definitely cut both ways. If the enemy is hitting below the belt, kick ‘em in the balls.
STOP,and THINK. This will not work. We must overlook what we don't like in others but still look at them as allies in our desire to defeat the real enemy--Democrats.
If you don't like another faction, simply defeat them in the primaries--outnumber them in the primary and then advance the ball down the field.
or outnumbered.
Here we go, there’s always someone who doesn’t like someone else. My enemy is the Democrats.
Not going to happen.
The GOP will not allow it.
Actually, no that doesn’t lead to bigger government, we already have the agencies in place to manage the regulation of pot.
If pot is legalized, it will create huge new bureaus and agencies. It will create a demand for millions of new government jobs to control, regulate and punish thousands of those who violate the thousands of new laws that legalization will bring. Case in point: There are more laws controlling and restricting alcohold now than there ever was during Prohibition.
As calling me liberal because I think we should tax it, that’s just your knee jerk reaction since you’re obviously unable to debate in an intelligent manner the subject at hand, so you resort to insults.
Who's knee-jerking here? Are you or are you not a social liberal AKA a libertarian? You are taking a liberal position. Accept it. Own it.
There’s nothing wrong with taxing a product and using the revenue to offset the cost of regulation and they allow state and local governments to generate revenue through a use tax since the product isn’t a necessity, it’s a choice to use it or not, so taxing it is perfectly fine.
What you're talking about here is a Sin Tax. You want the government to profit off of the misery inflicted on weak and stupid citizens who drink, smoke, gamble and use dangerous drugs. That's wrong, friend. Big Time Wrong.
Then we agree. My enemies are Democrats too. Democrats in the Conservative movement (AKA libertarians)
Each state could go fully communist as long as that state did not violate any of the BOR's. Each state could be a Libertarian paradise. The states should be 50 laboratories of governance. If you don't like it in one state you used to be able to vote with your feet. The republic has been so bastardized that it is now under the thumb of the FEDs which are socialist. The original intent of the USC was to prevent that from happening. As such the USC is an utter failure. I totally understand what the original intent was, so spare me.
Good post, central_va. We've had our disagreements in the past, but you're spot on with this here. Well done.
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.