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.
One thing which continues to strike me is the assumption by most that Obama is the driving force behind all the socialistic changes being implemented. I have never viewed this guy as being as clever (politically) as he’s usually given credit. Instead, he continues to have plenty of help from many within the Republican Party.
A libertarian faction is on the rise in both major parties. It remains to be seen how much influence that faction will have in its respective parties.
Although the GOP has major internal issues, so do the Democrats.
For Democrats, the money is running out and you have unions fighting against Democrat governors and city mayors (Detroit, Chicago, and Philly, e.g.). Democrats can only keep their disparate coalitions together when there is sufficient $$$ to dole out to all. When there are only scraps left, the teeth are bared and the viciousness begins.
Fifty or so, to be precise - but this was exactly the situation, right here in America, the year I was born and for all the years in Christendom for more than a thousand years.
The term "traditional" doesn't usually mean "whatever has happened in the last few years that I happen to like".
“Republican” has become the “Democrat-Lite” party.
Both my husband and I have TRICare and are both on Medicare. Neither one has signed up for Part D and I am sure those who have, have to pay a fee that is deducted from their Social Security. Both my husband and I have part A and B which is both deducted from our SS.
Wrong on issues like a promised first budget that removes the department of education?
If the GOP jumps on the deviancy bandwagon and accepts homo marriage, it deserves to die as a Party. And I’d be the first to contribute bullets for its execution.
How about the DHS while the Republicans had full control? Great idea or a poor idea?
Something similar happened in the Libertarian Party in early 2008, when a large number of pissed-off Conservatives departed the Republican Party (because of McCain, Romney, Huck, etc.) and joined the Libertarian Party and attempted to do just that, much to the horror of old-line, ex-hippie Libertarians, who still wanted to hang their hats on drug legalization, open borders, appeasement and pacifism, and abortion. That's how Bob Barr ended up being its nominee for the 2008 election, thanks to the brand new Conservative wing of the Libertarian Party.
An internal civil war ensued soon after that election and the liberal wing won, causing many of the disaffected Conservatives to do a second exodus, this time into Independent status. Consequently, for 2012, the Libertarian Party ran a platform based heavily on drug legalization and open borders, and descended back down into complete irrelevancy. In the meantime, the disaffected Independent Conservatives refused to have anything to do with Romney and stayed home in large numbers on election day, making a huge point that the GOP-E is refusing to acknowledge at its own mortal peril.
I was reminded of that when it hit me that I barely trust anyone in Congress who got there before 2010, if even then.
Of the few who haven't obviously sold their souls, they act like they can't do anything they know they should do, like someone has something on them, dirt or deals, or they're under orders.
The newbies seem to be a bit less restricted, still connected to the money and folks from back home...so far.
Impeachment would feel good right about now.
2014 can't come soon enough.
Informative and succinct post.
http://www.franklincase.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11&Itemid=9
It probably wouldn’t have been necessary at least not to the extreme that it is. If 9/11 had not happened, for which you can thank Billy Jeff
That is the only way to cut off the Dem-Lites who currently run the GOP.
I can go to the local court house and make copies of my ancestors’ marriage licenses dating back to the 1840s, long before Jim Crow laws.
the spineless gop leadership has gotten to cushy with the perks of office they don’t want to give up. If the senate has a free barber shop then you can bet that the house does too. And with nearly 5 times the need for hair cuts. Since there are more women in the house, then is there a beauty shop for them that we are paying for?
These people are rich enough to afford such items as hair cuts and salon services out of their OWN POCKETS. We pay them to much as it is, and when you add up all the perks it probably nearly doubles their salaries.
I resent having to spend several billion dollars for the first female’s clothing, that is not a perk in the Constitution. Nor are barber shops either. We have become a two tier system, they take it from us and to enrich themselves, and we do with out or are rationed.
Michelle’s clothes binges
http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2010/10/analyst_places_27_billion_valu.html
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.