Posted on 07/30/2003 11:25:27 AM PDT by hsmomx3
If you put your ear to the ground, you can hear the rumble. It is the rumble of political discontent, obsolete bipolarities, and looming realignment. What am I talking about? I’m talking about the coming split of the Republican Party.
Years ago, Jeff Foxworthy blessed America with his “…you might be a redneck” jokes. Drawing upon his comedic methodology:
If you fear the one true God, define America as a “Christian Nation”, seek to make God’s Law the law of the land, think of homosexuals as freaks and sinners, and want to jail women who have abortions…you might be a Republican.
If you think history has bequeathed a destiny upon America to serve as the world’s policeman, to liberate oppressed nations, and you love to stay up all night strategizing on how to isolate the Saudis or punish France…you might be a Republican.
If you think it is the proper role of a Jeffersonian state to steal money from citizens to build civic plazas and university labs…you might be a Republican.
If you don’t care about ballooning budget deficits, and want to jack up government spending as though the rising debt never needs to be paid...you might be a Republican.
If you can’t stand deficits, are firmly committed to balancing the budget, and want to dramatically cut taxes and spending…well, you might have been a Republican in 1980.
There are at least five categories above, and all of them consist of people who identify with the GOP. They are, in order: theocratic Christian conservatives (there are, thank God, non-theocratic ones as well), neoconservatives, Chamber of Commerce Republicans who practice crony capitalism, the Bushies, and finally the blessed fiscal conservatives.
So what’s the problem? These people cannot possibly coexist in the same party for much longer. This is especially true now that Republicans in power have abandoned fiscal responsibility. They now stand for nothing – certainly nothing that would meaningfully separate them from big-spending Democrats.
Republicans were supposed to be about freedom – freedom from that monster which takes freedom away – government. The GOP was supposed to “get the government off our backs.” This hasn’t happened, and government at all levels is violating our rights now more than ever.
The above five groups can really be reduced to two kinds of people. There are those people that want to be left alone, and there are those people that refuse to leave others alone. The former simply want to be left alone to pursue their happiness, and are happy to leave others alone to do the same. They understand government’s proper role is limited to securing this freedom from those (criminals and foreign threats) who would aggress upon their peaceful lives. The latter group are all basically civil thugs. They want to impose their vision of the good on others by force. They don’t care if you’re living a peaceful, happy life. In fact, they might hold it against you. They want to take your money, or arrest you for any number of reasons. Got weed? To jail you go. Got a gay lover? To jail you go. Got a cancer treatment they haven’t approved? To jail you go. Got a successful business? How’s 40% off the top sound?
Republicans used to be the leave-me-alone crowd, and Democrats the thugs. Things are messier now.
What we can expect to see in the coming decade or two is a realignment. There are lots and lots of fine leave-me-alone people in the GOP. They don’t hate gays or brown people. They are pro-abortion and anti-tax. They are basically libertarians, but see themselves as too pragmatic to join the Libertarian Party.
There are also some leave-me-aloners in the Democratic camp. I call them smart gay people: they are too gay to be Republican, but much too smart about self-responsibility and economics to be real Democrats. Smart gay people are really good for America.
The theocratic Christian conservatives are a strong wing of the GOP. They will either grow to dominate the GOP or they will get their asses kicked out by the leave-me-alone Republicans. In any case, what we will see is a realignment that unites all the pro-freedom Americans under a major party. The religious nuts might have their own party, like the Religious Nut Party or something similar. It seems structurally impossible to break the two-party system into three or more parties, but I wouldn’t dismiss the possibility altogether. In any case, two parties might be enough to represent the major threads.
There are lots of unhappy Republicans today, chafing at their party’s abandonment of fiscal restraint and occupation by anti-sodomists. There are some number of Democrats that have tired of the drug war, expanded police powers, and foreign adventurism. These people need to find each other, for they are the best Americans.
Wow...what you say is right on the mark. I live in a state where being anti-abortion is akin to being an Ayatollah (maybe worse!). No Republican could be elected statewide unless they were pro-abortion [rights, they call it], and very few get elected anyway.
We have often failed to be as ruthless and mercenary as RATS, supporting people we don't like and swallowing positions we don't like, in order to get people elected...to sneak our candidates in. Some of that is because of an admirable quality: while RATS are almost always mercenary and self-serving at the core, we tend to believe in principles. The down-side of that is that a majority of the population as a whole either disagrees with those principles or simply doesn't care about anything like "principles". That's especially the case in more urbanized, high population geographic settings.
To say that there are fissures in the Republican party is absolutely true (though this guy mis-identifies them by the bundle). There are as many, maybe more, fissures in the RAT party. But the fissures don't mean as much to the RATS, because they have identified their enemy and nearly always keep their eye on that enemy.
There are probably only about a third of the RATS who really go nuts over Hillary...but were she to jump in to the race the entire party would unite like a whirling dervish behind her. Why? They want to win and they hate their enemy more than any internal divisions they might have.
As a former Christian right-er, I'd say that's pretty dead on, except maybe the jailing women for abortion part. But even so, I don't doubt there are some out there who would jail a woman for having an abortion.
I've noticed you have the keen ability of appearing to be a simpleton. At least I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming it's feigned.
Ron Paul would only seem schizophrenic to someone who is unfamiliar with the concept of adhering to consistent principles, regardless or who may be allied or opposed with those principles in any given case.
"Slaves, obey your masters" - Ephesians 6:5.
Well, I guess it's all a matter of interpretation.
He was wrong on Iraq.
My point was that Dane is disingenuously trying to falsely portray Paul as having some alliance with the UN when their agreement on the issue is merely coincidental.
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.