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.
“So, as stated above, the licensing of marriage by the state is fairly recent concept. Throughout most of the history of western civilization, it was not licensed.”
I would add that defining and regulating marriage is not an enumerated power in the Constitution. Therefore, the debate over marriage should be taking place in the states and not the national level. In fact, the federal Defense of Marriage Act should be held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court based on Amendment X to the Constitution.
“The GOP establishment has made it clear that the party is moving away from conservatism, so it’s time for conservatives to form our own party. It’s as simple as that.”
I am now at a point where I agree with that sentiment, however reluctantly. For years I thought the Republican Party could be the vehicle of a conservative resurgence, but no more. I helped raise money for Republican candidates in 2012 but don’t see myself doing that again. This morning I got an email from a big GOP fundraiser dumping all over social conservatives. It was depressing. I don’t know this party anymore.
You and I are on the same page. All the government needed to do after 9/11 was beef up the pilot area as they have and issue the following statement:
“You know that plane that lawn darted into a field instead of hitting it’s target? Well, if someone tries to hijack your plane, do what the passengers on that plane did.”
Two things would result. First, the hijackers would probably never get to a point where the plane would crash because of the ensuing fight and, second, hijackers would be on alert that unless they had a fully auto “assault rifle”, the only thing they would accomplish is their own death and that of a few passengers, so it is unlikely it would ever happen again.
“The 2008 presidential campaign cost 5.3 billion dollars. Another 1.5 billion for the House and the Senate. And that’s not counting another half a billion from the 527’s and even shadier fundraising by shadowy political organizations. But that’s a small investment when you realize that they were spending billions of dollars to get their hands on trillions of dollars.
Do you know of any company in America where for a mere few billion, you could become the CEO of a company whose shareholders would be forced to sit back and watch for four years while you run up trillion dollar deficits and parcel out billions to your friends? Without going to jail or being marched out in handcuffs. A company that will allow you to indulge yourself, travel anywhere at company expense, live the good life, and only work when you feel like it. That will legally indemnify you against all shareholder lawsuits, while allowing you to dispose not only of their investments, but of their personal property in any way you see fit.
There is only one such company. It’s called the United States Government. “
From http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2013/03/government-money.html
An internal civil war ensued soon after that election and the liberal wing won
Bad move - 2008 was the only time they got my vote. And note that the conservative LP's candidate supported at the least a relaxation of anti-marijuana laws.
Primary them out, lets insist on a conservative, articulate R. One who can take on the decaying society and tell it like it is without fear or being seen as harsh.
Advocate for the family, explain why it is so important for our country, for our society. Talk, rather teach, about the strength of the family how it will repair all the decaying, immoral society, unwed pregnancies, abortions, crumbling democrat cities, homosexual marriages and what happens to societies that endorse that.
Talk about Mayors, Legislatures and Governors trying to pass laws to control your living choices, job choices, food choices, drink choices, retirement choices, medical choices. Emphasize freedom and liberty, that is what small government's are about.
The GOPe has been doing that since Coolidge left office, and has been the loser party ever since. Reagan was an exception, not the rule.
FR does have more than its fair share of them, no doubt.
Since Barr only got 523,000 votes, it sounds like not much of anything.
The greatest election success of the libertarians was when they tried to stop Reagan from winning in 1980, it was the high point for them in national elections, their greatest showing.
If you need any help with that, please let me know. I'd love to assist you with it.
The Mosque is a church, so is the gay marriage performing Episcopalians.
“what is wrong with condemning an action as sinful and immoral and yet acknowledging that someone has the freedom to do it if they wish?”
Because I do not feel that ANYONE has a “right” to engage in homosexuality, adultery, fornication, etc. I don’t think prostitution should be legal or illicit drugs.
I KNOW the drafter’s of the Constitution would be horrified that anyone would advocate what “libertarians” say should be legal....and do so in the name of liberty. It is utterly adsurd.
I WILL NOT EVER vote for a libertarian candidate for POTUS or any office. Actually, I am for PURGING the GOP of Libertarians (at least the big “L” ones). They will destroy the party. That was David Limbaugh’s thesis...he IS correct.
Big “L” Libertarians are actual anarchists and/or libertines on most issues. They have a few limited areas where they are correct...but those are few. Rand Paul is a “wack job” just like his father was. It is irrelevant that the RINO McCain also has said this...he was correct (one of the few times he has been).
Two things really screwed up the 2012 election. One was the GOPe picking Romney to be the candidate. The second was Ron Paul running for the GOP slot....he is a corrupter of youth. It scares me no end that the young would be attracted to this wacky doodle. Just when he looked to be gone...his crazy son does a grand stand filibuster (one of the few issues where his libertarianizm was right) and gets a lot of publicity. He is a bad distraction from finding a Ronald Reagan time candidate.
The deck is stacked against any change in the GOP. They GOPe makes the rules and controls the levers of power. As much as I hate the thought of a new party, it’s the only viable option and the country will pay for it, but at this point the GOP isn’t worth saving.
The likes of Palin, Cruz, Tommey, Lee, Paul, and DeMint have to walk out very openly and loudly and soon to form a new party and call for open revolt in the GOP and it’s death as a viable political party. It has to be a massive walkout and at the same time to cause the maximum damage and carnage to the GOPe.
You’re not going to find a “Ronald Reagan” candidate ever again, any more than the Democrats are going to find a Thomas Jefferson ever again.
You people who keep wishing for a second coming of Reagan need to get your heads on straight and understand something: Reagan was a man of his time. The #1 threat in the world then was communism. Reagan knew this, had formulated a response and a coherent value system to deal with that threat.
Today, that’s no longer the threat, unless we’re talking of taking on the American campus radicals (in which case, I’m all for calling out the B-52’s on them). Today’s world is one where we have no allies like Thatcher, we have no unifying force in foreign policy like communism and the USSR. Hell, today we’re dependent upon communists (the PRC) buying huge quantities of our national debt issuance in order to keep our economy going.
As for the Founders and drugs: You do know that there were no laws prohibiting the consumption of drugs, alcohol or such until the 1900’s, right? The current “drug war” would be seen as abhorrent to the Founders. There’s nothing in the Constitution that allows for the Drug War whatsoever.
I’ll add this to your otherwise quite damning post:
Bush lost most all of his credibility with me when he started spouting the “Islam is a religion of peace” trope. It isn’t. Anyone who can read history books can see that it isn’t. Anyone who studies the history of Europe, India and so forth can see that it isn’t. Talk to the Sikh and ask them what they think of Islam as a “religion of peace.” Or the Kurds. Or the Coptic Christians.
The rest of the GOP credibility about the “war on terror” was lost over the years with their inane babbling in support of nonsense like DHS, TSA and other goofballs who can’t find their plump buttocks with either hand. We have less security in the US now than we did on 9/10/01, mostly because we’ve been engaging in “security theatre” to distract the population, enrich the bureaucrats and amuse the terrorists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizing_for_America
Organizing for America is one of Obama’s spin machines that staffs bloggers. They are a 501c campaign machine that refuses to disclose contribution info.
They are now organizing neighborhood meetings in Miami. I was forwarded an email, criticizing the “marxist” meeting, and my computer crashed. Cuba has neighborhood organizers like that. Potentially dangerous crap.
I agree. The only way to get rid of the class of political hacks and consultants (eg, Rove and his ilk) that are frittering away monetary and political capital is to set up an alternative and start winning elections.
The problem with the LP is that they’d rather be a debate society than a political party. Winning races in politics is about a lot more than winning debates and holding forth at great length in speeches.
Perhaps, but one of the reasons he did so poorly was because the old-line drug pusher Libertarians refused to back him, and their new Conservative members quickly left. I remember it well because by July 2008, I was so disgusted with the GOP-E and McCain that I was seriously considering the LP as an alternative to the GOP. I studied its platform and was paying attention to its convention and internal debates. When McCain brought Palin aboard in late August, I put the LP aside to work as hard as I could for her, but after McCain lost the election, I took another look and saw that the LP liberal wing had essentially run off the Conservatives. I still keep up with its doings, but quite frankly, the LP has reverted back to its old drug-legalization platform as a priority.
The libertarian party never was conservative, ever, and your 2008 result was the third highest vote total they ever had.
There was not some change in membership and focus for the year of 2008 that was any different from the decades before or the years after.
What in Christ has the Republican Party to do with "Gay Marriage?"
There is no town or village in this country that does not have an attorney fully capable of writing a partnership agreement between two American adults of any sex, minutely specifying anything the two demand. They can be a partnership, a corporation, an LLC, with even more protection and benefit than any married couple.
They can live together. Share their health insurance, their Social Security, their bedroom. They can wear what they like, call each other Sally and Sam and switch every day. Why should the state be called in? To verify their undying love for each other? To wake up some tired old JP to hear them exchange vows?
If there is a church in the town that cares to cater to this segment, so be it. So these two of the same sex do not get a "State Certificate?" So what? The local Unity pastor is sure to give them something suitable for framing. Their lawyer can make up one certifying their partnership. They certainly don't need a Marriage License. They have taken all the license any human could want.
The Republican Senator with the queer son, and Dick Cheney with a queer daughter have my sympathies, but strangely I feel no compunction to congratulate the kids on a choice of lifestyle, or even to recognize it. None of my business. Or the state's. They have the same legal rights as any citizen. They can do what they want, but not to me. Having the state recognize their arrangement involves me.
In every code of law known since time immemorial, there are "impediments to marriage." A devoted couple of the same sex is just that; not a "married" couple. In most states a man cannot marry a sister. Or a First Cousin. Or another man. Those are all impediments to marriage.
"Gay Marriage?" Talk to your lawyer. Leave the state out of it, except to record your arrangement with the County Clerk.
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.