Beautifully written and reasoned. I especially appreciate the point about not accepting the premises of our opponents – when so-called “moderate Republicans” are using the same “Here’s what’s wrong with the GOP” talking points, there’s something wrong going on inside the Republican Party.

“Moderate” Republicans can’t win without “Conservative” Republicans (and vice versa). The party goes nowhere if it can’t establish itself as a reasonable alternative to Democrats – that it presently isn’t is a testament to the ineptitude of the past decade, not the “icky social conservatives.”

Reagan Republicanism was about economic growth, strong defense and the defense of traditional values. In the past decade, Republicanism has been about reckless spending, vigorous (but too frequently inept and sorely undefended in the public arena) defense and, where “traditional values” are concerned, tolerance of public corruption combined with “in name only” support for the values themselves (and even that gives the “moderates” vapors).

While it’s easy to blame the current situation on Bush 43, it wouldn’t be accurate (or fair) – he had plenty of help from the House & Senate Republican caucuses … just for a few examples, Mark Foley wasn’t a member of the Executive Branch, the “campaign finance reform” bill wasn’t called “Bush/Feingold” and none of the “Gang of 14″ were named “Bush.”

The Republican problem going forward isn’t “what it believes” – it’s that, to a great extent, voters doubt elected Republicans truly believe (or know how to do) anything beyond pursue their own reelection … that, and criticize their own more stridently than they ever criticize any Democrat.

I’m a Republican which means I have some ideas considered Conservative but I am first and foremost a Reaganite Republican. I want social cons in the GOP but I don’t want them to run the GOP. I like Libertarianism, but I don’t want the…

Uh, the Whig to Repbulican change took ONE Presidential Election Cycle…

Perot and the Reform Party gained 15% of the vote in ONE Election, and that at a time when most people were still loyal to one of the two major parties.

History does not show that it would take DECADES for a Party changeover.

Romeo13 on May 19, 2009 at 4:04 PM

Do you really think the Whig dissolution is an applicable model to the current situation? I mean that as a sincere question, not a sarcastic rejoinder. I see some fairly significant changes in the political landscape since 1856 – it’s not just the same game being played in a different era. The requirements of funding and media access needed to run a successful campaign are radically different. The level of indenture held by the opposing party over the citizens is an order of magnitude worse than anything the first Republicans faced when they took over from the Whigs. Andy Jackson’s Democrats didn’t seize control of a vast health-care system that effectively doubles the life expectancy of the American citizen.

The Reform Party is an even less inspiring historical parallel. Granted it would have done better if its leader wasn’t quite so… eccentric, but it was still the result of a unique set of political conditions, and its history does not provide a road map to electoral success. Even if Perot had won, he still would have been the one Reform Party official standing in a Congress full of bitter opponents. Remember what the defining issue of the Reform Party was? Deficit spending. (Sounds rather quaint from a modern perspective, doesn’t it?) Do you think Perot actually would have controlled the deficit if he’d managed to squeak past Bush I and Clinton? We’ll never know, but I think it’s rather more likely that he would have ended a single term in frustration, muttering bitter curses at the other two parties on his way out.

If the Republicans are intent on turning themselves into the Whigs, they’ll suffer the same fate eventually, but I just don’t see it happening in a single election. A third party would have to triple the 15% of the most successful third party in modern history to get anywhere near the White House, and even that probably wouldn’t be good enough. I’d be delighted to be proven wrong, but I don’t see that happening in less than two or three election cycles at a bare minimum… which, in the current climate, means we would be talking about electing the paramedics who clean up the wreckage, not the guys who prevent the crash.

And I am not voting for anymore Republican candidates, whom I can’t stand and who oppose most things I am for and are for most things I oppose, simply because the Democrat candidate is worse.

The Republican Party can rot until it re-captures the core values it espoused in the 1980s and the 1990s.

The Republican Party stands for nothing more than trying to get elected, and it isn’t very good at that.

The RINO train has left the station without me on board.

Conservatives, Republicans, and the Man of Steele
Conservatives have a rocky relationship with the Republican Party.
America has many groups with different priorities, but we live in a
two-party system. Those two parties are the Republicans and……

Conservatives have a rocky relationship with the Republican Party.

Look, I will just say this.

I live in a RED STATE and the GOP runs CONSERVATIVE candidates down here. I’m a Conservative – so no problem – I vote GOP at the moment because they are running Conservative candidates. And by “Conservative”, I mean “Conservative” – the kind of guys who are not afraid to take Obama on. The kind of guys who OPPOSE Socialism – all aspects of it. These are NOT “Colin Powell” Republicans. Did I mention they are PRO-LIFE and PRO-GUN too?

So no problems at the local level.

Where the problems arise – are twofold …

FIRST … When the GOP Senators get together and endorse Charly Crist for Florida Senate – just right from the hip – and no “by your leave” to a more Conservative candidate when the election is over a year away – that clearly tells me that the GOP Senators don’t give a damn about Republican voters in Florida – and that upsets me folks. They should get their knickers out of that election.

SECOND … When they nominate a REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE … He or she won’t get my vote unless they are PRO-Gun, PRO-LIFE, PRO Defense, ANTI-Socialist, and ANTI-Illegal immigration.

Now … I’m willing to give a bit on PRO-LIFE – why, if the GOP comes up with a candidate who can explain to me exactly when LIFE begins, then I’ll support Abortion up to that point. Otherwise – they don’t get my vote because anyone who doesn’t know when life begins but still supports abortion isn’t a very intellectual person. It’s not too much to ask that – hey, if you’re for destroying an embryo – then please logically explain to me why YOU ARE SURE it’s not HUMAN LIFE.

So the GOP can do whatever it wants.

But if it runs a RINO again – like last time …

Then we’ll be pulling on Sarah Palin’s skirt to have her make an INDIE run for President. And we’ll throw our dollars and our votes at her. And the GOP will get na-da.

So g’head GOP and Steele – berate Conservatives all you want. We don’t care. We are the ones that hold the power and your political destinies. We’ve already lost – the worst has happened. We can easily go into a third party and free you guys up to compromise ALL your values and get all the votes you want from whatever riff-raff constiuency you wish to.

And Good Luck with that – but you won’t be the “Party Of Lincoln”.

Nuff Said.

Doctor Zero on May 19, 2009 at 3:46 PM

Uh, the Whig to Repbulican change took ONE Presidential Election Cycle…

Perot and the Reform Party gained 15% of the vote in ONE Election, and that at a time when most people were still loyal to one of the two major parties.

History does not show that it would take DECADES for a Party changeover.

peacenprosperity on May 19, 2009 at 12:38 PM

Term limits as a major plank would resonate…
1 for the Senate and two for the House…lifetime…jmho…

We need resolute action, not labels, not sayings and not a slower and more deliberate advance down the same path that liberals take. That is what costs us elections.

So Ronald Reagan had a republican congress? I don’t seem to remember it that way.

peacenprosperity on May 19, 2009 at 12:32 PM

I think the salient point is that Reagan didn’t face a Congress with no Republicans. The first President of a third party would arrive in a Congress filled with people who bitterly hate him for destroying their party, and people who would love nothing more than to stoke that hatred for their own purposes. It would be very impossible for even the most compelling President to get anything done under those circumstances.

We can stay in the Republican party and be insulted and ignored.
Or we can start a new party that for a few years will be insulted and ignored.

Really tough choice there.

MarkTheGreat on May 19, 2009 at 12:38 PM

I really think you’re underestimating the time it would take to effectively replace the Republican party. It’s an interlude that would be measured in decades, not years. Looking at how much damage Obama has done in a month, I’m not confident you would find anything resembling the America of 2009 waiting for you when you finally got that third party fully up and running – a process that would necessarily involve overwhelming and absorbing what’s left of the old GOP, since you’re not going to have much luck in national elections as long as they’re around to siphon off the non-Democrat vote. An awful lot of things would have to go right for that cycle of destruction, creation, and ascension to conclude in less than one generation – and that’s an awfully long time to leave the playing field to the socialists, effectively uncontested.

I don’t like the way the GOP has handled itself since 2004, or for that matter, since 1988. I’ve daydreamed about building that conservative hot rod as much as anyone else. I just don’t think it’s going to mature into a winning strategy fast enough. I believe our energies are better directed at whipping the Republicans into shape, even with the memory of past disappointments haunting us. The party apparatus is a group of people, a pile of money, and a brand name. The money and the brand name are worth having. The people can be replaced, or inspired to perform better.

The defining characteristic of the RINO is political opportunism, after all, and they’re not unwilling to hitch their wagons to a conservative leader, if they think it’s their best chance to stay in power. If the Republicans stand for a strong conservative philosophy, expressed to the voters in a coherent and compelling way, the party can afford a few cranky blue-bloods and media whores. It cannot afford to let those blue-bloods and media whores run the party, or monopolize its media time, and that’s exactly what will happen if the conservatives sit in bitter silence, or head off to create a new party that might just blossom in time to help their children clean up the wreckage of America.

I don’t blame anyone for feeling angry or disillusioned with the Republican Party. The odds of finding a leader who can repair it are better than the odds of finding a leader who can replace it. If Michael Steele isn’t that leader, we should let him know we expect him to provide able assistance to that person when he or she appears. If he can’t do that, he needs to go.

Liberalism resonates with liberty.

Progressivism resonates with progress.

Conservatism resonates with…what?! Canned food? Anxiously holding on to what you got? Trying to stop time?

It’s a horrible brandname that can only drag the Repubican party down. Trying to defend it, like saying you’re a “proud conservative”, automatically makes you sound bitter and ideological to anyone who is not a conservative.

That said, I will bet that the volunteers and paid staff making the calls for donations are getting an earful and the ship will correct course. When a guy in Texas has to hunt places like Pennsylvania, New York or Georgia to find a motivated conservative candidate he will donate to, believe me they notice.

modifiedcontent on May 19, 2009 at 2:46 PM

Agreed!!!

Historically lower taxes, less government, more individual freedom etc. are NOT conservative values. They are elements of classic liberalism, the founding ideology of America.

Socialists/Dems coopted liberalism. Longtime Socialist Party of America presidential candidate Norman Thomas in the 1940s:

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.”

Republicans got stuck with conservatism and as a result social conservatives and mushy “moderates” like Huckabee, who have no principles at all, dominate the party.

The Republican Party needs to provide a capitalist/democratic alternative to Obama’s socialism/fascism!

Republicans need to expose the Dems as socialists. Name names! Republicans need to reclaim liberalism and the center of American politics as its own.

For example, don’t let Obama coopt Lincoln!

And it’s not just about lower taxes and smaller government. This is about the defense of the Constitution, seperation of powers, rule of law, freedom of speech.

By being the party of the Constitution, defender of capitalism, self-reliance and the American Dream, the Republican Party can win over anti-socialist Dems, libertarians and independents.

The Republican Party should NOT try to meet the Obama regime halfway. Be the party of NO!

Study your history!

Thaddeus McCotter’s five principles are a great starting point:

1. Our liberty is from God not the government.
2. Our sovereignty rests in our souls not the soil.
3. Our security is through strength not surrender.
4. Our prosperity is from the private sector not the public sector.
5. Our truths are self-evident not relative.

Talismen on May 19, 2009 at 2:38 PM

Electing persons who we believe mirror our own beliefs (in this case, pro-life beliefs), then when it comes time to vote on this issues, our candidates will vote as we would have them vote. (Or at least, that’s how it SHOULD work.)

That first line should say:

If we elect persons who we believe mirror….(etc)

TheUnrepentantGeek on May 19, 2009 at 2:33 PM

If we define the unborn as human, killing them is murder. Seems a simple enough line of reasoning to me.

Yes, I agree.

But – there is a very large mentality within the country that believes the federal government should be the one to do the “defining”. If that be the case, we must also make room for the fact that the definition they set can and most likely would be changed. That only brings about social unrest.

Electing persons who we believe mirror our own beliefs (in this case, pro-life beliefs), then when it comes time to vote on this issues, our candidates will vote as we would have them vote. (Or at least, that’s how it SHOULD work.)

Remember this when you quote the founding fathers on liberty and government, they said a two party system would be the death of us. No check and balance on the political system. That is why we have three branches of government. That is why we need three strong parties.

But – the federal government as a whole, telling me what is moral or ethical and what isn’t….seems to be an oxymoron. The federal government itself isn’t moral or ethical, so how can I expect it to approve of or push a moral or ethics agenda (as a whole) and get it right?

Talismen on May 19, 2009 at 1:45 PM

If we define the unborn as human, killing them is murder. Seems a simple enough line of reasoning to me.

From the Libertarian take, the unborn did not choose to be conceived and did not choose to be unable to take care of themselves. Thus the mother, who had sex knowing the possible consequences, owes them protection and care.

I see the pro-choice movement as an assault on agency and individuality in favor of group-think and identity politics.

freeus on May 19, 2009 at 2:09 PM

Steele thinks he can draw moderate and left leaning moderates by changing to meet their expectations. It’s exactly the opposite and shows how poor of a leader Steele is.

First, GOP needs to define and stick to conservatism, that’s job #1. Second, it’s Steele’s job along with all in the GOP to convince people that conservatism is the way to go, especially now.

Steele does NOT want to do that…too much work I guess, he’d rather be a liberal republican. It isn’t going to work, it’s been tried (McCain, remember?) and failed.

The only thing Steele will do is ensure another GOP loss(s). If Steele wont get with the program he needs to get the hell out. He’s no leader if this is the way he wants to go.

DanMan on May 19, 2009 at 1:50 PM

Agreed 8-)

Very succinct patrick neid, well said.

Tossing out Reagan, or the same old ways of defending the individual, this is much like the old saying of, “tossing out the baby with the bath water!” It does not make much sense, and no problem is solved. The absence of common sense approaches to solving any issue is abandoned for trying to appear advanced in thought, and worst of all, dressing in the robes of “Hope and Change”! UGH!

The answer my friends is not just blowing in the winds, but is found in most of our Founding Father’s writings. For many Americans, and the Base, the real concepts of the Constitution will be NEW because most Americans have not the first clue as to what the Founding Fathers really said about the foundation they built for our nation. Some GOP spokes person, like Steele, could be found to be extremely popular and revolutionary by sheerly going out there and preaching the Constitution. There is a reason American History is not taught in most public schools, and why if it is taught, it is taught by some screwball Leftists! Can you imagine what would happen in America if suddenly Americans realized what Obama is doing is illegal, and unConstitutional? They are not going to know until someone begins speaking some factual truth to the Obama fiction. The GOP on a regular basis demonized those who do speak the truth and in historical terminology, and so the weakened party will keep saying, “yes I can, yes I can, yes I can chug up this hill!” when in reality, the engine is missing.

Big government Republicanism is in this sense a contradiction in terms until and unless there are small government Democrats. Clinton tried to fudge the difference, as did Bush after him coming from the other direction. That’s what de Tocqueville also anticipated would happen during periods of relative calm and consensus – the parties losing track of the big issues and instead trying to appeal on the basis of minor matters.

In the present, critical period, it’s the job of conservatives to make Big Government Republican as laughable and counterintuitive as Small Government Democrat. If the world’s just gotten too difficult for American democracy and democratic capitalism, then the pendulum won’t swing back – but it always has, sooner or later, usually sooner.