Posted on 08/22/2003 1:20:05 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
The best of news is that eight years after 1958 Ronald Reagan swept the governor’s race, carrying virtually every constitutional office. The worst of news is that eight years is also the period between the election of the last Whig president and the demise of the Whig party. Both cases are important for Republicans to understand as they contemplate their party’s future.
Reagan often urged Republicans to "paint our positions in bold colors, and not pale pastels." There is an element in the Republican Party today that would have called – in fact, did call - this approach "divisive" and "polarizing." Indeed, it was. Reagan sought to draw a sharp distinction between two ideologies: one that embraced the bureaucratic state as the best provider of happiness for the prevailing coalition, and one that embraced liberty as the best guarantor of happiness for the individual.
He knew that until these two ideologies were clearly delineated, voters had no basis upon which to choose.
Reagan was divisive in precisely the same way that Abraham Lincoln was divisive. "It is the eternal struggle between these two principles – right and wrong – throughout the world," Lincoln said in 1858. One was freedom, the other was "the same spirit that says ‘you work and toil and earn bread, and I’ll eat it.’ No matter in what shape it comes…"
In the early 1960’s a great debate arose within the Republican party. On one side were those who sought to keep the party on a "moderate" path, closely mimicking the agenda of the ruling Democrats. On the other were those, like Reagan, who believed that the loyal opposition should stand clearly and forthrightly upon uncompromising principles of liberty.
Reagan’s wing prevailed, though not without serious obstacles. In 1964 Republicans learned anew that change does not come easily, especially when that change is from the security of the welfare state to the responsibility of freedom. "All experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed," the Founders warned in the Declaration of Independence.
But Reagan was undeterred and unafraid to speak for a cause bigger than himself. "We’ve come to a moment in our history," he said, "when party labels are unimportant. Philosophy is all important." To the Republican establishment, Reagan was an ideologue destined to drag the party down to defeat.
The same debate raged within the Whig party in the 1840’s and 1850’s. The moderates of that age were determined to distance their party from the polarizing questions of slavery. In 1848 the Whigs elected slave-owner Zachary Taylor, who quickly transformed the party into a pale reflection of the opposition. Fearful of controversy that might alienate one group or another, the Whigs did not even adopt a party platform that year.
Within eight years the Whigs had vanished, while a new party emerged made up of widely disparate elements united in a single principled and highly controversial cause.
Reagan’s genius lay in his willingness to embrace principled causes, though they might be controversial, while uniting those disparate elements around a central tenet: that free men and women can decide their futures better as individuals than government can decide for them collectively. This was the ideological pillar that held aloft the so-called Republican "Big Tent." When George Bush in Washington and Pete Wilson in California destroyed that pillar in the 1990’s by massively increasing taxes and regulations, the tent came crashing down and the diverse groups within it began brawling with each other.
Now a ruling party has emerged in California after sixteen years of stalemated government. It has the charter to govern. Its ideology is clear: to use the power of government to provide collectively for the demands of its constituencies.
The question is whether the Republicans understand the role of the loyal opposition: to offer a contrasting agenda of liberty and to take that agenda aggressively to the people.
Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln understood that role. Zachary Taylor and George Bush did not. Which style of leadership the Republicans choose could well decide whether eight years from now the Republicans sweep the state as they did in 1966, or whether they go the way of the Whigs in 1856.
And of course there is the famous Reagan quote, which has been posted here a few times before, but apparently people still need to hear it:
==
"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it.
"Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything.
"I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'
"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.
==
Clearly he did NOT consider himself an uncompromising "radical conservative", in fact it sounds like he saw them for what they are: obstructioninsts, who hurt the party, instead of helping it, by their stubborness.
The main difference seems to be that Cruz won't be able to get his tax hike through the legislature. Also, weak as they are, he does have some budget items he wants to cut.
Arnold, on the other hand, won't give specific cuts until after he's elected, and when he goes to hike taxes, he will peel off some Republicans and get the two-thirds vote.
This was the ideological pillar that held aloft the so-called Republican "Big Tent." When George Bush in Washington and Pete Wilson in California destroyed that pillar in the 1990’s by massively increasing taxes and regulations, the tent came crashing down and the diverse groups within it began brawling with each other.
Just wanted to share this latest work from my friend ;-) 
Then why is it worth your time? Oh yeah, because no one but people who normally are aligned with the letter 'R' are going to vote for your vague populists platitude candidate, and you need us.
Insulting us isn't the way you will get us. Didn't work for your guy Rioden who had no message, and it won't work now.
|
Cruz Must Lose calgov2002: for new calgov2002 articles. Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register |
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.