Posted on 09/04/2009 8:06:05 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob
by John Armor (BB 670, Even, 4 Sept, 707 words)
The last time a new American political party came into being, one strong enough to elect a President, was in 1854. As you have guessed, that was the Republican Party. Its first elected President was Abraham Lincoln in 1860.
Many third party and independent campaigns have been mounted since then. The Progressive Party around 1900 managed to elect Governors and majorities in the legislature of several states. Their high water mark was in 1912, when former President Teddy Roosevelt chose that Party as his vehicle to run again when the Republicans declined to nominate him, again. (No, there never was a “Bull Moose Party.” Don’t send letters and postcards claiming that there was.)
What’s the relevance of this ancient history to the off-year, congressional election in 2010? Well, take a look at that history and see what seems familiar.
The Republican Party began with a meeting in Ripon, Wisconsin, in 1854. Present were members of the Free Soil Party (favoring continued homesteading rights) and Conscience Whigs (northern Whigs separated from their southern members over slavery). The meeting was led by a disgruntled Democrat (who also split with his Party on slavery).
Remember this point. The new Party was created by people who had been elected under other party labels, but became dissatisfied with their current parties’ stands on key issues. The current two major parties are both fractured over key issues, including taxes, public debt, growth of government regulations, and respect for the Constitution.
All new party efforts since 1854 have failed at the national level. The reason for that unbroken history of failure is because all those new party efforts sought to reinvent the wheel and create parties from scratch. All successful efforts up to 1854 followed a different path. In the successful examples, elected officials changed their party labels, and later captured the support of voters who’d made the same shifts.
In 1856 the Republican candidate, John Fremont, won a third of the votes though his Party wasn’t one of the two strongest parties, going into that election. By 1858, the Republicans held a majority in Congress, not because they had elected a majority of the Senators and Representatives. They elected many. But the Members who put them over the top had been elected under other party labels, but switched to the Republicans.
All right, what is the situation of the current major parties? The Democrats are split into three groups, the hard left, the center, and the moderate right. There is no love lost between the right and left wings of that Party. Votes coming up in Congress will probably demonstrate that the wings of the Democrats hate each other enough so they will refuse to vote together.
The Republican Party is also fractured, into the hard right, and the squishy moderates. The hatred within the Party may be less, but the refusal to hold together for votes in Congress will be equally apparent.
And where do the American people stand? They have contempt for both the Republican and Democrat Parties. On the issues, public opinion is more against the Democrats than Republicans. Experts on both sides of the aisle expect the Democrats to lose seats in both Houses of Congress in 2010. But because the Republicans are also disrespected, they will probably will not win a majority in either House.
Some Republicans talk of “rebranding the Party.” Such efforts will fail. Just because the cat has kittens in the oven, doesn’t make them biscuits. However, if a majority of Republicans and a minority of Democrats all support these four issues -- obey the Constitution, cut taxes, reduce government control of lives of Americans, and support term limits – as a group they will dominate the elections and control both Houses of Congress.
What label will they adopt? The Tea Party Party is too casual. They will dump the current leaders of both Houses of Congress, assuming that Senator Reid has not already been dumped by his Nevada constituents, a preliminary shock heralding the coming earthquake.
No pundits are currently talking about this new party possibility. It is a long shot. But those who ignore the political history of American parties do not even realize this has happened several times before, and can happen again.
- 30 -
About the Author: John Armor practiced in the US Supreme Court for 33 years. John_Armor@aya.yale.edu His latest book, on Thomas Paine, is available here: www.TheseAreTheTimes.us (Note the suffix, .us)
- 30 -
As the prop 8 vote in California and the Protestant Hispanic vote shows, the only way for conservatives to win the votes of Blacks and Hispanics, and the only way to stay/regain the top party position is to reach the democrats that are believers but do not understand how anti social conservative the democrats and the radical left are.
Ronald Reagan won by winning over the independents and democrats that finally saw just how anti social conservative and weak on defense the democrat party was.
I don't know this to be true. I know for a fact that the hard left hates social conservatives (and everyone right of center) with such a passion. I hardly believe that anyone who can be defined as a "Reagan Democrat" hates our side that much.
To have a successful coalition (all winning national parties are coalitions), this conflict has to be reconciled, somehow.
I think the answer is in your post. A strong, charismatic conservative, who can plainly articulate the simple, yet powerful truths of our message will draw people away from the corruption of the Democrat side. We now have two such people in our party who are capable of that, in the persons of Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann.
Not to worry. Obama and his mis-administration are showing them daily how radical the Democrats have become.
I don't know this to be true. I know for a fact that the hard left hates social conservatives (and everyone right of center) with such a passion. I hardly believe that anyone who can be defined as a "Reagan Democrat" hates our side that much.
It isn't only not true, it is the opposite of the truth, Reagan democrats came over to Reagan because of social conservatism and national defense. Someone like Jim Noble is really in the minority among conservatives since conservatism is mostly made up of people that are conservative in all ways, led by social conservatism.
People that are anti conservative like Jim are about 70-75% democrat voters, unlike, say, White Evangelical voters that are about 83% republican.
I simply refuse to concern myself with any political "Party" or its interests based solely on its claim to fame.< The Republican Party today is an abomination. That is why they lose so frequently, BTW!
Too bad for "Republicans" if they do not have the sense to vote for rational thinking persons with concerns for America and its founding principles.
You can't just pretend that a top republican is your candidate, respect Governor Palin and President Reagan enough to recognize them as GOP leaders and icons of the party that they have fought for and devoted their lives to.If the RNC neglects to recognize the empathy the conservative base has for Sara Palin in 2012, and she runs as a third party, assuming she holds it together for these next three years and keeps pushing for the folks,
"for many years I was a Democrat" (audio)" - Ronald Reagan.Barak Obama may not be "authentic" African-American, but his vision of America not dissimilar to that of Rev. Wright. And it shows in his appointments, and it shows in how he proclaims his own superiority to the Founding Fathers of the country (which is all his "apologies" for the founders were ever about). Blacks have long been a crucial component of the Democratic coalition but by themselves they could never elect a president. If white Democrats have a "slap the forehead, What was I thinking?" moment of clarity, the Democratic Party will become unstable.
But that puts me in mind of 1995, when Bob Dole saw a weak President Clinton and decided there was "one more mission" for the greatest generation. There is every possibility that the Republican Party will become just as unstable in its own way, as the Colin Powell wing tries to keep the nomination from the Reagan wing. If the Powell wing succeeds, I think the Republican Party will "celebrate" the centenary of its placing third to Wilson and Roosevelt by again failing even to place second in the 2012 general election. It might be the only way Obama wins reelection. But then, he might not have won in the first place with grounded opposition instead of John McCain.
Yes like millions of Americans Reagan had been Democrat at one time becoming a dedicated Republican almost 50 years ago before today and prior to his entering politics for the GOP. Republicans also become Democrats as we all know. Most, like Republican leader and icon Sarah Palin are just pure GOP through and through. Evidently some people even go off into third party never/never land also, for instance 1.4 % of the vote in 2008 was split among the 49 “third parties”.
“You can’t just pretend that a top republican is your candidate, respect Governor Palin and President Reagan enough to recognize them as GOP leaders and icons of the party that they have fought for and devoted their lives to.”
Last Saturday I had am member of the Tennessee Republican party call and ask for a donation. I told him that as long as they back the likes of Bob Corker they wouldn't see a dime from me. He told me that he agreed that we need new blood but didn't have an answer when I asked him how we were going to get new blood when the party continues to back Corker and others like him. I told him that the party does not represent my interests any more than Corker does and that I won't give them any money when all they care about is having a person with an R after their name in office rather than having a person who represents the voting members of the Republican party.
The Republicans nominated McCain once. They can do it again.But if they do, they will not win and are likely not even to place. Irrespective of what I personally do or do not do. Don't blame the messenger.
I don’t even know what your message was, mine was that third party people need to use names other than GOP candidates to sell what ever “third party” that they are trying to promote.
Parties don’t have Mascots they have symbols, the Elephant and the Jackass are symbols not Mascots. The symbol for the new party, named the Bill of Rights party, should be the musket and a scroll, crossed, symbolizing the 1st and 2nd amendments. Alternately if people just have to have a living symbol the snake from the Gadsden flag would work.
The politicians, press and pundits who do not understand that point are about to be flattened, like an American in England who looks the long way, sees no traffic, but gets run down by a car coming the "other" way.
Congressman Billybob
Latest article, "Birth of a New Party"
"Ben Franklin will be in D.C., speaking and dressed this way."
John / Billybob
They look like mascots to me...
FWIW...Look up definition of mascot which = symbol....then
Google Republican Mascot or Democrat Mascot and numerous sites are referenced which all refer to the Elephant and Jackass or donkey as MASCOTS for the two aforementioned political parties.
Symbol, mascot implies a real live animal, look up football, look up football mascots, check out how many are actual live animals, check out the dimwits and Republicans and see how many times they have actually had a mascot show up at any gathering of said parties. Symbol does not equal mascot, mascot does not equal symbol. Besides that wasn’t the point of my comment. I was commenting on a new third party, that was the gist of the comment. If you have anything to say about a new 3rd party feel fee to post me.
I don’t even know what your message was, mine was that third party people need to use names other than GOP candidates to sell what ever “third party” that they are trying to promote.
And mine was that John McCain was a ghastly candidate, and that the the GOP can become a third party by the simple expedient of nominating one more presidential candidate who retreats from defensible conservative positions to indefensible "moderate" ones.
Well that is a radical fantasy but there is no reason to think that one of the 49 “third parties” or even a 50th one is going to suddenly replace the existing political structure in America.
The Republican party is not on the verge of being replaced by some nonexistent party that only exists in your personal fantasy.
I agree with your analysis. As difficult as it may be, it would be far, far more effective to change the Republican Party from within (while preserving a check on Democrat/Socialist/Leftist ideology) than to attempt to establish a viable third party that would likely take decades to achieve an electoral majority.
I do believe that this is the wisest course of action for the patriotic right, and for the security of the nation.
It will be far more efficient, and will take much less effort to vote out the non-performing RINOs in the Republican party, than to build an entirely new party.
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.