Replies

The founders came together from throughout the thirteen colonies to found a new nation and defeat the British empire. Since then the Federalist and the Whig parties have come and gone. Organizations grow, proper, decline and die just like people. Why should it be different with political parties?

I agree with you on the money issue. Huge amounts of money are required to fund elections today. A presidential race costs a billion dollars for each candidate today. The wealthy people and organizations who raise millions for candidates expect a return on their investment. The actions of a political party align more with the interests of those who fund the party and its candidates than they do with the voters. Hence George Soros has more influence in the Democrat Party than the community organizer in an impoverished neighborhood of a medium sized city and Sheldon Adelson will have more influence on the direction of the Republican Party than my local Congresswoman who moves in lock step with John Boehner.

I actually see the money issue as the major impediment to the formation of a third party as well as the major impediment to the takeover of the Republican Party by conservatives. The truth seems to be most wealthy people having sufficient money and influence to raise millions of dollars for political campaigns have more in common with their progressive neighbors than they do with the average conservative voter in red states. Regardless of political affiliation the wealthy send their children to the same schools, read the same newspapers and books, eat in the same restaurants, rub shoulders at the same charity events and private clubs, and vacation in the same upscale resorts, not to mention live in the same communities. Wealthy donors tend to be concerned about economic issues not social issues. In addition their money insulates them from the very real pressures the middle class citizen faces every day. It may even be wealthy Republicans are supporters of welfare programs because these programs offload on others the very real social costs of business decisions such as offshoring jobs.

In any event, the monied classes of large urban areas today have more empathy for the urban poor than the struggling middle and lower class families of suburbia and rural areas. They do not understand conservative thought, conservative principles, or the concept of living a virtuous life grounded in religious principles. Their own narrow economic interests drive their participation in the political process. Money gives them freedom, not a fading piece of parchment written over 200 years ago.

If conservatives were to wield real power in the Republican Party, and nominate a Ted Cruz for president, I suspect the big money donors would close their wallets and allow Mr. Cruz to be outspent 5-1 in a race with Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren. Rolling back the leviathan state is not in their economic interest.

Perhaps I am wrong but most wealthy people I know are social liberals, even if they vote Republican for purely economic reasons, and very much self centered. Few understand US history and fewer still even care about the concept of individual liberty. To them, government is an all powerful institution they can influence to their benefit by sharing some of their wealth with politicians. Most are preoccupied with earning more money, not living a virtuous life in a free society. Granted, I don’t travel in the circles of the Koch brothers, Tom Steyer, Warren Buffett or Sheldon Adelson so it is certainly possible they have other motives.

It may be most real conservatives of today are average people who lack the time monetary resources to fully engage in changing the political process. If holding onto a job, educating children, and putting food on the table consumes most of the hours of the day, as well as dollars in the paycheck, there is no time or money for meaningful engagement in the political process. It may be the grass roots tea party movement was their best effort for concerted action. When both political parties shunned and opposed them, they concluded political action was futile and returned their focus to day to day survival.

Likewise, if the wealthy view political engagement as a vehicle for increasing wealth, and not social or societal change, the wealthy will not be funding a return to founding principles, either inside the party or through a third party.

While I would like to see a third party, I see little prospect of a conservative renaissance through a third party or capture of the GOP. Ted Cruz can talk all he wants. Without the support of big money, there is no game.