As we move closer to the 2012 election, we are starting to look beyond that and think about what happens in 2013 and 2014. Many people ask whether the Republican Party will survive. Perhaps the more important question to ask is should the Republican Party survive?
Political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution and there is certainly nothing that restricts American politics to two parties or for that matter a Republican and a Democrat Party.
Conservatives have called the GOP home for quite a while. The modern conservative movement in the Republican Party arguably began with Barry Goldwater. After Goldwater lost, the GOP went back to the establishment. The only breaks in the establishment’s domination of the Republican Party were Ronald Reagan’s defeat of the establishment in 1980 and Newt Gingrich’s revolution that lasted only until the establishment could force him out.
The establishment was in firm control of the Republican Party as George W. Bush became President and by the time 2006 had come along the establishment had driven the GOP into oblivion.
By 2008, the GOP was on the political endangered species list. The Democrats openly gloated about restoring the glory days of the seventies where they held a super majority in both the House and Senate. James Carvell gloated that the Democrats would rule for 40 years.
Then along came the Tea Party.
The Republicans claim they support the values of the Tea Party when they are at Tea Party rallies or when they are at home asking the voters to send them to Washington. But an amazing thing happens in Washington.
They do not vote like conservatives.
With few exceptions, they vote almost like Democrats. Despite their lip service to cutting taxes and cutting spending, nothing is done.
Now, in what should have been the year of the Tea Party, the GOP has nominated the most liberal Republican ever selected to be the Presidential nominee of the Party.
We must defeat Barack Obama. That is not open to debate. Obama must be removed from office. That means this time we must vote for Romney and we must vote for Republicans to replace Democrats.
As we sit at the eve of the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare, Republicans are already talking about replacing Obamacare.
What is the point of putting Republicans in charge if all they are going to do is replace Obamacare with Romneycare?
Republicans have a very narrow window left to act. Conservatives do not want a lite version of Obamacare. We want free market alternatives to be put in place. The free market has done more good for more people than any other system in history. When allowed to function properly, the free market works every time.
Big government is the enemy of the free market. Big government Republicans are only marginally better than the Party of Treason. Neither is the friend of freedom.
Should the Republican Party survive 2012? Should Mitt Romney be the last nominee this Party has and we see a new conservative party?
That decision is in the hands of the Republican Party. If the GOP does not govern conservatively as soon as it gets to Washington, it will find conservatives finally bolting. If the Republicans continue to play the political games in Washington instead of cutting government and solving problems, the GOP will become the modern version of the Whig Party.
It will be a sea change in politics if we conservative leave the party that has left us.
Should the Republican Party survive?
That is up to them.
How well have the 2008 and likely 2012 represented you values and position on the issues?
The United States political system has devolved to a terminal condition. Regardless of which party is in control, this is what we get:
from Greek pathos, “feeling, pain, suffering”; and kratos, “rule”
A totalitarian form of government in which absolute political power is held by a psychopathic elite, and their effect on the people is such that the entire society is ruled and motivated by purely pathological values.
Short answer, the Republican party should not survive as it is currently configured and with its present leadership. Conservatives should take it from the establishment elites.
It can start with a Tampa floor revolt.
If not then a Rejection of the ruling class candidate in Nov, and four years to set up an alternative.
The Democrats have let the lefties evolve them into the Progressive Party...I hope the Republicans get back to Conservatism and don't go the way of Libertarian which seems the path some want to take us.
OK Gene. Tell me more. Why not a libertarian leaning new second party.
All this has sparked talk of a third party. But it would seem what we need is a new second party.
I would suggest that conservatives are the RINO's. What the people that pull the strings and control the party want is what the party is right now. The GOP establishment sees the Republican party as is a party that elects empty suits with no values or principles of their own to get in the way of doing what they're told. And the owners of the GOP don't want any real change. They have bought control of the government. Small government gives them less power for the money spent. It would be like they bought a new performance car and got a four cylinder mini van instead.
We need a new second party that sees itself as a conservative alternative to the republican / democrat/ unaparty.
But for this to work, we all have to give and take a little with other conservatives. Some here have posted that they didn't want a libertarian leaning conservative party. As a libertarian, I don't think I should be left out of a conservative party. Others have said that they didn't want religious conservatives.
Everyone has to give and take. As a libertarian, I can see pro life legislation as consistent with my views. Protection if humans who can't protect themselves is a valid function of government. School choice and defense of religious freedom works for me. I have plenty I can yield to rebellious conservatives.
But limited, affordable government is the glue that can bring us all together.
If we can bring together the libertarian party, the right to life party, the constitution party, and all the other conservative alternative parties, we can have a realistic new second party.
john, to form a large party, we will all have to compromise somewhere. We could probably agree that the KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid! ) principle is going to suit half the country, better than trying to be another Big Umbrella serving greedy, competing special interests.
Disillusioned Lizzie, I agree completely.
What would you see as a viable conservative second party?
You know John, to answer that question intelligently I would first have to spend more time learning what differentiated successful new political parties, from the many failures littering history.
My gut says that the effort wouldn't work strictly as a grass-roots effort, at least not on a time frame people would tolerate. We need some high-level defectors, so to speak.
In that scenario, it's just as critical to decide what the politicians who currently aren't particularly appreciated by the GOP want to see in a third party.
What would Bobby Jindal, Rand Paul, Allen West, Nikki Haley, Rick Santorum, Jan Brewer, etc. etc. etc. find as common ground?
Look at campaign finance reform. We can't even decide how to combat corruption! It isn't enough to come up with our ideals, like "smaller government," though that's the bedrock. For one example, I can't get behind "just abolish the EPA," I wouldn't want to go back to the... "domestic abuse" (of our actual home land) which the EPA was intended to deal with. "Just abolish" anything is not a shovel-ready plan.
My other concern with a third party is that our platform is not a strategy... it doesn't explain how our party will somehow be different after hiring the same image consultants, strategists, and other sleazy, out-of-touch beltway insiders everyone else hires. It doesn't explain how our party will be unaffected by big contributors. Sure, we can start by arguing over principles. But I need to see people looking at the rest of the picture.
Go ahead, call me a party pooper. But if we don't hash this out, won't this just be discussed behind closed doors?
Lizzie, the closest match would be the Whigs replaced by the 1856 Republicans.
This is the perfect time. In the long history of establishment approved empty suits we have bee expected to vote for, Romney is the most openly disliked. At least McCain was a war hero. The only posative Romney has is that he isn't the other guy. So the mode is right.
Those you pointed out have a one big thing in common. They want the government cut down to constitutional limits and kept there. Compromise will be necessary. No one will be 100% happy with the candidates. But it will be a lot better then the one party with two names system we have now.
The internet has given a lot of power to the rank in file. The none of the above 2012 movement would never have gotten to the point that would bring out this level of rage in party before principle Republicans. The new second party message can get out in spite of the ruling class efforts and the MSM
As long as we pick experienced conservative leadership, they can work out the platform details. Some committed conservatives are Jefferson's. We're not all Tom Pains.
Ron Paul is hinting about spending the next four years developing the Liberty Party. That may be a good place to start. Lets see if he invites all parts of the conservative puzzle.
john, you don't want to hear this, but can you compromise by voting Romney '12 to buy us some time? We're not organized. We're not funded. We're not ready.
Romney is not Obama. He is Obama Lite. That's the difference between a Category 5 and a Category 3 hurricane. It matters. Obama's bent for dictatorship isn't just coming from his handlers, it's coming from HIM. Split the conservative vote now, hand the Dems a victory they couldn't get otherwise, and we may not have enough government integrity left to hold anything like a free and fair election in '16.