Resuscitating the GOP 2: The Brand
by Joseph C. Phillips“And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.” — Mark 3:25
It is both reasonable and fair to ask reformers of the Republican Party – those suggesting that we jettison the right wing and seek the gooey center of American politics — exactly how many of their convictions they are willing to compromise in pursuit of electoral success. It is also fair and reasonable to ask whether the people can truly admire or trust any public servant that is willing to sacrifice their convictions upon the altar of political power.
Party reformers are quick to point to the Democratic Party model that has proved successful, to whit: silencing the far left of their party and supporting centrist or blue dog candidates. Or so they say. The list of pro-life, pro-family, pro-second amendment, Global warming skeptic democrats in party leadership positions is very short indeed.
More significantly, a new liberal by any other name is, well, still a new liberal. The bed-sheets in the white house had barely been changed before the newly empowered party approved new funding for abortions internationally and attempted to hide funding for domestic abortion clinics in the stimulus bill, moved to nationalize banks and auto manufactures, pushed to nationalize healthcare, reversed welfare reform and killed the D.C. school voucher program. Then they had lunch. No. Far from moving to the center — from abandoning their principles — democrats simply lied about what they were up to. In some circles this is called being politically savvy; in others it is more correctly called being dishonest. And there is a reason the left is deceptive about their intentions: they know that if they told the truth they could only get elected in California and certain districts of Caracas.
Conversely the conservative principles of family, faith, personal liberty and entrepreneurship are the very values that resonate with the vast majority of the American people; we need not be fearful of espousing them. Indeed we ought to shout them from the rooftops. But principle is not a brand and it is the Republican brand that is in need of a bit of spit and polish. The party brand has become associated with disingenuousness and weakness, two traits the American people do not suffer lightly (as Democrats will no doubt discover after the honeymoon ends.)
Two recent examples.
In March congressional Republicans lambasted the earmarks in the stimulus bill claiming their Democratic colleagues were not serious about cutting wasteful spending. The furor died down when it was revealed that a full 40% of the earmarks were going to Republicans. It is difficult for voters to take seriously Republican promises to guard the public trough from pork barrel spending when they are sopping their biscuits in the gravy.
Last week the Media reported that the Social Security and Medicare Trust funds will become insolvent much sooner than predicted. Republicans have begun to play “I told you so.” The problem is that 4 years ago when former President George W. Bush attempted to transform Social Security Congressional Republicans retreated from the challenge. Perhaps they were high on the satisfaction of having created a brand new entitlement: prescription drug benefits. It is next to impossible to present oneself as the party of entitlement reform after having created a new entitlement boondoggle and failing to find the political will to reform another.
On the issues people care most about – health care and the health of this economy– the GOP has failed to define the debate and are in danger of being outflanked by the left just as they were outflanked on social issues. Where the party should have credibility it has lost trust and most importantly when it should have been leading it instead decided to follow.
The conversation Republicans ought to be having is one that has nothing to do with party moderates versus conservatives and everything to do with repairing a brand by standing up for those principles that most Americans still believe in.
Joseph C. Phillips is the author of “He Talk Like a White Boy” available wherever books are sold.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
100 Comments
So true Sir. Your insight, as always, is great!
There’s not a dimes worth of difference between the two parties. Washington politicians love to spend our money right and left. Real conservative ideals will sell in this country, 60% of the country in a recent Battleground poll identifies itself as conservative. The brand is easy, “conservatism,” and just like with Reagan the country will follow happily.
It is high time that the conservatives jettison the Republican Party. If third parties don't work, where are the Federalists and the Whigs, just to name two former major parties? If more Arlen Specters want to bolt the party and run to the Democrats, let them. We need a party that stands on its principles and shouts them from the roof top.
I'm with the ANIMAL FARM analogy. Too much corruption in both parties. Though even Rush has spoken against talk of a third party, America may be ripe for one now. And I won't forget that even Republican leaders like Trent Lott spoke out against talk radio after the amnesty bill stuffing. A clear vision is necessary, and it was outrage over the status quo that the GOP was born in 1856. Discussions like these are a great starting place.
First time I've read you here Mr. Phillips, outstanding post. Definite food for thought, thanks.
One quibble though- you wrote:
"Then they had lunch."
This should read- "And then they took your lunch money, and had lunch."
The Hispanic and female vote have to be targeted with an honest alternative to mushy thinking Democrats. Solving that will nail the vote.
The Republicans can come to me, I will not advance any further to the left ,than I already have, party be damned!
AGreed… I'm not one to vote on pulling the life-support plug, but this is one of those cases where we just "let the patient die" and find a non-fruit loop conservative party…
There is nothing wrong with the right's principles, namely a belief in individual rights and limited government. Therefore shifting to the left, as Colin Powell suggests, is both treasonous and unprincipled. More importantly, it would also be a long-term strategic gaff of major proportions.
All these moderates and liberals suggesting that the GOP move to the left assume that the Democratic Party's statist philosophy has won, is permanent, and will always be preferred by a majority of the electorate. This is incorrect. Obama and Co.'s tax and spend, big government, economic interventionist expansion of the federal government will inevitably lead to economic stagnation and inflation as government, by nature opposed to individual initiative, assumes more and more control over the economy.
In a nutshell, the Democrats are now doing to the economy as a whole what they have been doing with AmTrak for thirty years. When the economy implodes, the Democrats and their statist philosophy will go with it. A genuinely fiscal conservative GOP can pick up the pieces, just as Reagan did in 1980. Moving to the left, as Powell suggests, assumes that fiscal conservatism will fail. This assumption is both incorrect and dangerous for the right in particular, and the US as a whole.
I would gladly support a new Conservative Party over the current GOP. The RINOs have done enough damage to the party that the GOP needs a complete rebuild. Given the power of the two major parties, is their any chance that a new party can emerge and survive? Maybe, but it would take years for it to grab any resemblance of power in the federal government. The fact that you can be a GOP backed member and still turn your back on its core principles is the problem. Who decides if you are conservative enough to make the cut? Or a better question…How soft is your underbelly when it comes time to vote? Career politicians will always weigh their re-election options over beliefs when it comes time to vote. Maybe we need term limits to fix the system.
Well said, Mr. Phillips – thoughtful and insightful.
A case can be made for changing the GOP's position on some "social issues", namely abortion and marijuana laws. (Yes, I'm more of a libertarian than a conservative.)
I do not believe that an embryo in the early stages (first trimester) of pregnancy is yet a viable human being, and deserving of full individual rights. Therefore, the decision on whether to carry early pregnancies on is an individual decision resting with the mother. I believe the state has no more right to interfere with her choice than it has to interfere with my right to bear arms, own property, or enter in to private contracts. I likewise believe an individual has the right to use marijuana (although I no longer do so myself), without interference from the state.
For me, changing the GOP's position on these issues is in no way " a move to the left", as they are in keeping with my belief in individual rights and limited government. Adopting the Democrats' postions on "climate change", taxes, the Second Amendment, and the economy, to name a few suggested changes, would be a betrayal of those principles, and disastrous for the US.
I am no more interested in people who say the Right wing should be jettisoned than the ones who say Moderate Republicans should go. The party is flawed and floundering, but still about 1000 times better than the Left. Obama has been in office less than 4 months and the things that have already been done to this country will take a generation or more to undo. People need to come together despite their disagreements on specific issues and stand up against the wholesale changes from the Left. We can fight over what to do once the Republican party is in charge of something again, but until then we're arguing over table scraps, while the Democrats are cleaning out the refrigerator, freezer, cabinets, and running up the credit card to buy new stuff.
There have to be core principles that people agree to that bring us together to form a much larger voting block. It's OK to argue about the little things, but hopefully the mess we have today will convince people that the days of staying home because the candidate only agrees with you 80% of the time are over. The alternative is much, much worse.
Bingo!!
There's no maybe about it.
Term limits now!!
I think the economic future you forsee is a certainty.
The higher-ups in the parties are looking at the demographic shift that happened in the last election, where Hispanic voters have gone from under 5% of the vote to almost 8% of the vote in the last ten years. They are assuming that that voter segment will continue to run around 65% democrat and will continue to increase. The group that did the listening tour (Romney, Jindal, McCain) could care less about any principles. They see being inclusive as the only answer to this demographic shift. The idea of standing by principles and educating the masses that are manipulated by class rhetoric just isin't in their playbook. Unfortunately they represent the big money power structure of the party.
Rambler, I believe you're under one false impression…
When the economy implodes, the Democrats and their statist philosophy will go with it.
The problem is this never happens.. once a "statist" philosophy is in place, it never "creeps out the backdoor".. .It has to be forced out. I cannot think of a single socialist/state govt that has ever changed from socialist to capitalist without some MAJOR upheaval.
Going from capitalistic to socialistic only takes some "moves" here and there… unfortunately, it's easier to tear it apart than to pick up the pieces.
Reagan didn't have to pick up the 'pieces' as much, because Carter wasn't able to move us as far toward a socialist state as Obama has tried to do in 100 days… he saved us from 'becoming' a socialist state.
The Democratic party has been usurped by the extreme left, people who would have felt right at home in the Democratic Socialist party twenty years ago.They would love nothing better than to solidify the the country's so called "shift to the left" by using the Democrat press to force the Republican party into the centrist role, thereby marginalizing and de-powering the right. They accomplished this with McCain, and while the Bushes were more or less social conservatives, they were big spending big government liberals.
If the "moderate" Republicans don't hand over the reins to the true conservatives (and libertarians) the electorate of this country will never get the chance for a clear vote on the issue of freedom vs statism.
I think Hispanics will not be as steady a voting block as African-Americans have been for the Democrats. As Hispanics assimilate, gain wealth, etc. it is possible that conservatism will appeal to them more and more. The female vote seems more troublesome. The phenomena of single-motherhood is tailor-made for Democratic dependency politics.
After witnessing the past 30 years of politics in the US, my keenest observation is that both parties love to spend other people's money…though one party enjoys it more than the other.
The best years over the past 30+ years is when neither party controls the presidency and both houses. During the Carter years, Dems owned both branches, BAD. Reagan years, shared power, GOOD. Clinton, shared power, GOOD. GW Bush, Reps owned both branches, BAD. Obama, Dems own both branches, ????
It is better for normal Americans when our politicians can't get anything accomplished. When Ginrich and the Republican congress forced the federal government into a "services lockdown" because they refused Clinton's budget proposal…that was some of the best times in the history of our country. The last thing we really want is for our government, at the legislative level, to actually work.
Yep, I agree with you. I am done compromising. Every time we do that, we lose. Screw the national and state republican party organizations if they can't bring themselves to represent the people who put them up. Let them fall off the planet and exist in a sorry vacuum.
Welcome to National Socialism, brought to you by an Obama Administration that is focused on gaining and retaining Power, not catering to Democrat Party people. His decisions to date, pragmatic as some might seem, are designed for him to gain additional power and to advance his National Socialist ideals.
In the meantime, Michael Steele thinks it's great that Obama gave him a "shout out" at the Correspondent's Dinner. WOW!
A new Conservative Party is the only solution, but only if we can get 30+ States to stand up and restrain the Federal Government under the auspices of the 10th Amendment. If not, all may be lost before any reorganization can be completed.
You are missing the most obvious issue with the female vote. Emotion. While I will be awaiting charges of sexism the simple facts are women by in large think more emotionally than logically and as such the soaring rhetoric of; "fair", "for the children", and "equality" ,all though completely hollow terms with no real meaning reasonate with the female voters. Whereas the cold logic of Conservatism has little emotional appeal, what female vote we do carry is on the "family values" issue but family values scarcely register with the younger female demographic (most of whom are from divorced homes like so many of us) So this is a divide that will only grow over time unless we increase our cultural presence and at least appeal to the "trendy" portion of the emotional spectrum which is where we are getting are butts kicked now.
Herein lies the case for a third party, not even a third party why don't we try something new and try voting for each individual candidate based on their stance on issues rather than voting for a party. I'd love to see a Congress full of independents. I always say the symbol for both parties should be a butcher since we've been following them like sheep to the slaughter for generations.
Amen. Power held is never willing relinquished. This is why we still pay so many obsolete WW1 and WW2 era "temporary taxes". No opiate is more addictive than other people's money and right now Democrats are spending like a 15 year old with daddy's American Express, no election will overturn what they've put into motion. We will need an overhaul or a leader with a pair of brass ones and the full backing of the people to overturn this.
I don't believe Nancy Pelosi is a viable human being but it would still be wrong to simply terminate her because she is inconvenient. The protection of life cannot be jettisoned and this is coming from a fellow Libertarian, however the argument must be articulated from a logical and scientific standpoint not an emotional standpoint.
I pose to everyone a simple question; when is the last time you voted for someone? To clarify I don't mean simply voted against the other candidate, I mean said "I believe in this person" and voted for them without feeling like you needed a shower afterwards. I for one never have had that pleasure.
While I'm in general agreement concerning drug laws, I have to take sever umbrage at your opinion on Abortion, for two reasons.
The first is that, if you don't define a preborn baby in the first three months of pregnancy as a "viable human" when do you define it? How do you define "viable?" When it is born? When it can live with medical aid outside the womb? When it can take care of itself (which would be around the age of… oh eight or so)?
Second: under what part of the Constitution do you define this "Right?" A "Right to Privacy?" Such a right is not been defined in the US Constitution, though it has been read into it. The problem even using that is twofold anymore. The first, it presumes that a preborn baby is Private Property… in clear violation of the 13th and 14th Amendments. I also have to point out that unless you define a fetus as a "parasite" you cannot in good scientific faith call it part of the mother, as it has both separate DNA and separate bodily functions. Biologically it is dependent on the mother, but if independence of a mother is required for personhood, you potentially deny personhood to children up to the age of 5, and farther for the mentally ill.
Further, the Republican Party is more focused on the idea of overturning Roe v Wade, which is not the same thing as outlawing abortion. Roe v Wade was a decision that made it so that abortion was a Constitutionally protected right, and removed the ability for each individual state to determine its own laws (thereby usurping the 10th Amendment). If Roe v Wade was overturned, you'd not see all abortion in the country suddenly disappear, rather, it would be once again up to the States and localities to regulate and decide for themselves. As a conservative libertarian I have to say the appeal of removing an issue from the Federal Government and giving it back to the States so that Individuals and States can determine the issue for themselves has great appeal to me, and is both the right thing to do Constitutionally and morally.
This article finally says what I've saying for months. The Democrat party has gone hard left and appealed to it's hardcore left base and Democrats spent the last 8 years undermining Bush at everyt urn and unleashed the liberal media attack dogs. This is how they won not by going more to the center. As Rush has said it's time to try being nice to them it never got us anywhere.
2008 – I voted for Palin.. I just had to accept the baggage that came with her on the ticket….
WeaponX, my hat is off to you. I had started to post about the appeal to emotion that females seem to buy into, but I decided not to take the heat.
Joseph, I agree with you politically, but………"the conservative principles of family, faith, personal liberty and entrepreneurship" are no longer the values of America. The new values are laziness, willingness to have jobs sent overseas so they can save three cents at Wal-Mart, and selfishness.
you are right, that divide has every chance of growing over time. I'm a logical type, and am extra resistant to what is sold to me for emotional reasons, even though I am female. but developing a spine is hard work. I don't see the right succeeding until more spines are grown in America.
Obama & Biden raised the American flag one day recently at the white house. Biden said to Barak " sir you have the flag up side down. " Oh yeah " said Obama and fliped it 180 degrees. The fag flew upside down that day. Kinda like what they are doing to the country.
I voted for Scott Walker for Milwaukee County Executive in 2002 and 2004. He has managed to keep a lid on the spending in Milwaukee County, and he is a conservative. When the time came for him to run as governor for the state of WI, he got brushed aside for a moderate Republican who lost to a true liberal. He will try for governor again in 2010, but the GOP is not backing him. When will they learn?
I voted for Palin. I couldn't stomach McCain then or now. He was and is a traitor to conservatism. But last year I voted with my whole heart for Palin. It's been a long time since I did that. A long time.
"It is difficult for voters to take seriously Republican promises to guard the public trough from pork barrel spending when they are sopping their biscuits in the gravy.
That is an awesome quote. Unfortunately, the Listening Tour won't listen to it. Oh, man, this Republican Party has lost its way. And me.
A collection of cells in the first trimester lacks the ability to reason, feel, and live in its own in any capacity. This differentiates it from a fetus in the third trimester. What is so special about the moment of conception–why not push the "right to life" back from there, and argue tha every sperm and egg has rights, and anyone who doesn't respect them is a a "baby-killer"?
I did not invoke the "right to privacy" cited in Roe v. Wade. An embryo in the first trimester lacks the ability to feel pain or reason in any way; therefore it is not yet a human being. Instead, it is a collection of cells entirely dependent upon the woman carrying it, and until that fetus demonstrates real viability, emotion, and reasoning ability it is up to the woman what she wishes to do with it. Interfering with that right is an infringement on individual liberty no different than socialized medicine, gun control laws, or McCain-Feingold.
I agree with you (however reluctantly) on marijuana and drug laws. I cannot agree with you on abortion, nor would I support any Republican platform that would advance that agenda. You have reached a conclusion about viability that I disagree with, but that's not the point. Roe v Wade usurped the authority of the states to make that decision. Without the states to control abortion laws, and adopt legislation consistent with the views of the public, we are only left with one court-imposed national standard, based on one other "privacy" case and no constitutional authority other than umbras, penumbras and emanations.
Ignoring the power-grab by the Supreme Court and the attendant moral implications, that "cast-in-concrete" decision has long ago turned out to be bad science. Viability comes at an earlier stage than the end of the first trimester, and as science advances, it continues to get earlier. The electorate cannot respond to new science and improved medical techniques when a Supreme Court decision stands in the way. If the populace of a state chooses solely on moral ground that abortion in whole or in part should be restricted, it doesn't matter if seventy percent of the state's people want that to be the law. Roe v Wade and a Supreme Court that ignores the clear intent of the Constitution stand in the way. The states and their people should be making this decision, not nine unelected judges who have jobs for life, and five of whom cannot even read the Constitution. I am in total agreement with Peregry on this issue. The Republican Party needs to wake up and recognize that "federal" doesn't mean "national."
"A collection of cells in the first trimester lacks the ability to reason, feel, and live in its own in any capacity."
Seems to adequately define Obama, outside of the "first trimester" bit.
More seriously, you ask what's so special about the moment of conception. Well, that just *IS* when a new human being is formed. If we take your language, we are *ALWAYS* "a collection of cells."
An unborn human is simply a human being in the fetal state. That's all.
Furthermore, you say that it is the ability to reason and feel pain that makes us human. In which case, you are arguing that the smarter someone is, the more human rights that person has. This is unequivocal. If you say intelligence = humanity, then more intelligence = more humanity.
The fact is that our human rights come from our human *BEING* (ontology) and not because of our size, location, age, level of development, mental acuity, or any other ad hoc definition you want to present. You argument dies the death of a thousand qualifications as soon as you try to implement it.
> > > "Furthermore, you say that it is the ability to reason and feel pain that makes us human. In which case, you are arguing that the smarter someone is, the more human rights that person has. This is unequivocal. If you say intelligence = humanity, then more intelligence = more humanity." < < <
Frighteningly, that is exactly the position that some leading medical ethicists take. They believe in eugenics under a different rubric. As for Singer, and the animal rights bozos, a smart pig has more "humanity" than a Downs Syndrome child.
> > > "An unborn human is simply a human being in the fetal state. That's all." < < < It couldn't be said any better. I should add that the "fetus doesn't feel pain or emotion" trope has been discredited for years. Early term babies in the womb react to stimuli by curling up further when in pain, and uncurl measurably when mom sings or talks to them. Whether that occurs in the first trimester is not entirely clear, but it occurs long before the time Midnight Rambler is suggesting. And there's enough scientific and anecdotal evidence that it does occur in the first trimester that the states should be allowed to make that decision. I'm not an anti-abortion purist, but I come darn close. If "life begins at conception" becomes the majority view, you won't get any complaints from me.
The invocation of state's rights regarding first-trimester abortion is a giant red herring, and of no relevance. By that logic, the right to bear arms should likewise be left up to the states, including Massachusetts and California, to define as they see fit. If those states choose to trample on the rights of law-abiding citizens under such a proposal, it violates the rights set forth in the Second Amendment. State's rights do not extend that far; the Tenth Amendment does not supersede the others.
I do not, and cannot, accept the position that human life is viable at the moment of conception, as there is a huge difference between a ball of cells and a baby. Therefore I will not embrace using the power of any government, be it municipal, county, state, or federal, to intrude on the rights of viable human beings (women, in this case) and what they may do with their own bodies.
Liberals use the idea of a "living breathing constitution" to ignore the parts they don't like, such as the First, Second, and Tenth Amendments. Here, I see people who claim to be individualists using the Tenth Amendment to impose their views on others. If a united, re-built, and pure Republican Party means a GOP that ignores individual rights, I may have to re-think my distaste for the Libertarian Party, namely their extremism on drug laws and head-in-the-sand foreign policy.
2006 – Virginia Senate Race: Former Governor and Senator George Allen.
We saw what the media did to him.
What is so special about a zygote at the moment of conception? What is the difference between that zygote, and the sperm and egg it consisted of moments before? Every sperm that dies in a young boy's Kleenex is, by your logic, a potential human being; shall we try them all for genocide? Is it the number of chromosomes? If so, then do people with Down's Syndrome not qualify?
I am not saying "more intelligent = more humanity." The ability to reason is not tied to any IQ score. A fetus in the third trimester has the ability to react to its surroundings, to feel; a first-trimester embryo does not. That is a huge difference that you seem unwilling or unable to address.
This is my new signature for all posts relating to the abortion issue: if a united and pure Republican Party means a GOP that tramples on individual rights on issues like abortion, I may have to re-think my distaste for the Libertarian Party, namely their extremism on drug issues and their head-in-the-sand foreign policy.
This isn't about state's right in the first trimester, it's about the Supreme Court finding something that doesn't exist in the Constitution or any of the founding documents, ignoring what is in the Constitution, and creating a "right to choose" out of whole cloth.. Where does the Constitution say anything about "right to choose, right to privacy" or any other right as defined by the Constitution concerning abortion (Don't cite the Fourth Amendment, it has nothing to do with this, and the Court didn't use it. The majority simply built a new right bootstrapped on top of Griswold v Connecticut). The Supreme Court used the incorporation doctrine to apply a non-existent right by utilizing the Fourteenth Amendment to bar the states from doing something they had every right to do pursuant to the Tenth Amendment.
Your red herring argument fails completely, as does your example. The Second Amendment is not only in the Constitution, but in the Bill of Rights as well. The incorporation doctrine, for good or ill, was designed to apply to the states, via the Fourteenth Amendment, the rights specifically spelled out by the Founders as "basic rights" (the First Ten Amendments–including the Tenth). It took the current Supreme Court a long time to figure that out, but they finally did.
Joseph, I've been hard on you in the past, but I am in total agreement with this. The first thing we conservatives must do before we can 'take back our country'…is to take back our party! It has been hijacked by waffling, cant-we-get-along, moderate quasi liberal Republicans (like Bush, McCain, and Powell), and true conservative principles have been thrown under the bus for political expediency. I say we clean house in 2010. My thoughts on the Capitol Building — FLIP THIS HOUSE!
Your defense of women's rights is admirable. Nevertheless, your argument about the "right" to abort a baby is your opinion bolstered, strongly, by a Supreme Court decision for now. That could, and I believe should change. You use the argument of "viability" as if it is a fact that cannot be be equally applied to the baby. Theologically, the Catholic Church says that life begins at conception. I am a Protestant who believes it begins at the quickening (a term as scientifically logical as viability), something which occurs very early in the pregnancy. You believe at some point life begins after the baby is no longer merely a mass of cells, and can do advance calculus. Others believe it begins somewhere between the date of conception and the date of partial birth. Those are all opinions, not fact. And not one of them, standing by itself can justify the Supreme Court decision to make abortion a foundational right to be protected by the opinion of five gray eminences and enforced on the states. I feel as strongly about the right of the unborn child to live as you do about the right of women to have abortions, but declaring women "viable" while defining unborn babies as "not viable" serves no logical purpose, and elides the underlying constitutional argument.
It is your opinion that abortion is an individual right. But your utter contempt for any argument that defines a first or second trimester baby as a human being indicates to me that you may very well need to join the Libertarians, or possibly the Anarchists. You may be surprised to find that several libertarians who post on this site have expressed their distress with the prevailing legal view of abortion. Your question about the zygote versus the sperm and egg it consisted of moments before is precisely what the entire abortion debate is about. Why should we believe that five justices of the Supreme Court are better qualified to resolve that debate than you, I and a host of others with multiple different viewpoints? So if you believe that protecting the life of the unborn is too extreme, you probably are in the wrong party.
WeaponX, you're talking sense! I couldn't agree more, although in practice it's hard to do. Parties exist precisely because we can't know all the candidates personally. We need someone to vouch for them–to vouch that they share our same principles, are trustworthy, etc.
The problem we've run into over the last fifteen years or so is that we can't trust the Republican Party to tell us the truth and provide candidates who represent us. That's why I switched to the Constitution Party: for truth in advertising. But since the CP is able to field very few candidates at this point, I end up having to pick and choose from other parties (including Independents) for most things anyway.
I think we're basically replaying the '70s right now. We've had a Nixonian, big-government "conservative" in charge who has sunk the country into an economic and moral malaise with his policies (although not his personal behavior). The country has reacted by electing a Carter-like lefty with a big smile whose answer has been to further collectivize the economy and side with our foreign enemies against us at every turn–as much as he can get away with, anyhow. Consequently, I look for the next election to be a replay of the 1980 election, with the Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party attempting to run some dull, Andersonian moderate, while the authentic, hard-charging conservatives try to capture the nomination with a charismatic, principled, Reaganesque leader.
The question is, is there one of those out there and who is he/she? If we can find him/her in time, the election will be ours for the taking.
I agree that the chances of seriously rolling back the socialist state are remote at best, but I think there's definitely going to be a very stiff reaction against leftist politics, just as there was in 1980.
That would all be wonderful if "viability" were the measure of a thing's nature, but it's not. The nature of a developing thing is determined by what it develops into in maturity. An acorn is not a tree, but once germination begins and it begins to develop, it is a tree. We call young trees "shoots," and then "saplings," but no one short of a willfully blind ideologue would argue that it is not, in its nature, always a tree.
Similarly, a bird developing in its shell is, by nature, a bird. It possesses a principle of growth within itself which is not being supplied by the mother, as is evidenced by the fact that the bird is completely isolated from the mother in its shell. This principle we generally call "life." (We can also do enough damage to the developing bird at an even earlier stage and kill it in the womb without altering the mother in any way; another proof that the life is independent of the mother). While the bird is in its shell, it requires only warmth from without in order to continue developing. But even a bird outside the shell requires some warmth in order to survive. Are you of the opinion that a toucan left exposed in Antarctica is not a bird because it can't survive the cold there? Then why deny it "birdness" while it's within the egg, and by extension, why deny the human child its humanity simply because it cannot survive completely on its own? (Even a born baby can't survive by itself, by the way.)
Finally, the logic of "viability" as the basis for nature requires you to euthanize–or at least tolerate the euthanization of–idiots, old people, severe burn victims, deformed people, etc. In short, all those who fall short of your ideal: the ability to feel, reason, and live on one's own. None of these people are human, according to your own testimony, nor would you be if I chopped off your arms and legs and left you to flail about helplessly on the floor.
Frankly, you need to rethink a lot of things, Rambler. All the Tenth Amendment does is explicitly reserve rights to the states and the people in their states. No one except a majority of the people can use the Tenth to impose their views on others. But that's no different than at the federal level, other than the number of people affected. So what's your beef? That's exactly what the Founders intended: that the people in their states be able to live under laws pleasing to them, according to the principle of majority rule.
I'm guessing that your problem is with the idea of majority rule. If so, then yes, you belong in the other party, the party of minority rule and government by judicial fiat.
Conservatives have wasted their time supporting the Republican Party for too long. It is no different then the idiocy of blacks always voting for the Democrat Party. If the Republican Party does not repent and once again embrace conservative principles it will eventually become extinct (and good riddance to it). When I think of the lost opportunities that are a result of the inaction of this emasculated group of Republicans it infuriates me.
We need to replace every single incumbent for the next three election cycles. If the electorate would throw out the entrenched career politicians a lot of what ails this country would go with them. Whether DEmocrat or Republican we need to throw them all out.
The difference, scientifically, between a zygote and the egg and sperm from which it came is twofold:
1. Left to nature, barring no outside intervention, a zygote WILL develop and be born as a human being.
2. A sperm and an egg only contain half the DNA necessary for a human being to exist, a zygote contains all the necessary DNA.
This is High School Biology, it's not complicated. And here's the rub: you're claiming it's an Individual Right to do something to their own body. Once again, I must point out that biologically speaking, a zygote is no more part of a mother than you are. All things that are a biological part of a human body have the same, unique, DNA code. A zygote, by very definition of sexual reproduction, has a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT code.
That's why your little strawman of "why not consider eggs and sperm the same way" doesn't hold water, because scientifically, they are completely different things.
The fundamental problem you have is you simply do not define a preborn baby as a "Person." We do. Because of that, we see abortion as abridging a Right: The Right to Life as outlined in the Declaration of Independence, the 5th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.
You're absolutely right, Abortion is an Individual Rights issue: that of the preborn child.
Here's where you're wrong: we're not "interpreting" the Constitution to do something that's not covered by it.
Before Roe V Wade, abortion was an issue decided on a State by State basis. This was obvious under the 10th Amendment, as the issue was not one that any part of Congressional Powers as outlined in Article 1 Section 8, nor was it an issue that clearly comes from any of the Amendments. Because of a false claim by Norma McCorvey pushed by Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee, a challenge to the Texas abortion law (which prohibited all abortions for any reasons, which was one of the few states that still had such a broad reaching law) was pushed up to the Supreme Court. When it was decided, it overturned all Federal and States laws restricting abortion, thereby foisting a position clearly held by the minority onto the majority and took the ability of States and Individuals to determine the issue by themselves.
The desire to overturn Roe is not the same as imposing views on others. That's what Roe does. Overturning Roe would again allow Individuals and States to decide the issue for themselves. Would that result in abortions being banned in many states? Yes. Some states even have sunset laws that would trigger if Roe was ever overturned. But those laws could be changed, and other states would maintain open abortion laws. People would gravitate to states that support their ideas on the issue. This is how the Dual Federal system we have is suppose to operate. The States are meant to be able to have different laws and different standards, each being their own experiments so that successful ideas can be implemented by other states, and unsuccessful ones can be discarded.
Welcome to the world's only Constitutional Federal Democratic Republic, have a nice day.
"Even" Rush…? omg!!
Rush ain't nothing. The Republicans can survive if only they could give the boot to the far right.
Mr. Phillips, you are right on the money. The issue is not so much ideology as much as it is just getting rid of the pork.
It's disturbing to read so many above talking Third Party. That's a bit premature, and awfully naive. The sad reality is that any viable and electable political party will have to rely on consensus, as much as the purists among us hate the very word.
Keep Franklin's words in mind: "We must all hang together, or we shall surely all hang separately."
I have looked at some of the posts here, and am quite disturbed by some of the attitudes exhibited in them. Some people think that Conservatism will simply sell itself, and that a new Reagan will appear out of nowhere. If one decides to dump the Republican Party, what is the alternative to it? Conservative ideas need to appeal to a mass audience and offer that audience something. Endless debates about flat tax schemes and death taxes do not concern most of the general public, and would not benefit them. Flat tax schemes ,as proposed would raise taxes for the working poor and middle classes substantially through the elimination of various deductions and credits, including the home mortgage deduction and the earned income tax credit. Why would anyone, aside from a small wealthy elite, support such proposals?
Also, the concern over estate taxes, which only effects estates valued at over $3.5 million, is not a very populist or interesting concern to the vast majority of the public. Reducing payroll taxes, allowing the deduction of interest on all credit obligations(autos, credit cards, etc), forbidding the taxation of unemployment benefits, and other such things would attract more of a general audience. This is how to reconnect with the general public and gain a hearing again. Let Reagan rest in peace. That old coalition is now dead, and a new one has to be built up from scratch. This is not a matter of moving to the left, but of actually addressing the concerns and fears of the public in a constructive way. Economic insecurity, illegal immigration, outsourcing, are issues that should be taken up by Republicans or conservatives. Chamber of Commerce Speak and Libertarian nostrums will not satisfy anyone, much less persuade them to vote for Republicans. Social conservatives, unless it is election time, are generally given short shrift, and this has gradually damped their enthusiasm for Republican candidates.
Gay Marriage is not even on the radar screen anymore, even though it is advancing across the country like wildfire through the courts and more ominously through two legislatures. Has there been any discussion about the social implications of this trend? Will marriage, as we have known it, become effectively dead? What of the next step from the left? Willl we see polygamy come to the fore, which would obviously garner a lot of support from Moslems and some Mormons. What is to be done?
Another great post.
As a Republican I am not one to pile on my own Party but the truth in your writing cannot be denied. For me it is and always will be about the principle. If the Party will not speak or stand for conservative principles than why vote for them? I will just be waiting for the Party or the people to finally wake up. Thanks for being the voice in the wilderness Mr. Phillips, looking forward to your next post.
Great post. Obama was elected soley on his image and his marketing. His greatest asset is that the majority of the people who supported him have no idea what he really stands for and they have no interest in finding our or staying informed. The Republicans need to find similar candidates that are attractive and articulate. It is sad to say, but elections are not won on convictions alone. Just think of all the 14 year olds today being bombarded by all the "marketing of Obama"…mainly compliments of the media. When the next presidential election is here, guess who all the first time voters are going to support? They will throw their support behind Obama…not on the issues, but on the fact that it is the cool thing to do.
We need three parties and have for a long time: Conservative, Rockefeller Republican and Democrat/Socialist.
What's been happening is middle of the road voters who support fiscal responsibility, national defense, strong borders but who are not so willing to support what they see as social interference with people's life styles, segue back and forth, this time voting for a Dem that time voting for a Repub trying to find the center. It worked for awhile, Reagan and perhaps Clinton (soft on Nat. Security), however, under under Bush with a GOP House and Senate, the Republicans destroyed their credibility on fiscal responsibility and the propaganda media destroyed Bush when he tried to keep us from having another 9-11 attack (courtesy of eight years of insipid foreign policy by the Clinton Administration). There is a reason Ross Perot (little nutbag that he was) got nearly 20% of the vote in 1992.
In 1852, there was no Republican Party — the Whigs had sent two or three presidents to the WH. By 1856, the Whigs were nearly non-existent, having to join two other small parties (no-nothings and I forgot the other one) and the new Republicans came in second to the Democrats. By 1860, the Whigs were gone and the Republicans had the presidency at which time the South seceded. They say history repeats itself.
Premature? I quit the Republican Party several years ago, and, I'm happy to say, I voted for W. neither time he ran. He's on you guys. I voted for a true conservative in both elections. I also am proud to say I bypassed McCain in the last election for, again, an actual conservative.
Naive? I think not. I understand very well that you people who think you can outwit the devil are not going to vote for the candidate who best represents you because you think you'd rather get half a loaf than no loaf at all. The problem has to do with the other half of your loaf. You always end up taking us as well as yourselves down the same road to Hell, only just a little slower. If you guys would quit playing your naive and foolish game, there's a real chance we could actually turn the ship around and start heading back in the other direction.
But you won't because you're too smart for that. Right?
Joseph, I'd just like to point out to you that a picture of a divided house standing probably isn't the best illustration of your point…
[...] Jeff Anglo – “Memo to GOP: Stop Running Angry Nerds” Joseph Phillips takes on the argument that the GOP needs to lean more left in order to win votes. His point is well-taken, given that [...]
Outstanding article! It's too bad there is no way to force feed our elected officials with the ideas presented here. Collectively, there doesn't seem to be enough spine in the group to stand up and front the ideals we believe in. Frankly, I don't believe a third party would cure anything. It would just create more of the same old, same old.
Today the GOP's Michael Steele is supposedly going to give a big speech on the direction of the party.
Keeping with that theme…I've got a few things I'd like Mr Steele (and those who care to read this) to know about me, your average conservative who's still registered "Republican", but has given serious thought in the last couple of years to changing party affiliation…
To put it simply – I'm tired of the litmus tests. The numerous "factions" within the party have gotten so backed up into their own corners, I don't think they see it. But, not to worry,…I'll explain. I'll only touch on the two "wings" of the GOP that I think need to hear what I have to say.
I like you analogy between the two eras. I hope you are right. One thing that is different is the structure of the primaries. They've made it more difficult for an outsider to win. They've compressed the time frame so you need to have a loaded campaign chest and spend early or you'rer out. By them I mean the RNC leadership, they want to control who the candidate is. Which is why they are pushing JIndal down our throats. They think "Indian" is cutting edge. (Nothing against Jindal).
The other big dfference would be Obama's blackness. The black female demographic was actually the highest voting % in the last election (and that is unheard of). Higher than white males. Obama will have a core voting block that will not desert him. White people can lose money/jobs/homes/wars until the horns blow and he will get the black vote. Carter didnt have that luxury.
I question whether the deomcrats can ever run a white male for presdient again.
The so-called "social conservatives" – staunch Republicans and faithful to the end. They are an asset to the party, no question about it. But, when they demand that fellow Repubs and candidates adhere exactly, without question, to what they feel are the most important issues of our time (religion, abortion, same-sex marriage, values), they are basically admitting that they want a party of think-alike "bots". Well – time to wake up kiddies…It's never been that way, and is never going to be that way. For example, for a fellow Republican to insinuate that I am not "Christian enough" because I didn't find Mike Huckabee a politically viable candidate for the GOP ticket,…Well, that's the kind of thing I'm talking about. This crap has to end, or the party will never come together again.
The so-called "moderates" – They too can be an asset to the party, because (at least every now and then) they find something worthy about conservatism that they like, and they vote for the GOP candidate. But, they lack gumption…backbone…and determination to stick to a solid set of political beliefs. These folks tend to tell the rest of us that we're too "stiff" – we're too "rigid" – and that there never seems to be room for a "middle-ground". They probably have a point, but, here's the thing….EITHER YOU'RE PRO CORE CONSERVATIVE IDEALS, OR YOU'RE NOT. It's that simple. One does not advance conservatism, or the GOP, by embracing the ideals and stances of your political opposition, all in the name of getting more members into the party. Lower taxes, less government, more individual freedom…Those have been core political ideals within the party, and to suggest that it's ok to "waffle" on those things and still be a conservative Republican…is simply wrong. Make up your minds. Ante up, or cash out.
Most of all – I'm sick of of a few key things that I must now detail:
*Being told that being conservative means you must also behave a certain way, when it comes to religion. The last time I checked, there was this thing called "freedom OF religion" in this country, and it is MY choice as to whether I wear a cross around my neck or not. It is MY choice as to whether I speak 24/7 about my religious beliefs, or not. It is MY choice as to how I use my religious beliefs to gauge potential political candidates…or not. Being politically conservative means alot of things, but I'm tired of being told that being politically conservative comes with a mandatory list of religious methodology that one must follow, if they are to be accepted as "conservative" or "Christian enough" to even be considered "conservative". To suggest that a person must believe a certain way when it comes to religion, all because they are politically conservative…Isn't smart. This is where that "individual freedom" comes in. Respect it, or it will eventually become an albatross around your neck.
*Being told that I'm a "jew lover", and don't love my own country, because I believe we must maintain our alliance with Israel. The people who say things like this need a swift kick in the ass, as far as I'm concerned. Take a look at the middle east, and name for me all the countries we can call "ally". And don't give me the "U.S.S. Liberty"/"Powerful Jew Lobby" BS. There are other countries besides Israel who've done as much, or more, and I find it funny we never hear you people standing up and crying about that when it happens. It's always all about Israel and the Jews and how horrible they are. Geez people, get a life…and put down the copy of "Mein Kampf".
*Being told that I must "give a little" when it comes to core conservative ideals. No, I don't have to "give a little"! I don't find that embracing the political opposition's ideals or stances does anything to further the conservative movement or cause. It only makes things politically "murky" and indistinguishable. That creates confusion, and we have enough of that already. Pardon me for having a backbone and sticking to those core ideals. I don't plan on waivering on those things, ever, and if it means that I re-register as "Libertarian" or "Independent", then so be it. My advice to these folks – educate yourself on what conservatism TRULY is, and go from there. Start fresh, because you're thinking as been muddied by a liberal media hell-bent on brainwashing you.
In the end,….Individualism seems to have flown out the window within the GOP. They seem not to respect the fact that PEOPLE are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights….Not "political parties" are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights".
My advice to the party as a whole? Decide whether you still believe in the core conservative ideals (lower taxes, less government, more individual freedom).
If you do, make those things the only litmus test that matters, because in the end, those things that most so-called "moderates" want to be flexible on and the things that most so-called "social conservatives" believe are more important would ALL fall under the "individual freedom" category. In my book, that's how it should be.
Well put, conservatism means freedom to me as well, which encompasses small govt., lower taxes, etc.
There is another wonderful benefit the democrats have the republicans never will. They own the MSM. It's not that the democrats are better at hiding their lunatic fringe, they don't, they leave that up to the MSM. When was the last time you saw Queers For Palestine on the CBS evening news? And they also get the benefit of the MSM highlighting – and out right lying – about the republican fringe, which isn't all the fringe. For evidence, count the number of Tea Bag jokes that were accepted as thoughtful, insightful analysis.
I don't see that changing in my life time, unless the new alternative media can continue to highlight the bias and propaganda enough to bring the MSM to its knees. At this point its hard to be exactly sure if it's political bias or sheer incompetency that's bringing the NY Times and Boston Globe down.
Whoa whoa whoa – first in an earlier post you say you dont invoke states rights and right to privacy and then in this post you want to make a stand for a woman's right to privacy for her own body (as a woman Im insulted by that – I dont need some governmental bureaucracy to stand up and say no when I have the perfect ability to do so on my own…and I know what "no" means…whereas a governmental body does not, apparently)…
make up your mind. The conservative position finds the passage of Roe V. Wade to be an obtuse violation of the Constitution and it WAS about establishing a right to 'privacy' where no right had been spelled out before in the Constitution. I despise the judicial activism that has attempted to rewrite the Constitution and used women and unborn babies to do so. That alone is enough for me to reject any argument for abortion.
By the way – Roe V Wade is used as a 'right to privacy' by adoption agencies to 'protect' the 'right to privacy' by the natural mother, even though no law ever promises 'protection' and no natural mother is guaranteed, legally or financially a right to privacy. Adoption agencies use it to separate the child from the mother and prevent the child from claiming their Original Birth Certificate – one more reason for me, an adoptee, to wish to see Roe v. Wade struck down.
By the way – Roe V Wade is used as a 'right to privacy' by adoption agencies to 'protect' the 'right to privacy' by the natural mother, even though no law ever promises 'protection' and no natural mother is guaranteed, legally or financially a right to privacy. Adoption agencies use it to separate the child from the mother and prevent the child from claiming their Original Birth Certificate – one more reason for me, an adoptee, to wish to see Roe v. Wade struck down.
M.R. said: "What is so special about a zygote at the moment of conception?"
What is so special about you now? Anyone can make arbitrary cut-off points. The difference between zygotes and sperm and eggs has already been addressed, so I will merely add that your inability to distinguish the difference is itself quite telling. Let's just say that I wouldn't copy my biology homework off your paper.
You said: "I am not saying 'more intelligent = more humanity.'"
I know you don't say that, but that's what your position boils down to. I can't help it if you don't hold to the logical implications of your own beliefs; but I'm not going to let your inconsistency in application stand as evidence that your position is reasonable.
You said: "That is a huge difference that you seem unwilling or unable to address."
So if I knock you out with anesthetic, you no longer feel pain nor do you react to stimuli, so I can therefore kill you with impunity. Good job, Sherlock.
Even if I granted you that there was a difference in feeling and reaction for the 1st trimester unborn human being, you have not argued why such a difference would be meaningful. I already pointed out that human rights don't depend on age, location, level of development, IQ, etc. They depend on human ontology. What's your argument?
And if you feel the need to trample on the individual right of the unborn, then feel free to get the hell out of my party. I'm not stopping you.
Yep….Freedom.
And I think many in the GOP leadership have taken to believing (for the past decade or so) that being conservative means having the latest greatest answer to "current issues". It doesn't, because in the end, conservatism itself (and the freedom that comes with it) can be applied to just about any "current issue" out there.
It's not about catchy phrases and issue stances…it's about articulating conservatism and doing it well.
This post has been featured at THEWEEK.com as Best Opinion > http://www.theweek.com/article/index/96698/Gallup...
"The problem is that 4 years ago when former President George W. Bush attempted to transform Social Security Congressional Republicans retreated from the challenge."
Yes, they won as long as they followed Bush´s lead. People forget.
Wrong. In political terms, wanting to improve the GOP image it would be much more logical as well as popular to remain consistent on abortion and be more lenient on illegal immigration instead (that is, do away with the deportation talk and accept regularization and a path to citizenship in exchange for border security). Both policies, naively spoken, would come across as pro-humans and non-evil. They also happen to be mainstream positions.
Every day someone advises the GOP to go soft on abortion. Why is it so damn important to them? Abortion is not that popular; it is also available right now. I say that is bad advice.
We should not overthink it. There are the problems you and WeaponX mentioned, but these are not monolithic groups and you don´t need outright majorities everywhere. Bush got 44 % of the hispanic vote, McCain got 31 %. That can make the difference between winning a state and losing it.
We must appeal to those slices who share some of our values. Those who care about education, health care, jobs, social security, energy, family values – plenty of issues. Too many Republicans have accepted the liberal premise that conservative ideas are bad for minorities. They are not confident enough to talk to them about conservative solutions. The right ignores them, the squishes pander. That cannot work.
You´re making the same mistake. Don´t wait until Hispanics assimilate and gain wealth. They didn´t get poorer between 2004 and 2008, they were both seduced and repulsed.
You, as an individual, have the right to do as you wish with your own body. You do not have the right to tell other individuals what to do with theirs.
No. A collection of cells lacking the ability to think and feel is not a human being, anymore than the steak and salad a pregnant woman eats is a human being, simply because it has the potential to contribute to the cells that will become a human.
No. Until you prove that all embryos, from the moment of conception, are human beings deserving full human rights, the decision on what to do with that embryo rests solely with the woman carrying it. All constitutional objections are moot.
You feel differently, and I am not going to convince you otherwise, anymore than any amount of legalisms is going to convince me that a mindless collection of cells deserves full rights as a human being.
I have compromised enough with the Republican Party, and accepted "compassionate (i.e. big government) conservatism", McCain Feingold, and TARP I, to name
but a few. I am tired of selling out my principles, be it for trying to make liberals like us, or to satisfy social conservatives with whom I do not agree on this issue.
Lifelong Dem who saw the light a couple years ago courtesy of Dr Ron Paul. The last thing the right needs to be more centrist, they need to "channel" Goldwater, not Reagan. Goldwater / Dr Paul's message is an inspiring message that reasonates and can be "new" again, IMO. Diluting the values and message b/c the NWO stumbled upon a marketable candidate… dense.
Apparently you failed Junior High Science, to say anything of High School Biology.
Let me repeat, for the third time, some basic scientific facts:
1. All the cells of a human body have a unique DNA code that each and ever one share.
2. A embryo has a different DNA code than the cells of the mother's body. It is, therefor, biologically not part of the body.
3. The purpose of a fertilized egg, implanted into the uterus wall is to grow and mature into a human being. And left without outside intervention, will develop into a human, which is not the case with foodstuff, sperm or eggs.
Also, once again, you set up a strawman in your little aside about the ability to contribute to the cells. Food must be processed and eaten, this is a conscious effort to include it as part of the body. It's natural state, if left alone, is to do nothing. A fetus' natural state, if left alone is to be BORN.
That said it doesn't matter to you. You've never responded to the Constitutional arguments at the core of this outside of reciting platitudes, while we've been citing Court cases and the Constitution itself. You've never responded to the scientific points with any scientific counterpoints, even the glaringly obvious one that anyone with even a marginal knowledge of human anatomy would know to throw back at my points about DNA defining what it part of the body.
All you're doing is repeating your point, louder and more hostility, hoping we'll go away and concede you the field. You're intellectually bankrupt in this discussion, incapable of making a coherent point, depending on platitudes. You are arguing from a negative point, merely saying that "well what you're saying doesn't count." You've not even broached a suggestion of what you consider viability to be outside of the arbitrary and scientifically unfounded "first trimester" line, and your lack of knowledge of Constitutional Law and Biology is obvious for all to see here.
Yeah, unlike yourself, I'm too smart to throw away my vote to no useful purpose.
Also glad I'm standing upwind from your odor of personal sanctity.
You're obviously too ideologically pure to pollute your vote by actually making a difference.
My vote for Bush in 2000 and 2008 made the difference of having a grown-up in the White House while we faced the worst threat to our public safety since the War of 1812. You may have noticed that we had no further terrorist attacks after 9/11.
Thanks a pant-load for your small part in giving us President Hopey-Change.
Amen.
Way to completely miss the point!
Going to join the Glenn Beck movement of "One Term Each" (not actual name)?
You must be logged in to post a comment.