For the first time, I am wondering about the long-term viability of the Republican Party. I say this not as an advocate of its demise or restructuring but as an observer of troubling signs. Posted on 03/19/2013 5:15:46 AM PDT by Kaslin
For the first time, I am wondering about the long-term viability of the Republican Party. I say this not as an advocate of its demise or restructuring but as an observer of troubling signs.
The Republican Party is thought to be the institutional vehicle for the advancement of conservative policies, but for decades, the conservative movement has been frustrated with the party's deviation from conservative principles -- its refusal to live up to its decidedly conservative platform.
I believe that the disappointing results for Republicans in the 2006 elections and probably the 2012 elections, as well, were in no small part attributable to frustrated conservatives staying at home.
The thinking among many conservatives has been that the party has consistently fallen short by failing to restrain the growth of the ever-expanding federal government and by failing to nominate sufficiently conservative presidential nominees. That is, if we would just nominate and elect Reagan conservatives and govern on Reagan principles, we would recapture majority status in no time.
The main opposing view -- call it the establishment view -- holds that Republicans need to accept that the reign of small government is over, get with the program and devise policies to make the irreversibly enormous government smarter and more energetic. In other words, Republicans need to surrender to the notion that liberalism's concept of government has won and rejigger their agenda toward taming the leviathan rather than shrinking it.
I'd feel better if the ongoing competition between Reagan conservatives and establishment Republicans were the only big fissure in the GOP right now, but there are other cracks that threaten to break wide open, too. Our problems transcend our differing approaches to the size and scope of government and to fiscal and other economic issues.
Reagan conservatism is no longer under attack from just establishment Republicans; it's also under attack from many inside the conservative movement itself. Reagan conservatism is a three-legged stool of fiscal, foreign policy and social issues conservatism. But today many libertarian-oriented conservatives are singing from the liberal libertine hymnal that the GOP needs to remake its image as more inclusive, less tolerant, less judgmental and less strident. In other words, it needs to lighten up and quit opposing gay marriage, at least soften its position on abortion, and get on board the amnesty train to legalize illegal immigrants. I won't even get into troubling foreign policy divisions among so-called neocons, so-called isolationists and those who simply believe we should conduct our foreign policy based foremost on promoting our strategic national interests.
One might reasonably assume that President Obama's abysmal record would usher in an era of GOP unity, but ironically, his policies have put such a strain on America that they seem to be exacerbating, rather than alleviating, the divisions within the GOP. I see my more libertarian-oriented conservative friends on Twitter, for example, wholly frustrated with conservatives who refuse to surrender on the social issues and thereby, in their view, jeopardize a coalition that could successfully oppose Obama's bankrupting of America. It's as if they believe that all social conservatives have morphed into Todd Akins.
Maybe it's just from where I'm sitting, but it appears to me that momentum is building among Republicans to capitulate on the issue of same-sex marriage, no matter what negative consequences might result from society's abandonment of support for traditional marriage. Likewise, it seems that many Republicans are determined to surrender on the immigration issue on the naive hope that Republicans will instantly shed the ogre factor and be on equal footing to compete for the Hispanic vote.
I belong to the school that believes the Republican Party must remain the party of mainstream Reagan conservatism rather than try to become a diluted version of the Democratic Party. This does not mean Republicans can't come up with creative policy solutions when advisable, but it does mean that conservatism is based on timeless principles that require no major revisions. Conservatives are champions of freedom, the rule of law and enforcement of the social compact between government and the people enshrined in the Constitution, which imposes limitations on government in order to maximize our liberties. If we reject these ideas, then we have turned our backs on what America means and what has made America unique. What's the point of winning elections if the price is American exceptionalism?
I refuse to acquiesce to the cowardly notion that conservatives are intolerant or mean-spirited because they oppose discriminant treatment for groups and classes of people, because they support the rule of law, because they oppose a runaway entitlement state and because they adhere to traditional values, including the protection of innocent life.
But my personal preferences as to the future of the conservative movement and the GOP aren't really the point. The point is that no matter what I prefer, the hard truth is that the movement inside the Republican Party to abandon social conservatism is nothing short of a political death wish. Denying it will not alter the reality.
Those in charge of the Republican party have driven it so far off of Reagan’s highway that it’s truly in doubt whether anyone can bring it back.
That may be true at present, but they’re in very small numbers in the USCP. A big infusion of pissed-off, motivated, erstwhile GOP conservatives would overwhelm the defeatists’ numbers. This would be preferable to having to disentrench the spineless, defeatist bunch of losers unwilling to fight for anything in the GOP.
Those in charge of the Republican party have driven it so far off of Reagan’s highway that it’s truly in doubt whether anyone can bring it back.
Once it has “gone to seed” the condition in terminal and can never be fixed. It just gets worse and worse until it becomes a full blown ghetto.
That is the Republican party of today.
It’s time to move out of the neighborhood and start life anew.
I hope you haven’t forgotten that we had the attacks on 9/11 and two wars. Otherwise STHU
However there are two other issues Republicans are on the wrong side of history on. Drug legalization and Gay Marriage. I have moved to a more libertarian position on both of these issues. As Paul (and I was not a supporter of his during the primaries) said, the government shouldn't even be involved with “licensing” marriages to begin with, and thus shouldn't be in the business of deciding who can or can't marry. And the same goes for drugs. The government shouldn't be telling we the people what we can or can't eat or drink.
The Republicans do need to tweek their message a little bit. But it should be tweeked toward freedom, even if it means people use that freedom to do perverted things to willing others or to pollute their bodies with dangerous chemicals.
Freedom should never mean the freedom for us to decide what another can or can't do with their body (not talking about abortion) but freedom to do with their own body whatever they see fit (so long as it doesn't infringe on anothers rights)
True, but the Republican Party is also still the party of the likes of people like Ted Cruz and Louie Gohmert. A LOT of the problem can be reflected back at us, the people, for our lack of strategy, unification, and unwilling to really fight beyond lip service. We need a reset on our end (the people) and stop looking for DC for the solution but start at the bottom again. Our own ‘community organizing’. Start in our neighborhood, schools, and churches. Don’t just give up on them and hope someone ‘from there government who is here to help’ will champion us. Run for local office or school board. Become Republican precinct chairs (probably the most powerful position in the election cycle). Be active locally. We started heading that direction then the train went off the track as we kept looking for that national leader when we as individuals should be leaders.
The Democrats are writing the narrative defining what conservatives are. American who need to hear the conservative message are listening to the narrative of the Democrats.
To bad we can't elect Bill Whittle to be the spokesman for Conservative Republicans.
Any third party is a joke, if you ask me
You could very well be true, in which case we’re just circling the drain.
Thanks
Medicare Part D
Yep, just go back and review the Santorum and ABO/Romney threads and you'll see all kinds of nasty comments directed at "St Rick," "Bible Thumpers," and "holier-than-thou evangelicals" by some of our very own in-house FR fiscal Conservatives. Remember their oft-repeated line about "electing a president and not a preacher?"
One thing we have to do is to stop fighting each other. Division does not help us one bit
Of course, and no one should be surprised
Rolling over and dying is counter productive.
..and Paul is wrong. As long as there are legal issues tied to it, such as inheritance, property ownership, taxes, etc and as long as it is a legally binding contract, the government has the responsibility under the Constitution to ensure that there are clear legal definitions and the law is equally applied (Article 1 Section 8 'Weights and Measures' clause per the Federalist papers, Measures includes uniform definitions that pertain to legal matters. Also 14th Amendment, the equal protection clause).
In order for government to be out of it, it would immediately require that all existing legal contracts that pertain to it be either voided or changed (a boom for lawyers). All pending or recently passed litigation in relation to marriage issues (such as divorce property issues) would/could be challenged.
You then have the one hundred million or so married couples who no longer have legal contracts recognized and you run into another Constitutional issue regarding Ex Post Facto laws.
If there’s any resurrection, it’s going to first come from the states outward. That being said, the good work that the Tea Party and Sarah Palin are doing is beginning to show forth with people like Ted Cruz. Here’s hoping 2014 will continue that pace.
“But today many libertarian-oriented conservatives are singing from the liberal libertine hymnal that the GOP needs to remake its image as more inclusive, less tolerant, less judgmental and less strident.”
He is correct. The Libertarians (Libertines actually) are destroying the Reagan coalition. I am primarily a SOCON, and I cannot abide Libertarians (calling themselves GOP) like Rand Paul anymore than N.E. liberal republicans being part of the party. IF guys like Rand Paul are the “future” of the GOP, then I will no longer be part of it. Guys like McCain are RINOs but he was rigth to call Rand Paul a “wack job.” While Paul was correct regarding his concern on Drones used against U.S. citizens, he is so terribly wrong on other issues.
They just don’t make “Ronald Reagans” anymore that hold balanced conservative views.
Marriages were not licenced in the US until Jim Crow, and it wasn’t an issue at all.
The whole concept of licencing marriage was to prevent “mixed” marriages.
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.