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 -
Up until this point I was impressed. McNuggets wasn't hard right, the so-called hard right had to vote for him- they had no other choice.(some stayed home) The Republicans may have a lot of purging to do, but they are still the best choice for electing someone that Indies and dis-affecteds would be comfortable with.
I say that as I feel there'll be changes in who gets to put an R next to their name real soon. Rinos are going to need more than a flu shot to make it past 2010.
Ever notice how the Left never critizes Obama and his extra-legal manuvuers around the Constitution that ultimately lead to bigger government? The media? Anybody?
I would suggest joining the Tea Party movement, taking stock of its leadership, and if you think you can do a better job, take up your staff (figuratively) and launch your candidacy for office.
Change starts at the bottom.
That is so vague that it is meaningless of course but the way you are avoiding explaining about our most conservative voters, the social conservatives, I get the impression that is is basically the Libertarian party.
Identify your core principles and the name will follow.
If limited government and strict fiscal conservatism are your core principles, doesn't the Libertarian Party already embrace them as its core principles?
I think social conservatism is also a natural center of gravity that could pull a large number of people together--and not just disaffected Republicans but also many Independents and some Democrats (including Blacks and Hispanics).
It should not be named after ANY individual... why would we want to be a part of the cult of personality like Obama?
The Whigs has as a mascot the Raccoon.
I suggested the Armadillo for Ross Perot’s Reform Party
Animals that could be used, A Stag, A Lion, A bear, a Rattle Snake, a horse, a Bat, a frog, a Bull Moose.
Symbols that could be used: A Liberty Bell, A Musket, a Feather Pen, a lantern, a torch, a Liberty cap, Miss Liberty, Mt. Rushmore,
People who could be used as a symbol: George Washington, Tom Jefferson, George Patton, Andy Jackson, Herbert Hoover, Howard Huges, Robert E. Lee, Oliver North.
According to Shelby Foote, the mascot of the Whig Party was a bulldog guarding a strongbox.
Whig Party leader Henry Clay's nickname was "The Old Coon", so maybe that's where you got the raccoon.
Love it... history... something not being taught today in the schools.
A movement that teaches the people of the USA what and where we came from.. the good the bad the ugly... somehow in totality our history is something we can and should be proud of... that is what I would love to see espoused by those who aspire to lead.
Mugwumps?
People need to make up their own names for all the third party talk, they can’t just keep using the names of the most popular leaders of the GOP in their conversations and pitches.
“we had such a thing in the 1980’s, when a third party of sorts, called “The Reagan Republicans” elected the President of the United States. He had long coat tails too. Anyone who was similar in ideology to him was successfully elected to office too, up to and including 1994.”
That’s right. That little crazy man Perot could have become president. He didn’t really want it—that’s why he pulled out of the running when he was leading in the polls, then jumped back in. He was there to make sure BushI didn’t win. It’s possible in this cult of personality to run someone who could win the presidency. But I think work needs to be done from the bottom up. As others have said here, vote out RINO’s, incumbents who have been in office forever, liberals, etc. We need some real Constitutional conservatives (citizen statesmen) in Congress! And term limits!
Love your morphed image of the GOP elephant. Strangely it truly does represent the mainstream party leaders we currently have, so hardly a good mascot who oppose the RINO’s in charge today.
Excellent!
Thanks, A Bull Dog is a good symbol. I still read it was a wise Raccoon for the Whigs. I will have to check my sources.
I just don’t want the current Republicans to “Rename” the party and continue on with their lame ideas.
Yeah, how about the Grassroots Party or the Free Republic Party.
Ok, I went back and re-read your article to hone in on your basic strategy, and I do see the angle you're driving at.
It appears that you're proposing that current Republican politicians and voters sign onto a new third party that more closely represents what they stand for, and hopefully other politicians and voters will cross over and join them.
There may be some hope for that, and it could be argued that something on that order is already occurring. There's no doubt that there is a fast-building patriot movement in America. The many tea parties and attendance at town halls this August attest to that.
The Republican party should be closely aligning themselves with this eruption of fervor amongst their natural constituency at this pivotal moment, and in some ways they're trying. The party should also recognize that if they fail to convince the voters that they are consciously and deliberately making real efforts to re-dedicate themselves to conservative principles, and are elevating and recruiting strong conservatives within their ranks, that the people will continue to drift away from them, and toward independent voter status.
Perhaps we'll see a new political party form spontaneously from the grass-roots, due to the quickly evolving conditions in the country.
I've said many times that I've come to a point in my life where party identification has become far less important to me than Founding Principles. I've taken to simply calling myself an American, instead of a Republican. At the end of the day, that's all that I really am, though an appropriate label would help to define my views. That label should by all rights be "Republican". That is, in fact, what I believe in, though the label has been tarnished by those who've lost sight of what republican principles are.
My desire is that we patriots simply oust the squishy, professional politicos from OUR party, and move forward in re-taking our country.
All that aside, politics are about to take a back seat to the fight to restore the republic. When the dust settles, I think we'll see a lot more people who come to embrace Founding Principles to a much deeper degree than party identification.
In my view, all conservatives tend toward these same considerations. At heart, what we all want is for our country to be guided by, and to adhere to the form of government and cultural traditions that made us the greatest nation the world has ever known.
It's very simple, when you get right down to it.
Oh, I know. Let’s start another anti-American, free traitor party with female relatives of corporates, government managers and academics as leaders.
Nonpolitical politics is the way to go, until the globalist house of cards has fallen.
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.