Mile Post 370

Mile Post 370
Mile Post 370

Thursday, February 11, 2016

To Be or Not to Be Conservative: The Republican Dilemma

You probably already know that there is a widening schism within the party, that was once both Conservative and Republican.  The Media Apparatchik wing of the Democrat Party is only too happy to tell anyone that will listen about this, because they are out of ideas, candidates and the ability to win elections.  They want this schism to widen and hope to exploit it to continue to be a viable party.

Many Republicans, from Rush Limbaugh down, would protest that the only thing that the separation of Conservatives from the Republican Party will do is assure that the Dems keep winning.  Those of this opinion believe that "Conservatives need to take over the GOP from within."  Pardon me, but I think this is the same old bull-shit that the Republicans have been feeding Conservatives for years.

The problem as I see it is that the Republicans and Conservatives members of the Republican Party are ALREADY DIVIDED.

Without the Conservative base, the Country Club/Establishment Republicans are just "Democrat-Light (Republi-crat, if you please)," offering so little difference as to their value systems that it is unrecognizable to the average voter. The only difference between the Democrats and Establishment/Country Club Republicans that I see is at least Democrat (Socialist) Obama had the stones to say what he believes: "...they cling to their guns and religion."  

In order to do this, one would first need to define Conservatism in America.  I see conservatism defined in the 5 following pillars:
  1. Defense/2ndAmendment Conservatives, that champion to keep a strong defense and the right to defend ourselves with deadly force if necessary, both individually and as a country when necessary
  2. Small Government Conservatives that want to limit the size and scope of our Federal  Government
  3. Fiscal Conservatives that want America, as a nation, to live within its budget. Because we pay taxes from our hard earned income, we DEMAND that what was our money is used responsibly by our supposed representatives in Washington, not wasted to buy votes to keep themselves in office,  where they will need more of our money to take care of the actual functions of Governing our nation. 
  4. Religious Conservatives that want to defend the right of Freedom of Religion and Worship (not Freedom from Religion) and
  5. Moral Conservatives who have risked life and home to champion the causes of Right to Life, Abolition of Slavery, and Equality for ALL under the Law (with no consideration of race, creed, national background, sex, age, and ethnicity)
For the sake of brevity, I'll just separate these 5 groups into 3 overarching groups, 2 of which have 2 groups each of similar goals.  These are the So-Cons (Religious and Moral Conservatives), the Fis-Cons (Small Government and Fiscal Conservatives) and the Defense/2nd Amendment Cons.
When the Conservatives (be they Defense Hawks, Fis-Cons, or So-Cons), feel that they are getting railroaded by Establishment/Country Club Republicansthey stay home and give the election to the Dem-Bulbs.  

Here are examples of Presidential Elections that have happened since Nixon used the Southern Strategy in 1972, when a non-Conservative has run as the Republican nominee:
  • Gerald Ford vs. Jimmy Carter
  • Reagan vs.Carter vs. John Anderson
  • Reagan vs. Mondale
  • George H. W. Bush vs. Dukakis
  • George H.W. Bush vs. Clinton vs. Ross Perot
  • Bob Dole vs. Clinton,
  • George W. Bush vs. Al Gore, Jr.
  • George W. Bush vs. John Kerry
  • John McCain vs. Obama, &
  • Mitt Romney vs. Obama 
Do you notice a trend?  What I see is when the Establishment/Country Club Republican candidate runs against the Democrats they lose.  

Although the South stayed Conservative, Jimmy Carter carried the South after the Watergate debacle and Carter gained the title as worst POTUS to date.

The record of Republicans winning without Conservative backing is pretty dismal. Ronald Reagan, a Conservative, with Conservative beliefs, courted  the "Moral Majority," much to the dismay of the Establishment/Country Club Republicans and won in 1980 and 1984. 

When George H.W. Bush ran against Michael Dukakis, the Conservatives were sold a load of "George Bush will continue the Reagan Revolution." How did that work out for them?

It should have come as no surprise when the Conservatives stayed home or voted for Ross Perot when George H. W. Bush ran against Bill Clinton...and lost.  At the end of Bill Clinton's first term in 1994, with the failure of Hillary Care.  

So, let's get the George H.W.Bush vs. Michael Dukakis question out of the way right now.  In running as a continuation of Ronald Reagan's Conservatism, G.H.W. Bush was to be the 3rd term of Reagan.  However, with his Neo-Con Gulf War against Sadam Hussein and the broken promise of "Read my lips, 'No New Taxes!,'" Fiscal Conservatives dropped him like a hot rock.  

When George W. Bush ran against Al Gore, So-Cons voted for him because they saw a Religious Conservative (and hopefully a Moral Conservative) and the Fis-Cons thought they had both a Small Government and a Fiscal Conservative. Looking back on the candidate they chose (rather than Steve Forbes) and then re-elected (against "John F. Kerry"), most Fis-Cons would say they had buyers remorse, as they were angry at Bush for "crossing the aisle too many times," and allowing the size of the Federal Government and the National Debt to grow . So-Cons were (or should be) concerned at the lack of morality of turning a blind eye to the millions of illegal immigrants that crossed the border of the United States and remained as an "under class" (better than slaves, but) without any of the Constitutional Protections enjoyed by Citizens of the United States.

If any High Ranking, Establishment/Country Club Republican Leader were to openly expressed the disdain that then candidate Barack Obama did during an election cycle, the Conservatives would once again withdraw and let the Democrats continue to Fly the Country Straight into the ground. Again.  They would also punish those leaders as they did with Former Speaker of the House, John Boehner, by forcing him to resign or "primarying" him as Dave Brat did with Former Majority Leader Eric Cantor.

Late this past summer, I came across a commentary by Duane V. Grassell (, posing the question of whether it's time for Conservatives to abandon the Republican Party and encouraging the Patriots, So-Cons and Fis-Cons to seriously consider this issue.  It's been a question that's been building for many years now, so let's dive deep into the subject.  

From what I see, I would guess that he electorate is divided in this way: 
  • Liberal Democrats (the Left) => 32%,
  • Establishment/Country Club Republicans (the Center) => 30,
  • Conservatives (the Right) => 34%,
  • Everyone Else Combined  => 4% 

The marks of a split between Conservatives and Others should be recognized in early American History, based on which European country colonized each region of America -
(UP IN ARMS - THE BATTLE LINES OF TODAY’S DEBATES OVER GUN CONTROL, STAND-YOUR-GROUND LAWS, AND OTHER VIOLENCE-RELATED ISSUES WERE DRAWN CENTURIES AGO BY AMERICA’S EARLY SETTLERS, by Colin Woodward, While the article referenced speaks primarily to the issue of Gun Control, in reading the article, it's easy to see how and why the South remains Conservative.  
Largely recognized as a rural frontier, the Colonial South was more or less the independent frontier, out of sight and out of mind of the more Cosmopolitian North.  Once the frontier was settled, most frontiersmen (Scots-Irish) became farmers, who are traditionally independent and self-reliant.  For the most part, they were too busy with feeding their families to be involved in the "latest thinking of the day."  Proven methods allowed them to put food on their table and allowed them to weather another season.  
Coalition governments work in every other Representative Republic in the world.  Why not in America?  Whether you decide to stay and work to change the party from within or leave the Republican Party is strictly your decision.

No comments:

Post a Comment