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 -
No because that won't appeal to Libertarians and Fiscal Conservative but Socially Liberal Bloc in the Democratic Party.
I've been to six Tea Parties, now. I've heard the issues, and felt the anger and commitment. I believe that most social conservatives would not be 100% happy, but would support a Republican, Democrat, other party, or independent for Congress, who was rock solid on the four issues I named.
John / Billybob
We already have those. We already have about 49 "third parties", how do you think Maria Cantwell defeated the republican for her senate seat?
Are you saying that those four principles did not include the social conservative foundation of conservatism?
Strategically, I don’t believe that we have any choice but to re-take the Republican party as our first line of attack against the treasonous left.
I think you're spot on with your remarks. Fracturing the conservative side will merely guarantee liberal control.
That way lies failure. They succeeded by following the opposite path, first blazed by Thomas Jefferson with his Republican-Democrat Party.
John / Billybob
How about an American Eagle?
The remaining squish Republicans, like Senator Snowe, would then become well-deserved orphans, with no national organization, or fund-raising, or relevance.
John / Billybob
Gotcha!! it can be done and is being done!! I am liking our chances more and more these days.
John / Billybob
Conspicuous by their absence, Life and 2nd Amendment. Life can be just as easily supported by a point of reason, a la Jefferson or Madison, as all life has value as opposed to a religious context.
The 2nd Amendment is the only thing that has kept Obama and his thugs from trying to take over the government in the first 30 days. A government wary of it’s citizens is a good thing.
“This has happened before. It can happen again.”
Please don’t dream.
If the Republican Party can’t win in places like North Carolina and Missouri, there is no way a conservative party is going to take places like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
I agree with you in spirit though; if we’re going to lose at the national level, better to go down articulating a clear philosophy. But never forget that winning is better than losing! We can totally take seats from socialists like Chris Dodd and Harry Reid in 2010. Kirk may take Obama’s old seat in Illinois— sometimes one has to put up with RINOs from socialist states to get votes for judges like Alito and Roberts.
Look at the history of indictments and convictions. The longer they stay, the more likely they are to be corrupt. Or, look at the tax-and-spend behavior. The National Taxpayers Union has done excellent research showing that the longer they stay in office, the more spending they vote for — both Republicans and Democrats.
Charlie Rangel should be the poster child for term limits.
John / Billybob
Robust primaries. Challengers for every multi-term incumbent.
Get rid of the termers.
You are describing a totally different situation, for one thing the tiny electorate was all white males and almost all protestant, that is a right wing group that is ready to get radical, it isn't like the less daring, non land owning, 54% female electorate that we have now.
Second the issues were only a handful and they were passionate but short lived, the Whig party that the republicans replaced was only 22 years old when the republicans replaced it. Third, if you think the electorate and that window of time was not more volatile than today and our female voters, then recall that six years after that republican party was formed, we were in the most desperate, bloody war that this nation has ever fought. We really are not in a parallel time or situation and the electorate are not even close.
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.
Leave them out of it and name the names of your own leaders.
Let’s see...you could argue that the Federalists went out with a whimper rather than a bang...
You could also argue that the National Republicans were the Adams-Clay faction in 1822, remained major until 1832, and gone from the Congress in 1834.
The Whigs emerged as the #2 party in 1834, slipped to 3rd party in 1854, and were gone from the Congress in 1856...
The Republicans entered the US House as the #4 party in 1854, gained major party status in 1856....
Not completely true but not completely false either....I think his point was that the Libertarians or the Socialist Workers or whoever it was he was talking about would never become a major party because they had been around too long.
Where can I sign up.
You have described a party platform that I would wholeheartdly support.
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.