——The problem is not apathy, ——
I chose apathy to mean lack of will to act or engage. To form a new party requires action and mental, financial, and physical engagement. I see no realistic possibility of the coalescence of those three to develop a third party with any significance.
Free Republic is a good example of cross sectional conservatism. There is lots of hot air but there is no desire to act, there is not even a large desire to make a financial commitment. most of the money comes from a rather small percentage of Freepers.And were it not for some big donations from a very few, even that might not be adequate to keep the servers humming. (analyze the oft posted list of donations) Most importantly, there is wide disagreement on key matters that is so selfishly guarded that there is no coalescence to produce political power. Most importantly, there is apparently no money for a third party.
The most common action on Free Republic besides typing is to pray. Prayer is an excuse..... let God do it, and then having made that action ....nothing. If God won’t will it, then well, not really anything I am willing to do either
Then there is the Tea Party. The TP was never and is not now a party. the TP is an idea, a concept, a desire. I live in one of the most conservative congressional districts in the country, a Republican district, nary a Democrat need run for congress. I was flabbergasted at the turnout for Tea Party rallies a year or so back. But now? No action, no leadership springing from the grass roots, no demonstrations, nothing. We sent a conservative to congress but he defeated the super conservative evangelical that was elected in a race of 5 candidates. He lost to the present congressman Dr Roe in the next election
If there is to be a weilding of conservative power, it will not be by a third party. The power will be, must be, wielded from within the Republican party. Those wielding the power are the GOPc, the conservative wing. We have seen just this week that there are enough to disrupt and cause negotiation to at least temper legislation
Lastly, regarding leaders, those running for President know that a third party serves no purpose. Were it so, Ted Cruz would not bee a Republican
The founders came together from throughout the thirteen colonies to found a new nation and defeat the British empire. Since then the Federalist and the Whig parties have come and gone. Organizations grow, proper, decline and die just like people. Why should it be different with political parties?
I agree with you on the money issue. Huge amounts of money are required to fund elections today. A presidential race costs a billion dollars for each candidate today. The wealthy people and organizations who raise millions for candidates expect a return on their investment. The actions of a political party align more with the interests of those who fund the party and its candidates than they do with the voters. Hence George Soros has more influence in the Democrat Party than the community organizer in an impoverished neighborhood of a medium sized city and Sheldon Adelson will have more influence on the direction of the Republican Party than my local Congresswoman who moves in lock step with John Boehner.
I actually see the money issue as the major impediment to the formation of a third party as well as the major impediment to the takeover of the Republican Party by conservatives. The truth seems to be most wealthy people having sufficient money and influence to raise millions of dollars for political campaigns have more in common with their progressive neighbors than they do with the average conservative voter in red states. Regardless of political affiliation the wealthy send their children to the same schools, read the same newspapers and books, eat in the same restaurants, rub shoulders at the same charity events and private clubs, and vacation in the same upscale resorts, not to mention live in the same communities. Wealthy donors tend to be concerned about economic issues not social issues. In addition their money insulates them from the very real pressures the middle class citizen faces every day. It may even be wealthy Republicans are supporters of welfare programs because these programs offload on others the very real social costs of business decisions such as offshoring jobs.
In any event, the monied classes of large urban areas today have more empathy for the urban poor than the struggling middle and lower class families of suburbia and rural areas. They do not understand conservative thought, conservative principles, or the concept of living a virtuous life grounded in religious principles. Their own narrow economic interests drive their participation in the political process. Money gives them freedom, not a fading piece of parchment written over 200 years ago.
If conservatives were to wield real power in the Republican Party, and nominate a Ted Cruz for president, I suspect the big money donors would close their wallets and allow Mr. Cruz to be outspent 5-1 in a race with Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren. Rolling back the leviathan state is not in their economic interest.
Perhaps I am wrong but most wealthy people I know are social liberals, even if they vote Republican for purely economic reasons, and very much self centered. Few understand US history and fewer still even care about the concept of individual liberty. To them, government is an all powerful institution they can influence to their benefit by sharing some of their wealth with politicians. Most are preoccupied with earning more money, not living a virtuous life in a free society. Granted, I don’t travel in the circles of the Koch brothers, Tom Steyer, Warren Buffett or Sheldon Adelson so it is certainly possible they have other motives.
It may be most real conservatives of today are average people who lack the time monetary resources to fully engage in changing the political process. If holding onto a job, educating children, and putting food on the table consumes most of the hours of the day, as well as dollars in the paycheck, there is no time or money for meaningful engagement in the political process. It may be the grass roots tea party movement was their best effort for concerted action. When both political parties shunned and opposed them, they concluded political action was futile and returned their focus to day to day survival.
Likewise, if the wealthy view political engagement as a vehicle for increasing wealth, and not social or societal change, the wealthy will not be funding a return to founding principles, either inside the party or through a third party.
While I would like to see a third party, I see little prospect of a conservative renaissance through a third party or capture of the GOP. Ted Cruz can talk all he wants. Without the support of big money, there is no game.