North Dakota Fishing and Hunting Forum banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
7,740 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hey Guys

Figured since some of you wanted me to post some stuff to occasionally provide some talking points, I'd offer the following article.

I thought this was a very interesting informative thought provoking look at political parties in general, and what seems to be a very fractured group within the Republican Party.

I've always wondered about how all this might affect one party or the other long term....

The article provides some insightful historical context, and does a good job of looking at what is happening now, versus how simiar issues have played out in history.

Enjoy

Ryan

Is This the Beginning of the End for the Republican Party?

Political parties are not immortal, even in this country.

The Federalists ceased to be a national party in 1800 and subsequently ceased being even a regional party with a national voice as a result of their opposition to the War of 1812. The lack of effective opposition after the Federalist Party's demise allowed simmering tensions within the Democratic Republican Party of Jefferson and Madison to come to a boil and it fissioned into the Jacksonian faction, which became today's Democratic Party, and everyone else. The remaining bits and pieces swirled around for a bit, forming minor parties and coalitions and within a fairly short time, these parties, along with the remnants of the Federalists,, coalesced into the Whigs.

The Whigs were hampered in developing a coherent ideology because doing so would have required them to confront the slavery issue head-on. Doing that, they knew, would have alienated voters in one region or the other. Instead, they stood for a vaguely defined nationalism that favored Congressional supremacy over the executive, programs of internal improvements, a protective tariff, and a slightly more "energetic" central government than that favored by the Democrats.

The Whigs were just credible enough of a threat to cause the Democrats to keep a lid on the tensions between those who were strongly in favor of slavery and those who were merely not against it. (In practice, in other words, the Whigs bore a surprising resemblance to the kind of barely credible threat that the Republicans dreamed of reducing the Democrats to the heady crazy days between the 2002 midterms and the Schiavo debacle.)

The Whigs' imperative need to avoid taking strong policy positions caused them to look to old war heroes for presidential candidates. Unfortunately, both of the heroes they managed to get elected quite promptly died in office. Between the lack of ideological vigor, the inability to get a strong personality elected President and the growing unavoidability of the slavery question, in the 1850s, the Whigs just unraveled. Their leaders either quit politics altogether or drifted into other new, fringier parties like the American a/k/a "Know Nothing" Party (think Lou Dobbs if he lived in antebellum America), the Anti-Masonic Party ("Against Secret Societies!"), and the the Free Soil Party (against the expansion of slavery into the west).

In 1848, the Whigs won their last presidential election. Their candidate, Gen. Zachary Taylor, hero of the Mexican American War, of course, promptly died. In 1852, the Whigs nominated Gen. Winfield Scott, hero of the War of 1812 and of the Mexican American War. Scott was resoundingly defeated by Franklin Pierce--not exactly a political superstar--and thereby managed to survive another ten years. By 1856, there wasn't anyone left in the Whig party of sufficient stature to merit a nomination. Their sad little convention that year nominated Millard Filmore, the head of the Know-Nothings, and went home, never to meet again.

Also in 1856, another little fringe party started and promptly began competing with the Free Soilers for former Whigs and anti-slavery Democrats. They called themselves Republicans. By 1860, the Democratic Party was also splitting in two, between the "not necessarily against slavery" and the "if you're not for it you're against it" factions, the Republicans swept up the remnants of the Whigs, the Free Soilers and--gingerly and with a certain amount of nose-holding--the Know-Nothings and won the election, their second.

If the Civil War had not followed, the split in the Democratic Party might well have become permanent and the party dissolved. As it happened, once slavery was abolished, northern and southern post-war Democrats found they could deal with one another once again. Since then, factions have hived off of the two major parties only to eventually rejoin the mother party or drift over to the opposition--the Bullmoose Party split off and rejoined the Republicans. The Dixiecrats split from the Demcorats, rejoined, split off again as the "American Party" of George Wallace, rejoined again and then their members answered the siren song of Richard Nixon's southern strategy. The LaRouchites -- okay, actually I've never known what the **** those loons were all about or why, exactly, it was they nominally Democrats.

My point is that the persistence of the Democratic and Republican parties in the face of splits that previously would have been fatal has lent them an air of unquestioned permanence over the last century and a half. The Republicans may have fantasized about the end of the Democratic Party, but eventually they had to close up their skin mags, zip up and and let someone else use the stall. The Democrats survived and came roaring back from their low ebb following 9/11 just as the Republicans came back after Nixon's disgrace made many suspect they were washed up as a national party.

And despite that, I'm really wondering if we're seeing the last days of the Republican Party.

Most likely not. Almost certainly not. But consider the following. The main difference between a two party and multiparty system is that in a multiparty system, every ethnic group, every religion, every social and economic viewpoint, can have its own party with a rigid ideology and the coalition building occurs after the election. In a two party system, however, each party must be a coalition of competing interests, viewpoints and agendas in order to thrive. The Democrats have always been better at being a big tent and, in any case, ever since the segregationists abandoned the party, the agendas of the various groups within the party are rarely truly contradictory. There is tension, of course, between left and center, and,of course, there's our delightful penchant for turning primary contests into brutal cannibalistic rituals, but by and large we get along.

Republicans, however, have become a simmering kettle of mutually antagonistic interests. Libertarians vs. authoritarians. Anti-immigration activists vs. the people who employ the immigrants. Theocrats vs. the corporatists who want maximum freedom to cater to our most base desires. Isolationists vs. neocon militarists. And, of course, professionals and intellectuals (a few real, most psuedo) who want government by reason vs. the ignorant hateful rabble who want government from the gut.

The only thing that held them together was that they hated us and a common nearly patholocial fear that our policies would lead to social, economic and moral collapse. Now that their policies have led to social, economic and moral collapse, however, all those differences have boiled over and the stupid people appear to have won.

For decades, the Republicans have been more than happy to patronize to the bigots and haters, to the rabid anti-intellectuals, the xenophobes and the just generally stupid. Heretofore, they've used those people, but they never let them run the party. In recent years, however, they let the camel get its nose into the tent when they stopped just giving the theocrats their ear and, instead, gave them a seat at the table with the corporatists and the militarists. Meanwhile loud voices appeared in the media to feed the belligerent delusional ignoramus faction's insatiable appetite for stupidity--Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter, Malkin, and on and on. And slowly but surely, as those people took control of the belligerent ignoramus faction, they found themselves in a position to give orders to Party rather than taking them. Increasingly, the agenda of the Republican Party was set not by the Bill Buckleys and George Wills and the Reagan alum. No, increasingly, the agenda was being written by the people who controlled the rabble: Limbaugh and O'Reilly and Hannity and the wingnut bloggers.

And now, the victory of the belligerant ignoramus faction is complete. They've found their champion in Sarah Palin, they develop and coordinate their ideology and worldview through unhinged emails and in the comments sections of the MSM's websites and, at last, the people who used to use these ignoramuses are recoiling in horror.

The list of defectors, people who can no longerstand to be associated with a party run by its pro-ignorance faction, grows by the day: George Will, David Brooks and Christopher Buckley. Lincoln Chaffee, Chuck Hagel and Susan Eisenhower. Wall Street has abandoned the Republicans, donating more to Democrats in the ratio of 2:1. As David Brooks noted recently, the Republicans have lost the professionals--doctors and lawyers, architects and accountants.

The belligerent delusional ignoramus faction still has the neocons on their side, of course. Bloody Bill Kristol and Rich Lowery are on board for the duration but that's hardly surprising. They're just better educated versions of the belligerent delusional ignoramuses who are calling the shots now, kindred spirits. That's not a plus for the Republicans.

If one thing should be clear to us, it is that a political party run by delusional ignoramuses cannot survive. If that premise is granted, I confess that I can see only two possible futures for the Republican Party as I write today. Either the professionals, the country clubbers, the elitists and the libertarians take advantage of the seismic defeat they're about to suffer as an excuse to stamp out the power of the belligerent delusional ignoramuses, or else the ignoramuses keep control and the Republican Party follows the the Whigs and the Federalists across the bridge to oblivion.

Maybe not. There's a lot more institutional infrastructure holding parties together these days; think tanks and donor networks, PACs and national congressional campaign committees. However, one other lesson of history is that when parties die, it can happen faster than anyone imagined--one election you're electing presidents and two election cycles later, the party doesn't even exist.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/b ... he-e-1.php
I also thought this quote by a commenter was pretty good:

Actually, the "right" have been calling for neoconservatism and social conservatism for years. That is not the party of Teddy and Abe. We need to go back to at Eisenhower to find a true conservative in charge of the republican party.

It is time we returned to our roots and not simply genuflect to the ultra-right cabal that has taken over our party. True conservatism is returning to the republican party for the first time in decades.
followed by this:

The U.S. has an institutional push to have exactly two political parties. Basically, the same things that make it hard to build a third party make it hard to get rid of either of the two you have now.

I think the biggest problem is the fact that your government has two chambers: the House of Representatives and the Senate. When one party controls one, its opponents will push to control the other, and if they are split, they will both fight over the White House to break the tie. This is repeated in every state throughout the country.

Look at the current situation. The Democrats are going to take both the White House and the House of Reps. They may even get 60 seats in the Senate. Anyone who wants to oppose the Democratic agenda has to rally behind the Republicans to stop the Dems from controlling the Senate. If the Republicans split in two, that will be almost impossible.

For the Republicans to break up, each of the various factions within it has to be more afraid of another faction running the Republicans than it is of the Democrats running the country. That's not impossible, but if you assume it will take close to two decades to build a new coalition from scratch, I think they're more likely to stick with what they have.

Even here in Canada it took 13 years (1993-2006) for the Conservatives to build themselves into a (barely) viable governing party. And it's easier here because A) There is only one house of government and B) having more than two political parties allows a small party to hold the balance of power. It won't work in the States because being able to obstruct one chamber will only force the ruling party to use the other one to get things done.
Good stuff that got me thinking today...
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,556 Posts
well, good points and obviously the Republican party has been fractured, really due to dubya in large part, as he was the most fiscally unsound republican President in many years.......i think fiscal responsibility is or at least was the corner stone of the parties values.......that being said, if the democrats and No-bama go on a wild spending spree, even in the name of economic revival or fairness, or whatever the reason may be, you could well see a strong resurgence in conservative policy again, assuming it would rise again in the grand old party........but you never know, as this does seem to be the ripe time for lots of changes.......but nothing ever remains the same, not even in politics.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
6,676 Posts
I disagree they are not that fractured they are all pretty much on the same page unfortunately its the wrong page. They are totally out of touch with their base its going to hurt them.

The dems are just as bad, I seriously doubt the joe six pack Dems support these loonies, unfortunately most of them dont really understand the facts and vote on sound bites off the abcnbc ect. and they are leftist fools.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,710 Posts
There should be a republican party (the true ones), a right wing wacko party, and kick the big spenders over to the darn dems.

Course the dems are pretty much communists anymore, so you can't really say there is a democrat party anymore.

So what we have is the wacko fringes of both parties have taken over, and sooner or later, the "normal americans" will have had enough of it, along with their concubines the media.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
637 Posts
The Republicans will be fine... They're just going to lose a lot of the lock-step control they've enjoyed since '94. There have been a lot of different flavors of "Democrat" for a long time. Getting Democrats to all vote one way is like herding cats. That's where the Republican party is headed. They'll hold together as an opposition party, but don't be surprised if they act more like a coalition of multiple parties than they do one monolithic block of votes.

Some day a third party will gain some traction, but I think it's going to hurt both parties equally, both in the sense that it will probably seek to steal the center, and that all of a sudden you won't have to vote for one or the other to vote against the one with whose platform you disagree.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
6,676 Posts
omegax said:
The Republicans will be fine... They're just going to lose a lot of the lock-step control they've enjoyed since '94. There have been a lot of different flavors of "Democrat" for a long time. Getting Democrats to all vote one way is like herding cats. That's where the Republican party is headed. They'll hold together as an opposition party, but don't be surprised if they act more like a coalition of multiple parties than they do one monolithic block of votes.

Some day a third party will gain some traction, but I think it's going to hurt both parties equally, both in the sense that it will probably seek to steal the center, and that all of a sudden you won't have to vote for one or the other to vote against the one with whose platform you disagree.
I strongly disagree I see that just the opposite with the exception of Liberman.

The Dems vote precisely the same unless they are up for
re-election. The republicans have a large number of Rhinos that routinely vote agaisnt the party Chick hagel, olivia snow ect
 

· Registered
Joined
·
637 Posts
Well, what about Zell Miller? What about all the moderates that the Democrates elected in '06, like Tester, Casey, and Webb (and that's just the Senate seats)? What about the Blue Dogs? There's a lot bigger difference between a Kucinich and a Collin Peterson, than there is between Chuck Hagel and Tom Coburn (who's as fiscally conservative as they come). There's a marked difference between urban and rural Democrats. I just don't see anything that definitive in the Republican party.

NOBODY defied Tom Delay... they didn't call that guy "The Hammer" for no reason. Do you think really think Hoyer wields anywhere NEAR that much power?
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
6,676 Posts
Today, a Democrat is a Liberal and a Republican is a Democrat. Here is the proof. There are about 52 Democrats in the Senate today. They are all Liberals. They hardly ever vote with the Republicans on a Republican issue. There are about 48 Republicans in the Senate today and only 33 are Republicans. The other 15 are Republican Rhinos. Liberals in disguise. Even if there were 55 Republicans in the Senate today and 45 Democrats, 15 Republicans Rhinos would vote with the Democrats for a total of 45+15= 60 to keep a clean conservative bill from obtaining cloture to bring the bill to the floor. The Republicans had a majority in the late 90's and you saw what happened!? They could not pass a bill without all kinds of Liberal spending amendments attached.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
7,740 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Bobm said:
Today, a Democrat is a Liberal and a Republican is a Democrat. Here is the proof. There are about 52 Democrats in the Senate today. They are all Liberals. They hardly ever vote with the Republicans on a Republican issue. There are about 48 Republicans in the Senate today and only 33 are Republicans. The other 15 are Republican Rhinos. Liberals in disguise. Even if there were 55 Republicans in the Senate today and 45 Democrats, 15 Republicans Rhinos would vote with the Democrats for a total of 45+15= 60 to keep a clean conservative bill from obtaining cloture to bring the bill to the floor. The Republicans had a majority in the late 90's and you saw what happened!? They could not pass a bill without all kinds of Liberal spending amendments attached.
Yes but what are RINO's really? I think that is sorta what the article is driving at. There is really an underswelling of support for a 3rd party that refuses to go so hard to the right.

I think given that definition, I'm a RINO. At least I would be if I were elected to office.

I will not support the agenda of the ultra conservatives. I have strong feelings about certain issues that I won't budge on, that definitely don't sit well with the ultra conservative agenda. It seems to me that those folks called rinos are just like me?

So the question becomes, can the Republicans organize and bring the party more moderate and stay that way, or will several fringe radically conservative groups (many religous) insist on imposing their dogma on the Republican Party and continue dividing the party loyalty?

I'm not so sure that Rhinos aren't more mainstream to the minds of many who cal themselves Republicans (the general public), and the ultra conservatives needed to come up with a way to minimalize them, and gave them a name like RINO when they didn't fall in line and vote the party line.

Seems to me like the radical right needs to fall in line and tone down their rhetoric for party unity?

Maybe it is just me..

It doesn't really matter (the whole RINO thing), as the Senate is likely to have 59 or 60 Dems in a few weeks, and there will be enough fence sitting RINO's too that want to see progress in certain areas, that they will easily have a filibuster proof majority anytime they need it.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
637 Posts
We obviously disagree about who's got the bigger tent, but I see that as part of why the Republicans will continue to be just as important. You see Democrats as a big, monolithic voting block, and I bet that's a fairly common opinion. I think the Republicans will always be able to unite as an opposition party, because enough people are worried about being steamrolled by a giant, unified Democratic party.

I don't like partisanship, but I don't know if there's a way around it, when just about the only the thing that unifies members of both parties is a distrust of the opposing party. The partisanship makes solving big problems nearly impossible, so they just keep kicking the can farther down the road.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
6,676 Posts
I do like partisanship and think its necessary and a good thing thats what parties are for and thats the rub the republicans cannot control votes like the Dems.

If you are a member of a party you should support its platform and work to bring it to play, Rinos do not, yet the republicans in a desire to have a majority just once in my lifetime were willing to let the enemy in.

The problem with this conversation is people identify republicans in congress with conservatives ...They are not at this point in history.

The other problem is Democrats in congress are so far left they are running an actaul marxist for President and have two of the most left wing kooks Pelosi and Reid running both houses. The democrats used to have many conservatives in it in fact their adjenda was similar to what the republicans now claim to support but never quite seem to really stand up for when challenged today.

This country craves leadership and we all no matter what side of things we are on politically can see its not available in either current candidate.

The vast majority of the people that vote for Democrats have little in common with the current Dems in power, they just dont understand the real facts about their adjenda because the Dems cannot really be truthful about their adjenda and get elected.

The country leans center right in every legitimate poll. Most Dems are consevative in their lives. Religion, gun, border enforcement ect are all things they would support. the list is long.

The problem is our media is corrupt and very dishonestly biased, and will continue to drive the adjenda, most are socialists, and I believve they don't even know it .

Socialism has failed every time its been tried, yet the socialist communists always like the true zealots they are will continue to claim if they could just tweak it a little more they could make it work.

Nothing that defies human nature ever is successful.
Caitalism has provided a higher standard of living for everyone in any nation it exists, our poor are socialist countries upper middle class. Yet we currently are about to have three unquestionably marxist politicians running this country.

I dont know that the answer is but its going to be a very bad thing for the country if Obama gets elected at least in the short term, probably two years of him Pelosi and Reid will have things so screwed up that it once again swing the other way.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
637 Posts
You can't both expect everybody under the party umbrella to agree 100% of the time and expect to have a viable number of members. The Republican party isn't the same one that nominated Goldwater. They're both farther right socially, and farther left fiscally. Both parties have watered themselves down in order to be able to oppose the other party.

Partisanship is a CANCER. That's what prevents reasoned, middle-of-the-road solutions to complex problems. It's the partisan ideologues that keep it from happening. That results in bad solutions because the problem has gotten to crisis level, and the solution is rash and expensive.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
6,676 Posts
bi-partisanship as defined by Democrats in congress today is a cancer, a one way compromise to rationalize something usaully uncontitutional that we non socialists oppose
 

· Registered
Joined
·
7,740 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
omegax said:
The Republican party isn't the same one that nominated Goldwater. They're both farther right socially, and farther left fiscally. Both parties have watered themselves down in order to be able to oppose the other party.

Partisanship is a CANCER. That's what prevents reasoned, middle-of-the-road solutions to complex problems. It's the partisan ideologues that keep it from happening. That results in bad solutions because the problem has gotten to crisis level, and the solution is rash and expensive.
EXCELLENT point omegamax!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
398 Posts
Small number of tidbits from NBRA, (link source at the end).

The Democratic Party Today
● Democrats are liberals who have been running black communities for the past 40 years with socialist policies that have turned black communities into economic and social wastelands. Black Democrat Juan Williams exposed the deplorable conditions in black communities in his book "Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-end Movements and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America."
● Democrats oppose programs that will help blacks get out of poverty, such as the Faith-based Initiative that would put church-based social programs on an equal footing with secular groups when competing for federal grants. Democrats oppose school choice scholarships that would help black children get out of failing schools. Democrats oppose Social Security reform even though blacks lose $10,000 in the current system because blacks have a five-year shorter life expectancy. Democrats favor same-sex marriage and partial-birth abortion.
The Republican Party Today
● Since the War on Poverty of the 1960's, over $7 trillion has been spent on poverty programs. Under President George W. Bush, record money has been spent on education, job training and health care. Over $1.4 billion has been spent for overall education - a record 137% increase, and $13.1 billion was spent for the No Child Left Behind Act. Bush has also spent $18.8 million for Historically Black Colleges, $24 billion for small business loans and grants, and $10 billion for Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance for the poor. Since 2001,
access to free community health centers has been extended to 2.2 million poor people. In May 2003, Bush provided $15 billion, three times more money than President Bill Clinton, to fight AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean.

● All Americans received tax cuts under Bush's tax cut plan-108 million average families received $2,500. Over 3.8 million more poor people were freed from the tax rolls entirely, and poor blacks received an additional gift of $1,000 per child plus $1,658 per family under the Earned Income Tax Credit program. "Tax cuts for the rich" is a deceptive Democratic Party talking point.

● During Hurricane Katrina, the Democrats running New Orleans and Louisiana failed blacks. Red Cross food was refused by the Mayor, and over 1,000 uses were left in parking lots and became ruined by the flood. The 1878 Posse Comitatus Act prevents a president from sending federal troops to a state without the governor's consent. The Louisiana Governor denied Bush consent for days. Democrats blocked Bush's 2001 energy bill which had $540 million for levee repairs.

● Republicans support school choice scholarships, protecting the sanctity of life and preserving marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Studies show blacks think conservative, but vote liberal.
Amazing ain't it? :wink:
See what the major networks don't want you to know.

This is just a start for more info see:
http://www.nbra.info/
(National Black Republicans Association)

While you are at the site look at the link titled "Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Was a Republican "
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top