Time For a New Political Party?

Joy Cost makes a strong case that if you’re conservative, the GOP is not really your friend. I do recommend reading the whole thing. Cost points out that the GOP while being the political home of conservatism is not a truly conservative party. He’s right about that – and also right that the part of the GOP which is loyal to big business is not actually in tune with conservative principals.

This is something I’ve been yammering on about for a while – that big business and big government are actually quite in tune with each other. This is especially true as the sort of people who rise to the top in both areas are alike as peas in a pod. They mostly go to the same schools, have the same social backgrounds – they marry each other, attend each other’s events and, in the end, have the same world view, which is almost entirely liberal, save that big business types are often in favor of lower taxes, at least for big business. This is why the GOP leadership – which is often beholden to big business – infuriates us so often. There isn’t in big business – and thus there isn’t in a lot of the GOP leadership – the real will to reduce government, to end subsidies, to reduce regulation…because big business profits off the system as much as liberals who man the government system do. Think about it: if we really reduced regulation, then a lot of small time operators would be able to enter the market and start competing with the established companies…that means that profits would shrink! Can’t have that…

On the social issues side of the ledger, those who inhabit the world of big business are almost entirely on the side of legalized abortion, endless immigration, affirmative action and same-sex marriage. Why? Because it would be uncool to be otherwise – it really does go to that shallow a level. If you’re working at some large investment firm in New York City, do you want to go to the Manhattan party and admit that you think marriage should be between one man and one woman? For goodness sakes, everyone would think you entirely out of it…you might not get invited to the next party! Most, if they started with conservative social morals, will drop them like a bad habit once they reach the upper echelons…because that is just the way things are, and most people lack courage to stand against what is fashionable (and this condition is even more pronounced among those who rise high up in the bureaucracy or government or business).

For years now I’ve stuck with the GOP because I believe it is the party most likely to be taken over by conservatism – and I do believe that this is still the case. But suppose we work hard and battle our way to victory in 2016? We get even someone like Walker as President and we have a GOP controlled Congress. All that would be good – but suppose we get to 2019 and there’s still no ban on abortion after 20 weeks? Suppose the Department of Energy still exists? Suppose government spending is higher than it was in 2016? What have we really accomplished? Even supposing we’ve got taxes cut, our defense rebuilt and the economy is humming along? We’ve got nothing, as conservatives – we’ve neither reduced the size of government as more libertarian-minded conservatives demand nor have we even made a start at reviving American morality as social conservatives demand. All we’ve done it tinker around the edges and left in place the government monster built up by liberalism – and eventually to be reconquered by liberalism in a future election.

I have been wondering of late if it is time for a new party? Maybe even two new parties? To be sure, we have to be careful – we don’t want to spit the non-liberal vote and thus merely ensure endless liberal political dominance…but we do need some mechanism to ensure that what we, the base of the GOP, demands actually gets done.

What I wonder is if we split off, only for Congressional purposes, from the GOP about 100 Representatives and 10 Senators and formed, say, a Christian Democrat Party…without those Representatives and Senators, the GOP cannot control either house of Congress. Democrats can’t, either. In fact, no one can – absolute gridlock…unless certain demands are met. Boehner wants to be Speaker? Then there are certain actions which must be taken. You get the picture. Such a thing would become even more crucial if there is a Republican President because that is when actual laws which can be enacted can be sent up…if Congress does so; but the GOP as currently constituted might not really want to send up the sort of laws the base wants. Holding them to ransom (ie, do as we bid or you’re no longer Speaker) would be a convincing argument to actually move conservative legislation along. And if some on the right don’t want to be part of a Christian Democrat Party, they can form a Liberal Party (taking back a word which the Progressives have co-opted) to pretty much do the same thing…withhold support to the GOP unless, say, the GOP agrees to, for instance, reign in the power of government to spy on the American people.

I’m not at all sure this would work – but as you can see, what has happened here is that the three main elements of the GOP (business, social conservative, libertarian) are broken up for Congressional purposes into three different parties, and no one on the right gets anything unless everyone gets something. There is a risk that one party will join with the Democrats to form a Congressional majority, of course, but I think it pretty small as Democrats won’t openly embrace business and can’t embrace social conservatism…the libertarians might from time to time be swayed by Democrats, but such would never last long because, well, Democrats are just increasingly fascist. The best way for the new parties of the right to work is that they all nominate the same person for President…but if a real lousy GOP candidate emerges, then the Liberals and Christian Democrats nominate someone more acceptable and the GOP goes down to flaming defeat…which would make the GOP more likely to seek a candidate who can appeal to both Christian Democrats and Liberals. And there’s always that chance that a Liberal or Christian Democrat in a three or four way race could win the White House with a plurality…which works even better for the right.

This is all just an idea – for now, I’m still back in the GOP, especially in the White House, for 2016. But I think it something worth thinking about.

Advertisements

18 thoughts on “Time For a New Political Party?

  1. Retired Spook February 12, 2015 / 2:48 pm

    the libertarians might from time to time be swayed by Democrats, but such would never last long because, well, Democrats are just increasingly fascist.

    LOL, Mark. Tell us how you really feel. I don’t disagree, BTW. I hope I live long enough to see American politics go through the kind of sea change you’re talking about. If we continue our present course of the two parties taking turns guiding the country leftward, albeit at different speeds, our republic will eventually collapse under its own weight. That not the life I want for my descendants.

    • M. Noonan February 13, 2015 / 2:39 am

      Supposing I had won the Powerball, I would have founded the Christian Democrat Party…and then gone on to demonstrate just how conservatism could win at least 30% of the African-American vote. It irritates me just how lousy our political leadership is. I’m moving towards Walker because he seems one of the few who gets it…

      • Retired Spook February 13, 2015 / 8:21 am

        I’m moving towards Walker because he seems one of the few who gets it…

        Some on the Left are beginning to realize that too.

        And the Washington Post certainly thinks he’s important enough to bring out the long knives.

      • M. Noonan February 13, 2015 / 3:57 pm

        Yep – the gotcha question on evolution and the shrieks of horror of his college drop out…don’t amount to much, but shows how desperate they are to derail him. Walker scares the left like no one else on the right.

      • Cluster February 13, 2015 / 6:17 pm

        I am looking forward to seeing Walker debate the issues. He is my front runner so far

      • Retired Spook February 14, 2015 / 8:49 am

        The three most important things (IMO) that I’d like to see discussed in this next election are (1) ideas that protect and/or expand liberty; (2) ideas that promote economic expansion; and (3) the role of government. I think the person who articulates those the best is likely to win.

      • Cluster February 14, 2015 / 9:55 am

        Agreed, but under those three broader concepts, it’s important that the candidate explain to the low information voter how limited government and an expanded and robust economy can help change lives for the better. There are A LOT OF STUPID PEOPLE who are slaves to the fear and flowery rhetoric of the left and who pay no attention to the results. We need to get them to focus on the results and make them realize that the rhetoric and results of leftist policies do not match up. And someone has to have the courage to compassionately explain to the LIV that broken homes are most often at the foundation of a poverty, drug ridden life. We can not continue to demean fathers and champion single mothers.

  2. dbschmidt February 12, 2015 / 10:17 pm

    I am a “Middle of the Road” Libertarian which places me just to the political right of Genghis Khan and way left of the “no laws” anarchists. This country has been so screwed by the Liberals / Progressives since the Foundation—it may take another Foundation to fix it.

    Most of the real damage began with Pres. Wilson, but it started before his time and ramped up afterwards. There are any numbers of “issues” to fight over but I really have no more interest in conventional issues than I do who won American Idol. IMHO, issues are for the “low-information” to have something to care about and politicians a way to gain a vote.

    “Issues”, for me, would be like repealing the 17th amendment and returning the vote to the State while removing a great deal of the money out of the current system or clarification of the 10th Amendment and 14th Amendment to their original intent. Get rid of the “Fed” and return to Constitutional law—not case law. Let alone big “issues” like corporate and personal tax rates plus government waste and spending.

    Parties are not of any concern with consideration of whether any candidate of any political stripe can even reach a level of being an honest broker. If America followed the Constitution with original intent—we would be paying taxes to our individual States while the States would be funding the Federal government to carry out its enumerated duties. No more ~ no less.

    Politicians would be driven by needs of the people and not self-enrichment. There are too many issues to mention in one small posting but as we sit now—we are so screwed by the Progressives over the last century—we will be digging ourselves out for at least two more centuries. If we survive that long. The last re-election of Pres. Obama makes me think of “Bread & Circuses” . The next election will be monumental. America or Greece. The choice is facing us.

    • M. Noonan February 13, 2015 / 2:44 am

      Any concentration of wealth and/or power will always work out badly, in the end. The sci-fi author Jerry Pournelle has a rule that goes something like this – in any bureaucracy, those who care most about protecting the bureaucracy will beat those who care about doing the job of the bureaucracy. In other words, if we have an education bureaucracy, those who care about self-dealing for the bureaucracy will always beat those who care about education. It just works that way. And the larger the institution, the more likely it is to be like that because larger institutions attract money-grubbing time-servers like flies on poop.

      As most know, I’m for a strong defense – but I’m also for a much smaller army than we have now. Reason? Large armies are just large bureaucracies…and start to be concerned about getting a traitor his sex change completed than about good order and discipline in the ranks. I’d much rather have a 100,000 man army backed up by three million militia members than what we have now. The Navy is the only thing I’d keep large because you can’t improvise either ships or the sailors to man them…they have to be ready to go on the instant and there has to be enough of them continually in being to control the sea lanes.

      • dbschmidt February 18, 2015 / 11:21 pm

        Name me the 17 enumerated duties of the Federal government.

        Larger or Smaller army??? I have opinions as well.

        Personally do not care about what happens on the fringe like boy/girl man or our new returned ‘lost boy’ — except … never-mind,

        Navy’s are smaller now because of Clinton did–who destroyed most of the standing Navy. Armies are doing not much better.

        I have followed you and this blog for quite some time and would would be honored to expand your understanding of those of us who have decided to write the check and offer the ultimate price to our government. Maybe we could start a blog thread to all with those willing to ‘write the check’ to those that have not. Something like;

        BiteMyShinyMetalAss-DDMMMYY as an ongoing piss on their legs contribution, I will volunteer but not sure it would meet your literary standards,

        Allow everyone but I would like to hear from those that ran away and hid while others fought for their survival to loudly claim “Me, Me, I am F’king important”

        Pick a solid subject and post it for a week.

        I think I would name my postings ‘ Cow Patties: dd mmm yy’

        Strange ideas all to late in the evening.

      • M. Noonan February 19, 2015 / 12:20 am

        You’d have to ask Matt for that – as for me, I’m just getting of the opinion that the Founders were right to not like large, standing armies but clearly liked well armed, citizen militias. As any conceivable militia in the United States would be 90% people I tend to agree with, it means my side would have the ultimate power.

    • Amazona February 15, 2015 / 11:19 am

      db, thank you for finally bringing up issues that would be relevant to a Congressional or Presidential campaign, as they touch directly on the use or abuse of federal power. I’d be thrilled to see Congressional candidates campaign on the promise to push for Constitutional amendments repealing the 17th Amendment and revising the 14th.

      IMHO, issues are for the “low-information” to have something to care about and politicians a way to gain a vote. Kudos, my friend. This is the message we need to send—with the caveat that these same issues are vitally important, just at the state and local level where they belong.

      It can be confusing, to those who don’t spend much time thinking about it. An example: If a presidential candidate says he would veto a properly discussed and approved bill to ban abortion, because he is pro-abortion, I would vote against him—not because of the subject of the veto, but because it would indicate acceptance of Congressional authority to try to legislate it even if he didn’t like the outcome. If he were to say he would veto the bill because of a conviction that such a law is well outside Constitutional federal authority, I would vote for him, even though I would also love to see abortion outlawed. My decision would not be based on my personal feelings about abortion, but on the candidate’s commitment to proper execution of federal authority and respect for its limitations.

      This is where we get all tangled up. We need to understand that we have to have different criteria for federal and state elections.

  3. Amazona February 15, 2015 / 11:04 am

    “….suppose we work hard and battle our way to victory in 2016? We get even someone like Walker as President and we have a GOP controlled Congress. All that would be good – but suppose we get to 2019 and there’s still no ban on abortion after 20 weeks?”

    While I would support any kind of ban on abortion at any time, your question brought up one of my own——what in the Constitution gives authority over abortion to Congress and/or the President?

    See, this is what I constantly run into—-the substitution of issues for GOVERNMENT. Unless and until there is some amendment conveying authority over matters like this, abortion has to remain under the control of the individual state.

    While I despise abortion, and find its acceptance a blight on our national honor, I would vehemently oppose federal intervention, unless it were to be in the form of an official, properly executed, amendment to the Constitution.

    • M. Noonan February 15, 2015 / 2:59 pm

      Amazona,

      If you like, then suppose we get to 2019 and we haven’t passed a law reserving abortion regulation to the States? In other words, per Article III, section 2, paragraph 2, Congress makes a regulation removing the Supreme Court from appellate jurisdiction on abortion cases – in short, overturning Roe v Wade. The main thing is suppose we get to 2019 and nothing actually conservative has been accomplished? Fiscal conservatives would want less government – suppose there’s more? Social conservatives would want some roll back on the government-sanctioned immorality of our age – but suppose there’s more?

      • Amazona February 15, 2015 / 9:24 pm

        I don’t know what you mean by “suppose there’s more?”

        I guess the first thing to do is define “conservative” and the first step toward that is to stop using meaningless words like “fiscal conservative” and “social conservative” . Oh, they might have some sort of meaning, but not in a political sense, much like the catchall phrase “less government”.

        Conservatism does not automatically mean “less government”. There is room in conservatism for a lot of government—-it just has to be at the state level or below. Political conservatism is about restraining federal size, scope and authority to what is defined and enumerated in the Constitution. It can include all sorts of government involvement at the state level.

        As for your doomsday scenario of getting down to 2019 without any progress toward restraining federal powers, well, that would be up to us, wouldn’t it? That is, not just sending a few Republicans to Congress but working our butts off to send more and more, and making sure that in states not likely to elect Republicans we at least create campaigns that demand Dems who have moved away from the Far Left. It means putting constant pressure on the people we do elect—-and I don’t mean general platitudinous comments about “conservatism” or “less government” but specific, focused, outlines of what we expect from them.

        I think a four year time line is very unrealistic, given the decades it has taken us to get to where we are now. And I don’t think ANYTHING should give us some kind of permission to throw up our hands and say “Well, we obviously have to fight fire with fire—-that is, to fight unconstitutional excesses with our own unconstitutional excesses, which of course would be all right because ours are for good instead of evil.”

      • M. Noonan February 15, 2015 / 10:57 pm

        To be sure, we can’t undo 100 years of folly in four – but we should get something, every year we have a government which claims to be conservative. Even if it were merely a $1 reduction federal spending from one year to the next, it would be something. But if its even a mere $1 more, then we’ve lost. I’d like us to target the Department of Education as the first to go, but that makes it just too easy for the Establishment to say we’re anti-education…so, second choice but first on the list would be the Department of Energy. If a conservative government can’t get rid of that, then it has failed. That covers reducing the federal government – but there is also the immorality, which is often federally funded and/or mandated. Returning the abortion issue to the States is both a reform in line with the Constitution, but also a means whereby the government can start restoring morality in the Republic…as it would no longer be a federal issue, there would be no federal money for it…and that means, among other things, Planned Parenthood picks up no federal cash…and a broke Planned Parenthood is a Planned Parenthood less able to spread immorality.

    • dbschmidt February 18, 2015 / 11:33 pm

      Mark noted quite correctly “To be sure, we can’t undo 100 years of folly in four” but if “we” never attempt then we have already failed. I believe I will find out in my lifetime (absolute anarchy / Ammengendon) what is in front of us.

Comments are closed.