Posted on 03/27/2013 6:55:35 AM PDT by LucianOfSamasota
The Republican National Committee has produced an “autopsy” on what went wrong in 2012, when the party failed to win the White House and lost seats in Congress.
Yet, the crisis of the Grand Old Party goes back much further.
First, some history. The Frank Lloyd Wright of the New Majority was Richard Nixon, who picked up the pieces of the party after Goldwater’s defeat had left Republicans with just a third of the House and Senate.
In 1966, Nixon led the GOP back to a stunning victory, picking up 47 House seats. In 1968, he united the Rockefeller and Reagan wings and held off an October surge by Hubert Humphrey, which cut a 13-point Nixon lead to less than a point in four weeks.
In 1972, Nixon swept 49 states. The New Majority was born. How did he do it?
Nixon sliced off from FDR’s New Deal coalition Northern Catholics and ethnics — Irish, Italians, Poles, East Europeans — and Southern Christian conservatives. Where FDR and Woodrow Wilson had won all 11 Southern States six times, Nixon swept them all in ’72. And where Nixon won only 22 percent of the Catholic vote against JFK, he won 55 percent against George McGovern in 1972.
What killed the New Majority?
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
The only remaining hope for America is a return to Christ.
As anyone who's taken a good look at things knows if we had a TRULY traditional nation, with the mothers at home tending the children, the men working, and the children properly organized inside the families, and grandparents looking on ready to babysit and fill in ~ then we'd have 85% UNEMPLOYED living at home the way God intended.
The shame is that we have 53% employed, not 15%, and that is destroying the American family leaving armies of illegitimate kids to wander the streets beating up old ladies and firing pistols at all times of the day and night into each other.
If there is no mention of MASSIVE VOTER FRAUD then this ‘autopsy’ is useless.
what went wrong went wrong a long time before 2012—Terri Shiavo being killed and not rescued by the ruling Republican junta at the time stripped away all vestiges of Republican credibility. It became apparent that Republicans, like Demoncrats were just in it for the power
Grandparents willing to act as a help to the families, but in my family NONE of the grandparents helped, they acted like big babies vying for attention with the grandchildren or running around on their own trips, never thinking to take the grandkids along. I was completely disgusted with all of them
Income tax forced women to have to work rather than raise children. Social Security made it unnecessary to have children to create a family for one to spend their declining years. Public schools and media propaganda instilled insane notions of the roles of people in society as normal (single motherhood, gay marriage, etc.).
Governments can cause dramatic social change but societies are unable to adapt as quickly and so perish.
(e.g. every socialist/fascist/commie ever)
I refer to my children’s grandparents. I had fabulous grandparents that doted on all of us children.
George H.W. Bush. He managed to take the massive majorities that Reagan had built and all the political capital from the fall of the Soviet Union, which should have guaranteed Republican control for the next fifty years and threw it all away in only one term by caving to democrats on taxes and not defending Reaganomics. (Then his son George W. Bush chocked the last few breaths out of the New Majority with his compassionate IE - "big Spending" Conservatism...but that's another story.)
George H.W. Bush. He managed to take the massive majorities that Reagan had built and all the political capital from the fall of the Soviet Union, which should have guaranteed Republican control for the next fifty years and threw it all away in only one term by caving to democrats on taxes and not defending Reaganomics.
BRAVO! Someone should expand on this brilliant thesis. Oh, wait....
I both agree and disagree with that statement.
The part I agree on is that restoring the religious underpinnings of the American culture is profoundly important, but at the same time, while religious politicians can be a source of good, they can also be disastrous.
Going back to the start of America and the founding fathers, there was a rejection of the European model of the monarchic state “created by heaven”. This amounted to the tyranny that “I am king because God said so. So if you do not obey me, you are also disobeying God.”
The founding fathers, while recognizing and adoring God, wanted to be very clear that our constitution was written *by* men, and *for* men, so could be changed by men without offending God. (Lincoln reiterated this idea in the Gettysburg address.) Thus violations of the constitution are “unconstitutional”, not “heresy”.
At the “street level” in America, the people made a distinction in their politics that does not exist in the dictionary. The distinction is between “ethics” and “morality”.
They see ethics as meaning the adherence to the written law, be it zoning law, criminal law, or fairness in civil law. For better or worse, it is the written law, so if you obey it, you are “ethical.” It doesn’t really speak to whether the law itself is good or bad, just that you follow it.
Morality, however, is distinguished from ethics, in the common mind, by meaning that a person follows a religious and moral code, which may or may not overlap with the written secular law. But there is a problem with this, as religious and moral codes have considerable variation, depending on the faith, the sects of that faith, and even individual churches.
And this creates a political problem. If a political candidate says they are “ethical”, voters can clearly decide if they obey the written law or not. But if they say they are “moral”, there is no clear meaning. Moral, according to who?
Morality is subjective, which is used by immoral scoundrels to pretend that they are moral people. Both Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi would insist that they are “moral people”, but even their own church says they are not. Yet they insist that their church has it wrong.
Yet voter would have to examine what they call morality in comparison with the voters morality. Most don’t know enough to do this well with most political candidates, unless they are extremely immoral.
While this seems to suggest that truly moral, religious people cannot bring their faith with them into politics, this is incorrect. But they must cast their morality in terms of ethics for the public to appreciate it, and not be afraid of their morality.
Ironically, this is the only real “separation of church and state” that the public demands, not the ridiculous extrapolations and interpolations that the courts have promulgated over the years.
Had a long post but that says it best. Just look how they had Ross get in in 1992.
We, the people are we, the simple ... not in a derogatory sense, but in the meat and potatoes (in honor of Dan Quail), simplified thinking that life CAN be when we just do the right thing .. as intended by God .. and not try to analyze and fund research for ...
(apologies to the grammar police for ending in a preposition ... )
It is no coincidence that Willard Romney imposed
BOTH RomneyCARE/ObamaCARE AND gay marriage.
Nor is it a coincidence that he then (and the GOP)
claimed he did neither.
The lies did not work.
Romney is the reason Obama is still pRes_ _ent.
Elder Abuse can fix some of that problem ~ (/s)
Senator Jeffords destroyed America, and all for 2 cents per gallon more on Vermont milk.
Too true.
Dewey lost twice ~ Please Lord, remove Romney from consideration again we already did that one.
The cold hard facts are that most Republicans over that period lost at least once ~ even two of the winners (Bush 1 and Nixon).
The reason was simple ~ not enough Republican voters!
A few won. The reason was simple ~ not enough Democrat voters!
The whole point of a campaign is to fire up your people to turn out and vote. Jefferson did that over and over and won by landslides.
We have these guys who do the subtle nuance thing and 'move to the left' ~ whatever that is ~ and they imagine they will bring over scads of middle of the road undecided moderates!
Bwahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
It's much easier to get your followers registered and get them to the polls, and campaign for them to do that ~ register and vote.
Then, you want to tell the other side that their candidates are scum and not worthy to be considered human, and that's on their good days!
Nixon won when he went after MORE REPUBLICAN VOTERS, as did RONALDUS MAGNUS and, of course, IKE did the job as well.
LBJ won by getting new Democrat voters ~ the 25% of the black vote JFK left behind. Bill Clinton finessed it by getting Jugears to run, and then there's Obama ~ the Democrats got more new Democrats registered, and then got them to vote!
JFK is probably the last President to get elected mostly by fraud.
I think Pat’s purpose here is to show that the changes which have occurred were predictable and involve cultural demographics. After a short history of how the so-called ‘New Majority’ was forged, he presents arguments concerning a number of cultural changes within the US. Blaming W. does not reverse the cultural shift, and the shift will continue if the same cultural forces are allowed to operate in the same manner.
1. Immigration: Like it or not, recent (third world) immigrants do not always share traditional American values, and they will vote their values, not ours. If Pat is right in his 50 million immigrant figure, then this is a formidable shift in the voting patterns of the country. The 20 (not 12) million illegals who will soon be granted amnesty and citizenship will exacerbate the problem. When I asked my Hispanic roommate (President’s Award scholar majoring in Nuclear engineering at Texas A &M) how he could vote for Carter over Reagan in 1980 his response was simple, “Everyone knows Democrats are for minorities”.
2. Those on the government payroll, whether through salary or handout, will generally vote for pay raises for themselves. This will always translate into bigger government and higher taxes.
3. The free trade arguments are flawed by the fact that ‘free trade’ isn’t. The Chinese, the third world, and to a lesser extent Europeans, will always seek trade advantages over the ‘rich’ Americans. How can the US, with one vote, protect itself from cabals of votes from third world countries in organizations such as IMF or WTO? Isn’t it in these smaller countries interest to fleece the mighty US if they may?
4. The de-Christianization of America is a real phenomenon. Make no mistake, your sense of morality is subjective unless it issues from higher authority. It isn’t your morality unless you still adhere to it when it hurts.
So I think the point is: the America of our youth no longer exists. And the forces contributing to her demise remain unchecked.
A true Christian revival could change the values of our minority/immigrant ‘loot America’ crowd, and cause them to become responsible, contributing, productive citizens. A true Christian revival could change the values of those who rely on government for their subsistence, and cause them to become responsible, contributing, productive citizens. But I know of no other force which could counter a cultural paradigm so widespread.
Unless someone can refute these arguments I will remain convinced that a return to Christ is the only hope of restoring America.
A return to Judeo Christian values, yes.
The Constitution provides that. It’s the Constitution that has been neglected. It transcends party. The GOPe has absolutely no respect for it and that’s what makes them stupid.
What Mr. Buchanan misses is that none of the Republican politicians have been able to survive the constant disinformation campaign of the MSM. Nixon and Reagan were constantly attacked by the media. The media and the Democrats brought Nixon down and almost destroyed Reagan.
Mr. Buchanan also misses how uninformed the electorate has become. Most voters know nothing about the economy or anything else. They are “useful idiots” who vote as they are told.
Mr. Buchanan also misses the effect of the “motor voter” type laws that eliminated safeguards against voter fraud. Voter fraud today is endemic in the system. Elections in the U.S. are fast becoming like elections in the former Soviet Union.
The concept that conservatives should abandon their principles in an attempt to curry favor with the MSM and uninformed voters is a sure recipe for disaster.
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.