The Permanence of the Republican Minority, or : Slouching Left
By Jack Savage Posted in Republicans — Comments (26) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Now that McCain is a done deal, let's take a step back and look at things from a purely political perspective.
Are conservatives really the base of the Republican Party?
Let me ask you this - think about the two most glorious successes of the Republican Party over the last three decades, and about our most sour defeat. I would argue that these two successes would include the ascendency of Ronald Reagan in 1980, and the GOP takeover of the House and Senate in 1994. Those two events have one thing in common - conservative principles, confidently and articulately offered to the American people. When that is done, Republicans win hands-down.
The most sour defeat? Losing the House and Senate in 2006. I don't anyone could possibly make the case that this was due to conservative principles being rejected by the public. This was due to Republicans governing like Democrats, and being co-opted by the Washington establishment.
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
The "New Tone" of George W. Bush has been, in my view, the single thing most responsible for the demoralization of the base of the Republican Party. I blogged about this broken windows
theory, and I firmly believe it holds true. He has led the country, but ignored the Republican Party. Opponents were allowed to say anything, true or not, and were not called on the carpet. This caused party disunity, and gave rise to the "maverick" that is now the presumptive nominee.
The "broken windows" theory extends not only to those within the party, but to those outside. To let Ted Kennedy get away with the slander against our troops by saying that the only thing different about Abu Ghraib was that it was now under "the management of the United States" was beyond the pale. If that goes by unchallenged, it won't be long before the crooks run the neighborhood, and the good guys move out.
The aisle in Congress is there for a reason. It is because the two parties are different, and stand for fundamentally different things. One in particular will stop at absolutely nothing to gain control for control's sake. We have to use the power and light of the truth to wage this battle, and to do that we need leaders who are willing to articulate our case. Instead, frightened of the evisceration of the press and awkward moments in the congressional cafeteria, we have become the party of Rodney King, wanting to "just get along", slouching left, cowering.
We need to be PARTISAN. We need to believe and articulate the principles that America has shown time and time again they agree with. I will be damned if I am going to stand by and let someone make the case that times have changed and conservatism has lost its meaning or importance. That is simply not true, and I am and forever will be a conservative first. If my party wants to leave me, then it is their choice, not mine.
Neil Stevens is wrong.
At least his signature, that is. Go to work for this nominee to take back the party? Beg for a seat at the table?
When Barry Goldwater made his oft cited comment about "going to work" for Richard Nixon, conservatives were radicals. The Republican Party didn't really know what to make of these guys - were they just rowdy bomb-throwers, or could they be counted on to deliver when the going was tough and doors needed to be knocked on? THIS was what Goldwater was referring to when he said we needed to go to work, and conservatives delivered in spades. The seeds planted by the "Glorious Disaster" in 1964 were harvested in 1980, and America became the shining city on the hill, and the dark forces of Communism were stopped in their tracks.
Bill Kristol echoed this advice in his condescending and despicable op-ed in the New York Times, warning conservatives to get in line behind John McCain, or risk not being "invited" back to a position of prominence in the Republican Party.
In my opinion, Bill Kristol, and those that follow his brand of conservatism, are not in a position suitable for giving lectures, ultimatums or invitations. He would do very well to remember that.
Neil Stevens is right.
At least his signature, that is. We absolutely need to get to work. We need to attend our local Republican party meetings. We need to support conservative elected officials, from our local school board up to and including congress. EVERYONE needs to report. Our party is in disarray, and it is up to conservatives to work and rebuild the principled coalition whose great power Goldwater began, and which the numbskulls currently in charge have squandered so effectively. And I include John McCain in the latter category.
But I do pledge to work, and work, and work some more. If we do not make the party move back to the right, history has shown we will be a minority. For a long time.
I don't do loyalty oaths.
Back in 1970, Harry Flood Byrd, Jr. had a decision to make. The Democrat Party of the Commonwealth of Virginia had insisted that all Democrat elected officials sign a loyalty oath that stated they would support the presidential nominee of the Democrat Party, regardless of who that was. At that time, the radicalization of the Democrat Party was nearly complete, and Senator Byrd knew it. There was even a possibility that this man, one of the finest individuals to ever participate in politics, and one of a now extinct species of conservative Democrat, would not be nominated by the Democrat party to run for his own seat in the Senate.
His response? "I would rather be a free man than a captive Senator". He left the Democrat Party, and ran for Senate as in Independent in a three person race.
He won going away. He did not cave in to extreme pressure from a party that was lurching left, and finished his career still an Independent.
So in answer to those who insist I fall in line behind party leaders and a nominee who seem to pay only lip service to the principles I hold so dear - I would rather be a free conservative than a captive Republican.
If this means that I am asked to leave the party, I will do so. But DO NOT try and convince me to get on board by propping up bogeymen (or women), and questioning my loyalty. I will not have it. I would rather stay and fight (see Neil Stevens Is Right), but I am willing to leave if that is what sticking up for what I believe means.
I am still not planning on voting for John McCain. Maybe we will lose the Presidential election. But I believe the only hope for this country is conservatism, and that this battle goes on for longer - far longer - than John McCain will be in office, or in politics, or than I will be alive. My main concern is the principles in which I believe - eternal, guiding, true. And my decision as far as my vote in this election will reflect that concern.
I am sick of the broken windows. I am sick of window breakers. I am sick of those who stand by and let it happen. And that will be all I have to say for a while.
I think that soon I will be asked to pay it, probably on this site. And I will understand, and go. As I posted before, this is a very wide gulf for reasonable people on the same team. Astonishing, actually.
Thanks for the comments.
oversimplify Reagan's success as well as the 1994 election. Each of those captured a public on the rebound so I think the successes are more complex than merely "Conservative principles".
I do however, agree with you about Kristol and so many others. I personally plan on voting for McCain, working against Obama and Hilary and looking for those conservatives I can identify as potential replacements in the future for the bunch currently in Washington.
Disagreement is a critical part of our great process and indeed of American Life. Anyone who says shut up and get in line is a shill. On the flip side the call for civil disagreement is well taken. We can't live together unless we can at least be grown ups about it.
Reagan was the right man with the right message at the right time. But I think both times, in 1994 and 1980, the public had a clear view of a liberal agenda, and the conservative alternative was overwhelmingly viewed as preferable.
To my way of thinking there is a larger price to be paid if he loses.
I have no doubt that a victory by Hillary will energize conservatism and ignite the fires. I also have no doubt that the same will expand the ranks of the political classes that profess or sham left leaning positions. I just don't know where the line on the breaks will be.
So yes Losing is Losing. While we may gain something from the loss the other side will definitely gain something from the win. This leads me to think that anyone who's calculus includes a winning through losing plan, has seriously mis factored the equation.
We need to start promoting conservatism. Promoting our media so when we have successes they can be trumpeted. Finally we need to start taking back our institutions.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
My view is there is a large price to pay if he wins.
I agree completely with your last sentence. I wonder how we are best able to do that - could be done without the President.
I'd rather be a free Conservative than a captive Republican.
That has the ring of 'soon to be a classic' to it ...
Great diary.
Blue
For more from The Muse, please visit Blue Collar Muse; and
The Voice of Liberty Podcast Network
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
I don't do loyalty oaths. ... So in answer to those who insist I fall in line behind party leaders and a nominee who seem to pay only lip service to the principles I hold so dear - I would rather be a free conservative than a captive Republican.
I agree with you completely about not letting loyalty to the GOP control my vote. I believe who you vote for should be controlled by what you believe is most likely to result in the better (or if you prefer the logical equivalent, less bad) President for America, regardless of party.
For example if Ron Paul was our nominee, I would have no hesitation about voting for Clinton or Obama, because I believe my country would be even worse off with Paul as Commander in Chief than it would be with the Democrat.
If you sincerely believe your country would be better off with Clinton or Obama as President than it would be with McCain, then you have a moral obligation to vote for the Democrat. I would respect your loyalty to America even while believing your reasoning is seriously flawed.
If however you believe that Clinton or Obama would be worse for your country than McCain, but you still don't vote for McCain, that suggests that what's good for your country isn't guiding your vote. Yes, that's practically a tautology.
McCain was at the bottom of my preferences among the Republican candidates who ever had a chance. I don't expect to ever like him.
But on the question who is my country better off with as President, McCain or Clinton/Obama, there's no doubt in my mind that McCain is less bad. So in November I vote for McCain holding my nose but with no reservations.
I enjoyed your response, and it got me thinking.
Here is how I look at it. I do not believe the country would be better off, in the short term, with Clinton or Obama as President. Period. I believe the Republican Party, as a whole, and over the long term, would be better off with Clinton or Obama as President.
The average American citizen is going to need to make a decision about where he wants the country to go. If the majority of citizens want a comfort state and detente' with terrorists, then the choice is clear, and we are finished. The Republican Party is going to need to make the same sort of decision. Are we going to continue to drift left, with Bush spawning McCain spawning who-knows-what? Supporting the nominee, no matter what (thus the reason for mentioning your "straw man"). If that happens, the Republican Party is also finished. (And I believe it is close to happening). THAT is what I think would be worse for my country, and THAT is what I want to stop.
Or do we draw a line, and say "this is where it stops"? I say the time is now, the line is McCain, and here is where I stand.
Conservatism is about choosing the hard road now in order to have a better tomorrow. I choose to not support McCain in any way, and shift my limited time and resources to local, state and congressional elections.
We are on the same team, and the team is at a crossroads. One of us will be correct in the long run, although neither may live to see the answer.
I do not believe the country would be better off, in the short term, with Clinton or Obama as President. Period. I believe the Republican Party, as a whole, and over the long term, would be better off with Clinton or Obama as President.
What you suggest is theoretically possible, but I don't think it adds up in the current situation. Similar reasoning led me to support Bill Clinton in 1992, as I explained in a 2006 blog. Whether or not that was the right decision in 1992, I think at least the next few years are a very bad time to hand power to to the Democrats in hopes of making up for the damage later.
My main objection still applies. Unlike 1992, we are in the middle of a very serious war now. I think it's unfortunate that some regard our war as merely a nuisance sideshow that's just distracting from issues that "really matter".
Defeat in Iraq and/or Afghanistan would have a devastating impact, emboldening Islamic radicals around the world and attracting support from those who see them as destined to win. Conversely, if we succeed in stabilizing those countries so in a few years they are strong enough to defeat the murderers on their own (even with a Democrat is in the White House down the road), those countries would be a powerful example to people in other countries who don't want to be ruled by the Islamic extremists.
Maybe throwing the game to get a better draft pick next season makes sense in some circumstances. But unless we're willing to shrug off the war as no big deal, this isn't the right season to try such bank shots.
And your reasoning is the only, and I mean only, shred of a chance that I would ever consider thinking about backing McCain.
I'll bet that Hillary / Obama run right on this issue during the general, though - watch.
Of why those who take your position are so fanatical in their view that they can't see the forest for the trees.
You say: Here is how I look at it. I do not believe the country would be better off, in the short term, with Clinton or Obama as President. Period. I believe the Republican Party, as a whole, and over the long term, would be better off with Clinton or Obama as President.
Even if you were right, and you aren't even close, but even if you were, look at the two words I bolded.
If you are a "Republican" and wish for the health of the Republican Party before the health of America, then your priorities are completely out of wack.
And no, saying "But America's long term health requires the health of the Republican Party", doesn't help. That's the words right out of the mouth of every single power-mad lunatic ever in the history of the world, that the cause is bigger then the people it serves.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
You would realize that the point I was making was that a strong Republican party IS the best thing for this country in the long term, and that McCain has, and will, further weaken it.
I am sorry you do not believe that, and your stance that compares my post to "words right out of the mouth of every single power-mad lunatic ever in the history of the world, that the cause is bigger then the people it serves" is bizarre, at best.
If you think I am a fanatic, fine. Please feel free to continue to embarass yourself. I really don't give a crap what you think.
In the meantime, do McCain a favor, and check for polyps since you have your head so far up his colon. And do not expect any further reaction from me to your soon to be posted auto-response.
Being able to think for yourself is a great thing. Try it sometime.
I don't agree with everything you said but you made a couple of good posts here just now. Well reasoned and articulated. And spot on with this last post as well. I've been seeing a lot of "everyone is crazy but me" out of Random Guy lately.
Really? Pray tell, which one are those?
And did you notice I had already addressed the point he was trying to make, and apparently he can't read?
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
Without even really trying: http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/not_so_super_saturday_res...
Your description of the Washington voters is:
40% are reasonable Republicans (which is the group I'm sure you're a part of! Go you!) followed by 40% who are "insane" in some way, and 20% who accuse the reasonable ones of being insane, making them also crazy.
Umm, whatever. You obviously aren't from Washington.
And even if you were right, it's hardly only me. I'm putting myself in the plurality of the party.
So even if you were right, you're wrong.
Hilarious.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
What's hilarious is that you are arguing that my hyperbole should be taken literally. Well done, champ -- truly hilarious.
No, unfortunately, I DID realize what you were saying.
Read my post again. I even commented on it specifically.
But I'll say it again: If the health of a political movement requires that the people it is suppose to serve be hurt in the service of the movement, to supposedly get to some greater good at the other end when everything is roses, it's a corrupt movement. That idea is the root mistake of EVERY corrupt political movement in the history of the world.
In practice, is it going to be as bad as the extremist ideologies of the past? No, but that doesn't make the thinking any less corrupted.
Apparently you are too stupid to understand this.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
Here is how the people will not be hurt, from the top:
"We absolutely need to get to work. We need to attend our local Republican party meetings. We need to support conservative elected officials, from our local school board up to and including congress. EVERYONE needs to report. Our party is in disarray, and it is up to conservatives to work and rebuild the principled coalition whose great power Goldwater began, and which the numbskulls currently in charge have squandered so effectively. And I include John McCain in the latter category."
We can guard liberty and protect this country without your suck-buddy John McCain, or for that matter, you either. Both of you need to remember that.
Good night.
That's not an argument. That's just some weird strategy. You don't even address the issue.
You're basically saying, "Well, people won't be hurt when we put a bullet through their head, because we'll make them a really nice hospital bed."
You can't guard and protect liberty when we capitulate to islamofacism. You can't protect liberty when the D's raise taxes, push for socialized medicine, and appoint Supreme Court Justices. And regardless of if you like it or not, we can't stop them from making significant progress on doing these things without John McCain.
You can whine and b!tc# and rant and moan all you want, but it won't change this fact. No rationalization will ever change this fact. And it will be a fact no matter how loudly you denounce John McCain as a liberal or whatever other nonsense you want to spew.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
I have no problem with the desertion of McCain. He is an arrogant and conceited jerk, who has no place asserting the title of leader of the party nor of the title "conservative."
But allowing the other side to win can only be a tenable solution if, and only if, disenchanted conservatives worked VERY, VERY hard to get a Republican Congress returned to power. To countervail the actions of an Obama or Clinton would be critical, especially on issues of national sovereignty, like the Law of the Sea treaty, and the struggle to prevent such a President from consigning Iraq to hell, once again stealing defeat from victory, just like Vietnam.
Let's not act by emotion, but by wisdom and by hope that we can save our republic. Don't believe the prognosticators, a Republican Congress IS possible, and this year. Let's make that a substitute cause, and make it work.
Ciao.
Belisarius of Jerusalem, and of Constantinople
Nice Blog! Recommended! It encapsulates my feelings nicely. I have decided not to announce how I will vote in November because I fear these "Never for McCain" pledges may damage the party at lower levels. If I do bring myself to vote for McCain it will be without the slightest enthusiasm.
My main issue is illegal immigration and I think my issue might be best served by a McCain defeat. But imigration is not the only issue... and I hate RATS just about as much as I hate McCain.
I wonder how much longer criticism of McCain will be tolerated? In past elections, I've noticed that on most forums the group dynamic is such that after a while dissenters are crushed. They are either hazed until they leave or outright banned. I'm watching on all the conservative forums where I lurk and blog to see how that turns out. It is interesting to watch but it has always struck me as counter-productive because these people who basically share the same principles as those that drove them away leave with anger, determination and revenge on their minds.
These is a price to be paid for not taking the loyalty oath.