Posted on 01/09/2015 8:42:55 AM PST by Nelson Hultberg
One of the biggest fallacies in politics today is the claim that we, as conservatives and libertarians, can only be effective if we stay loyal to the Republican Party and work to gain control of it by electing more free-market conservatives every election year.
We at AFR believe such thinking to be tragically misguided. To expect the Republican Party to challenge the modern day juggernaut of statism is as foolish as expecting socialist professors to instill Americanism into our youth. It won’t happen anymore than the planets will one day reverse their orbits. This is because the members of the GOP hierarchy who control the party have bought into the collectivist ideologies of Karl Marx and J.M. Keynes. Thus they want the same thing that Democrats want – a society in which “equality of results” replaces “equality of rights.” They merely want it to be established more gradually than do the Democrats.
Conservatives have been trying to take over the GOP for more than 40 years now by electing “conservative legislators” to Congress; yet nothing has changed. The Republican Party continues to give us relentlessly expanding government. It continues to exploit, lie to, and make fools out of conservatives.
Those who continue to cling to the hope that they can transform the Republican Party into an engine of freedom are like battered wives who continue to stick around to take their husbands abusive beatings. The marriage is over. Conservatives, libertarians, and patriots must abandon the GOP.
THE GOP HIERARCHY
The problem with the conservative strategy is that electing conservative legislators to Congress can never bring about a takeover of the party because the GOP hierarchy buys off 90 percent of the legislators that we send. Who and what is this GOP hierarchy? It is the vast network of elite intellectuals, bankers, and corporate leaders throughout America that make up the “neoconservative establishment.”
The intellectual sector of this hierarchy is comprised of prominent scholars and pundits such as William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Norman Podhoretz, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Charles Krauthammer – prestigious organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Hudson Institute, and the Foreign Policy Initiative – scholarly magazines such as Foreign Affairs, Commentary, Public Interest, and The Weekly Standard.
Completing the hierarchy are the major bankers of the Federal Reserve system and the myriad of corporate moguls throughout the nation. The members of this GOP hierarchy call themselves “neoconservative” because it makes it easier for them to sell massive statism to the American people. Unfortunately allegiance to the founding principles of America is not in their lexicon.
These prominent scholars, pundits, bankers, moguls, and institute heads are not true conservatives (and they are certainly not libertarian) because they don’t believe in the fundamental base of America – which is the Founders’ spirit of free enterprise and limited government. Yet this GOP hierarchy continues to claim that its Republican Party is a vehicle for freedom and adherence to the Constitution. They make such a claim because they know Americans still adhere to such values. But their claim is as deceptive as the pickpocket’s brush against your coat in a crowded subway.
The scholars, pundits, bankers, moguls, and institute heads of this hierarchy wield great power, both ideologically and financially – enough so to buy off most of the incoming patriotic congressmen. Such newcomers to Washington adopt the GOP hierarchy’s “pseudo conservatism” soon after their arrival in the capital because they know if they don’t vote in step with neoconservatism, they will receive no ideological and financial support for re-election from the party and its influential hierarchy.
Preferring an easy road to re-election, almost all new patriot arrivals, thus, sell out their “true conservative” principles to stay in Washington. They cross over the aisle and gradually turn into advocates of statism. This is why sending conservatives to Congress has gotten us nowhere over the past four decades and will get us nowhere in the future. Incoming conservatives don’t stay conservative; they are bought off. Lord Acton told us why over a century ago.
Thus it is impossible to take over the Republican Party by just sending more conservative legislators to Washington. To get control of the GOP, we first have to replace the neocon ideologues who control the party – i.e., the hierarchy. A whole new generation of scholars, pundits, bankers, moguls, and institute heads will have to be ushered in. This will require 70-80 years to bring about. Shifts of this magnitude take many decades. America doesn’t have this kind of time.
IDEOLOGICAL CHANGE WORKS SLOWLY
As proof, let’s examine the time span of liberalism’s takeover of the Republican Party. The actual political takeover began with Richard Nixon in 1968. But liberalism’s “political takeover” of the GOP had to be preceded first by its “ideological takeover” of the educational institutions of America – the schools, the churches, the media, the publishers, and the movie industry.
This is why converting the Republican Party to “freedom and conservatism” (as many Tea Party members and other activists are trying to do) can never happen. Because conservatives do not control the schools, the churches, the media, the publishers, and the movie industry in this country. These were the vital factors in liberalism’s takeover of the GOP during the 20th century. These five institutions relentlessly spewed out collectivism, which shaped the minds and motives of the scholars, pundits, bankers, moguls, and institute heads who joined the GOP and formed its present hierarchy. Without this “mind shaping,” liberalism could not have taken over the Republican Party.
Thus if conservatives are to take over the GOP, it will require that we first gain ideological control of the the schools, the churches, the media, the publishers, and the Hollywood movie studios so as to shape a new hierarchy. This will require at least 70 years to accomplish (assuming we can actually do it).
The liberal takeover of these cultural institutions was a 70-year process that began in the early 20th century with the Progressives’ encroachments into our school system and then throughout the rest of our society. Seventy years later they had gained control of the GOP during the Nixon-Ford administrations and made it the little sister to the Democrat Party. But they were only able to do this because they had also gained control of the schools, churches, media, publishers, and Hollywood.
Turning a political party around is like turning a huge aircraft carrier around. There is a delay between the time you start turning the steering helm to when the ship finally completes its turn. The steering helm of a political party is the ideology of its hierarchy, which is determined by the schools, churches, media, publishers, and movie industry. These five institutions must be turned first if the party itself is to be turned. This cannot be done overnight.
Therefore, if conservatives intend to take over control of the GOP, they must prepare for a 70 year struggle. Unfortunately, America doesn’t have this kind of time. Economic collapse looms over the horizon. And tyranny looms on the other side of the collapse like it has with all political-economic breakdowns of countries throughout history. In times of disintegrating chaos and peril, people who are ignorant of the causes of their chaos and breakdown always opt for order and stability in the form of regimentation and dictatorship.
FREEDOM'S LAST STAND
There is a chance, however, to save the country if we can avoid the dictatorial takeover that is sure to be promoted in the aftermath of the coming collapse. But to do this, the American people must be told the truth about what has brought on the economic crises we are experiencing at present, and what must be done to properly climb out of the economic mega-crisis that looms up ahead.
We must climb out of the coming collapse in the direction of the Founding Fathers and decentralized government, not in the direction of the globalists and World Government. Unfortunately the Democrat and Republican hierarchies are committed globalists, ideologically poisoned by the Marxian-Keynesian brainwash that has been seeping into America for many decades. They will never work to return to the Founding Fathers; they will work fervently to usher in a New World Order, a World Bank, and the elimination of American sovereignty.
But there is still a chance to save freedom because a sizeable sector of the people still favors freedom. Most conservatives, libertarians, independents, and blue-collar Democrats (50 percent of the voters) remain opposed to Marxism-Keynesianism if the rudiments are clearly explained to them. They still believe in “honest money” and “limited government.” All they need is a courageous, conservative political candidate to explain how we must get back to such values.
Thus we must bypass the Republican Party and go directly to the people. We must launch an Independent political campaign that will tell the truth to American voters about the Democrat-Republican monopoly and how it is smuggling us into a centralized dictatorship via Marxism and Keynesianism.
STOPPING THE DRIFT
In conclusion, trying to take over the Republican Party by voting in more true conservative congressmen will never stop America’s dictatorial drift. We’ve been attempting to do this for over four decades now. And the freedom advocates we send to Washington continue to get bought off by neoconservatism as fast as we send them.
There’s a much better way to fight. Our goal at AFR is to recruit a prominent free-market conservative such as Ted Cruz or Ben Carson to run an Independent campaign on AFR’s FOUR PILLARS OF REFORM [http://afr.org/salvation-of-america/] for our tax, monetary, immigration, and foreign policy systems in the next presidential election (like Ross Perot in 1992). By going directly to the people with the truth, such a patriot, conservative campaign would give us a chance to save the country.
In this way we can challenge the Washington establishment and unify all conservatives, libertarians, independents, and blue-collar Democrats into a vibrant grassroots force. We believe a nationally-known, free-market conservative, running as an Independent, would get 40-45 percent of the vote and win the 2016 election. In doing so, his campaign would act as the launch for a new political party – the NATIONAL INDEPENDENT PARTY – that would further the fight into the future. For more information on this cause, go to our website, WWW.AFR.ORG.
The sad fact is the Establishment RINOs have millions upon millions of dollars at their disposal from wealthy connected donors and K-Street.
Game, set, match.
5 Freshemen who pledged to vote against Bonehead
got corrupted very fast.
Agree. Trying to change Washington thru the current GOP is futile.
No matter how many so called conservatives we send to DC, they are
corrupted as fast as we can send them.
And once they are on DC, they no longer fear their voters.
They fear DC more.
There is no hope in this Republican Party. None.
You may be able to find a charismatic billionaire to run for POTUS as a third party. But my view is that it’s incredibly difficult for conservatives to win a plurality POTUS election.
Dems have a lock on 40% of the electorate, and I don’t see that changing. Even more difficult when you do the electoral math.
Perot got 19% of the vote but 0 evs. His best state was Maine where he got 30% to BJ’s 39%.
That’s it. Nothing more to be said. Forget the GOP. We’ve wasted almost everythin on them.
The libertarians have won, and that’s the problem. We need to secure our border and control our immigration policy. To do so would be an excellent first step.
BTW, this appears to be a reposting.
” The sad fact is the Establishment RINOs have millions upon millions of dollars at their disposal from wealthy connected donors and K-Street.”
Make that billions, and you nail it.
Time to switch from political blogs to survival blogs.
Zbigniew Brzezinski is a Republican????!!
Who knew? Sure can’t tell by his daughter.
Amen to the essay. I am already there and wholeheartedly agree.
You cannot take over a corrupted institution or party from the Ruling Class that has engineered the rules to ensure they remain in permanency.
You also cannot stop tyranny via civil means. The lawless and the corrupt will not allow themselves to be restrained by law or the will of the people.
I think you are correct in your assessment of the long odds for taking control of the GOP. The power base is deeply entrenched and will not give ground easily (just wait to see what happens if someone like Ted Cruz tries to run as a Repbulican). 70 years might be a bit much, but barring a 180 degree shift in behavior since Obama’s first election and a collaboration of conservative financial and intellectual supporters like we’ve never seen before, it won’t happen anytime soon.
I applaud your analysis and effort but unless you can attract the same kind of financial support, it’s going to be an excercise in frustration. Angelo Codevilla’s excellent article explains why:
http://spectator.org/articles/39326/americas-ruling-class-and-perils-revolution
Bottom line -the “country class” lacks the political machinery necessary to overcome the power of the GOP, i.e. the ruling class. And perhaps even the will or willingness to compromise on “purity” in order to do so. I’d be interested in how you think you can overcome these odds and create a more successful outcome than working through legislative and state/local entities to gradually pull the GOP back to it’s founding principles might do.
*************
Good luck. As you point out it hasn't been done is the last 80 years or so my guess
it won't happen in less than 4 years. I see you post an article sporadically but never get
into the discussions.
Already posted it for you, Mr. Hultberg:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/3245115/posts
And since when are ZBig and Chuck Krauthammer Republicans? I worked in both the Carter and Reagan White Houses and those two were in the Carter era.
I'm not a fan of the label "neoconservative" as it has antisemitic overtones. It was overused by leftists to describe supporters of the war on terror who also supported Israel. The origin of "neoconservative" was with Irving Krystol and a bunch of intellectuals in the 70s who were former leftists who became free market and security conscious. The magazine "Commentary" was their outlet. You use the term to describe faux conservatives, or lapsed conservatives. I'd prefer another term.
The actual political takeover began with Richard Nixon in 1968.
I think if you study the progressive era, you find that the Republican party has had this dichotomy between progressive Republicans and traditional, Constitutional Republicans since at least Teddy Roosevelt, if not before. Roosevelt was progressive; Taft was not. Harding and Coolidge were not progressive; Hoover was. The GOP nominated a series of progressives from 1932 to 1960, until Goldwater somehow managed to capture the nomination (back when there was a convention). Progressives refused to support Goldwater, and conservatives went back into the wilderness until Ronald Reagan in 1980.
During Reagan's tenure, conservatives actually did more or less control the party. The RNC coordinated with the White House, and its leaders and party bigwigs were supportive of Reagan, not the Rockefeller wing. That changed with the election of Bush the First, who brought in his own people, supervised by James Baker, and the progressives have been in charge of the party ever since.
As you note, a 1980 style takeover of the party is not possible anymore. A conservative President could do it, but the roadblocks put in front of a conservative make that pretty much impossible. They will find ways, through phony candidates, open primaries and money, to siphon off enough votes from a viable conservative so that they will never get traction. The press will help out, ridiculing and investigating until the average American moron scoffs at the mention of the conservative's name.
Thus, a third party is required if conservatives are to be able to have any ability to influence national policy. The third party might, but need not, result in victory by Democrats through splitting of the vote. A third party Presidential candidate can win with enough money. Third party candidates can win congressional races in conservative states. Existing Congressmen who are patriots can join this third party and give it some clout that way. We could finish 2017 with a President and 40 Congressmen. At that point, the negotiations with Republicans over the speakership and legislation would commence. More and more Republicans would peel off, and the left wing ones might even head over to the Democrats. At some point, the Republicans would go the way of the whigs.
It could also result in disaster. This third party could possibly end up in a Democrat President and legislative losses. But to that, I say, "so what?". How will it be better to have President Jeb and Boehner and McConnell in charge? They will make amnesty and Obamacare cemented forever, and they will do worse things we haven't even thought of yet. They are, after all, progressives, and we are their enemies, not Obama and the leftists.
So, your strategy is the right one. We just need a way to strike the match, and the brushfire will ignite.
You might just have something there.....
Its the problem of Washington DC. Power corrupts and without a true alternative power structure to attract and solidify commitments the existing power structure will always be tempting.
Perot tried to build an alternative http://archives.nbclearn.com/portal/site/k-12/flatview?cuecard=3405
and of course we have Libertarians which mostly just fail which puts a lie to the idea that if only we’d drop social conservatism that we’d win.
Other political systems lend themselves more to the rise of third parties with parliamentary style government. This has allowed parties like UKIP in Britian and the Front National in France to rise. It is much harder here.
There are things that could help transform the GOP.
1. We need more top two run off style primaries/general elections at the state level. This is something that GOP controlled legislatures could go for. This would prevent the spitting of the conservative vote and also give third parties more viability.
2. We need a money structure and party structure that is apart from the GOP but which has the capability to match it. The Tea Party rise was good for the sake of its decentralization but its strength is also its down fall. We don’t have a single spokesperson as UKIP does in the UK and that lack of a single spokesperson to lead hurts the political dynamic also the lack of a single party structure causes the money power to be fragmented, the endorsement power is fragmented, and down the line. Also we have had instances of fake “Tea Partys”. So the problem is that everything and nothing is Tea Party and anything the left wing media says is tea party soils the tea party. Some of this could be accomplished by uniting various tea party and conservative elements in a conservative party structure.
In New York there is a Conservative Party that plays a significant role in politics but would need to be a lot bigger and national to have any effect. The sad thing it is very hard to motivate people to create a political structure that doesn’t already exist especially when you have a media and existing power structure that has every incentive to kill such a power structure before it is born which illustrates the strength of the Tea Party in that it is a decentralized hydra of sorts.
2. We need a money structure and party structure that is apart from the GOP but which has the capability to match it.
And that means, a half-billion dollars to get in the game, and a billion to think about winning.
A lot of ‘rinhos’ posting here today...
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.