The Proper Role of the Republican Party

The Proper Role of the Republican Party

 

In all of the kerfuffle of the ill-considered way that Donald Trump assailed John McCain this past week, what has been lost is the great divide within the Republican Party- a divide which has cost them five presidential elections in the last forty years (’76, ’92 ‘96, ’08, ’12) and control of both houses of Congress during much of this time. Unlike the Democrats who are always, ALWAYS united during presidential elections, Republicans have not been so united since the re-election of Ronald Reagan in 1988- and that election was the first time Democrats confronted a truly unified Republican Party since Dwight Eisenhower ran for re-election in 1956.

In looking at the divide within the GOP, a broad generalization would find that this divide exists between the GOP moderates (a.k.a. the Establishment Republicans), as personified by Nelson Rockefeller, Richard Nixon , Gerald Ford, George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, etc. and GOP conservatives, as personified by Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, Trey Gowdy, Jason Chavitz, etc. (For the purposes of this discussion we have omitted any of the now sixteen candidates running for the 2016 Republican Nomination).

While Democrats have a pre-disposition to rally around their party’s nominee, be they moderately liberal or extremely liberal, Republicans have a unfortunate tendency to hold out for the “right” candidate, meaning that moderate Republicans refuse to support conservative Republicans, and conservative Republicans refuse to support moderate Republicans- all of which more than delights their Democrat adversaries, as well as the de facto running mates of Democrat nominees, also commonly known as the mainstream media.

Conservative Republicans find this tendency most distasteful, for the simple reason that it allows Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media to fracture what would otherwise be a united Republican front. It also allows the Democrats and their mainstream media allies to paint ALL Republicans as right wing extremists, regardless of whether they are moderate or conservative. One look at the past ten presidential elections, and all ten of the Republican nominees were labeled as “extreme” even though, in reality, only one of them has been a true conservative (Reagan) and the other has been a semi-conservative (George W. Bush). What is the message? Regardless of who the Republicans nominate in 2016, that person will quickly find himself/herself so labeled as a right-wing extremist, regardless of their position on any issue, for the simple reason that it will be a signal to all of the identity constituencies- blacks, Latinos, gays, pro-abortionists, union members, and those on the dole- to queue up and vote for the same Democratic politicians who have managed to keep them in the fold, and in the harness, since the 1940s. It’s not that conservative Republicans, in particular, have ignored any of these specific constituencies, but rather they have, in fact, offered non-governmental alternatives to those governmental solutions, which the Democrats are so famous for offering…

The folly of moderate Republicans is that they have an unfortunate tendency to imitate, if not duplicate, the programs and platforms of the Democrat Party…which begs the question “why have two parties if they are the same?”

This is precisely what far-too-many Republicans, especially establishment Republicans, have failed to grasp- especially when they find that the keys to the White House are in possession of their Democratic opponents. In their efforts to be comparatively bi-partisan, the “go-along, get-along” cabal of establishment Republicans have ceded far-too-much ground in the over-arching political debate, even before the “battle” is joined. If the Republican Party is ever going to “get back in the game”, as it were, they must differentiate themselves from the Democrats, and stop trying to imitate, much less duplicate, the Democrat Party’s platform positions. Otherwise, all one is left with effectively, is a one-party state not unlike that which exists in Russia.

It is indeed unfortunate that the resultant graying of lines between supposed-conservatives and liberals have left this country a bickering, albeit sickening, mass of gelatin between two parties that, in the final analysis, are almost identical in their pursuit of ever-expansive government and political stasis. What this country needs, really, is a true election between two distinct political philosophies, i.e. a contest, say, between a Bernie Sanders and a Ted Cruz, so that this country at long last can settle the abiding issue of what type of country it wants to be…a socialist country which provides all things to all people, like the ones we would find in Europe, or a free-market economic powerhouse that would elevate all people to their fullest potential with the inherent virtues of self-sufficiency, individual liberty, and the unfettered pursuit of happiness and prosperity that once made this country the envy of the world.

Yet, if this election turns out to be, as the pundits would have us believe, a contest between Hillary and Jeb, the can will once again be kicked down the proverbial path of pathetic posturing that sees the greatness of this country slip further and further into the dustbin of history. So, while we argue as to whether or not “the Donald” owes an apology for his inartfully-stated characterization of Senator McCain, let us resolve to keep our eyes on the prize of national renewal and the destiny of this nation that, in the last seven years, has lost its way.

-Drew Nickell, 21 July 2015

© 2015 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved

13 thoughts on “The Proper Role of the Republican Party”

  1. Here’s the title of an article concerning “domestic terrorism” from the LA Times:

    “How black, Latino and Muslim college students organized to stop Trump’s rally in Chicago”

    Nice spin, huh?

    You all saw the photo of the cop bleeding – from a head wound – after the animals assaulted him, right?

    Yes… I’m deliberately parodying the Left’s methods – and the Obama administration’s – with the opening “domestic terrorism” comment… BUT SERIOUSLY… at the very LEAST… wouldn’t you think the most important newspaper on the West Coast would title what happened a BIT more honestly?

    IMAGINE had this been “Tea Partiers!” IMAGINE if these had been “militia members!” Heck… imagine if these animals had identified themselves as “Young Republicans!”

    (*SNORT*)

    Folks… here’s the OPENING PARAGRAPH of the Times’ story:

    “When black, Muslim and Latino student activists at the University of Illinois at Chicago heard last week that Donald Trump was planning a rally on campus, they did what any good organizers do in 2016: They went online.”

    Wow. “Student activists,” huh? “Good organizers.”

    (*SILENCE*)

    (Do you suppose that’s what that wounded cop’s loved ones would call them…???)

    Here’s how those scumbags at the Times characterized what happened next:

    “The students’ large demonstration at Trump’s rally Friday night led the Republican presidential candidate to abruptly cancel his planned appearance and sparked a melee between Trump supporters and protesters that resulted in multiple injuries and arrests.”

    REALLY…?!?! Is THAT how it went down? Trump just “decided” to cancel the rally? (I think not!)

    Oh… and how do you like how the Times described the VIOLENT, anti-First Amendment “students” as “protesters?”

    (*SMIRK*)

    Again… IMAGINE if the shoe were on the other foot and it had been a Clinton speech or Sanders speech that… (*SMIRK*)… the “far Right” caused to be shut down… with elements of that same “far Right” then engaging in violence. Does anyone believe the Times’ reporting would be so… um… non-judgemental?

    READ THIS – PARAGRAPH FIVE:

    “Trump took to Twitter on Saturday morning, calling the protesters “thugs” who denied him and his supporters their 1st Amendment right to free speech.”

    Notice how they put “thugs” in quotes? WHY…?!?!

    Folks… kinda burying the lead here if you ask me! Shouldn’t the Times have STARTED off with noting that Leftists – Sanders supporters, apparently, but definitely “Democrat supporters – successfully shut down the right of a Republican presidential candidate to speak and denied thousands of their fellow citizens the right to hear? (Oh… and by the way… then engaged in violence!)

    PARAGRAPH SEVEN:

    “The clashes marked the most violent episode of a campaign that has grown increasingly tense since the businessman and reality television star announced his bid for the Republican presidential nomination last summer.”

    “Reporting” as if this were… TRUMP’S FAULT…?!?! REALLY…?!?!

    Wow…

    Just… wow…

    But it gets worse! PARAGRAPH EIGHT:

    “Activists angered by Trump’s inflammatory statements on immigration, Islam and other topics now show up at nearly every public event.”

    “Activists.” Uh-huh. (Not thugs?) And it’s TRUMP’S “inflammatory statements,” NOT the VIOLENCE and intolerance of basic free speech and political freedom that is the problem? REALLY…?!?!

    Folks… (*SIGHING*)… let me just cut to the chase and leave off with the closing two paragraph’s of this journalistic malpractice:

    Patrisse Cullors, a leading force behind Black Lives Matter, said “the protests, the disruptions will continue.”

    “Without disruption there is no progress,” she said.

    Nice, huh? And clearly THIS is what the LA Times supports.

  2. But Obama may not fight too hard to fill the seat. This way Hillary, if she wins, can nominate him as she has suggested she may do. He would love to be on the Supreme Court

    1. An excellent point Jerry, which is why it is imperative that Hillary be defeated in the fall, or the Supreme Court will end the balance of powers as we know it, and render the Bill of Rights moot.

  3. Very happy that I came across your “reply” on FaceBook today. Your writing is superb and look forward to reading more of your outstanding work.

  4. The BIG loser in the 2nd debate….CNN. I think it was deplorable and unprofessional that they purposely set up the candidates to attack each other with the questions they threw out there. They really set the GOP candidates up for failure to make them look like a group of fools getting out of a clown car. In between the serious questions they would throw quotes out there that one candidate made about the other and ask what they have to say about it (to cause an argument more or less) or pit one against another one’s views just to purposely cause in-fighting so the public can think there is nothing but chaos and disorganization within the GOP. This tactic would embolden the democrats to stay focused in their own party runners and not take the GOP seriously with any candidate or proposed policies. The 2nd group of candidates in the primary top runner debate have much more substance than CNN allowed them to show. Most had limited and less time to speak or answer questions on matters of importance. Most of the candidates have what it takes to be the President and a bit tough to sort out the best. Most have great qualities on policy and views on putting this country back on the track of greatness and respect in the world. We may not like one or two things about each of them, but it’s the majority of ideals and actions that speak loud with leadership. I think CNN did not give them much of a chance to shine but rather wasted time and just created a side-show. I have to say I was looking forward to the debate but when the 3rd hour rolled around, I started watching a bit of “eye-lid” theater….I was disappointed with the venue and it was eventually a sleeper. I have to say I was energized that FOX did an excellent job in the variety of material presented that would introduce the candidates and give viewers a better picture of who was running, what they stood for and a good look at their personalities. Tough firm but fair questions, well controlled by the moderators and great with time. The FOX debate venue was better organized.
    With that said…..I’m very pissed that the DNC only has about 5 debates scheduled during the year. RNC has so many more. Even some of the democrat candidates were upset at so few DNC debates and cry foul that they are providing a blanket for Hillary since she craps out every time she speaks in front of a camera. Until they have a better alternative (not saying much there right now), they are going to keep her under wraps as much as they can. Get her in front of the people…on TV…with debate…or press conferences….so EVERYONE can see the plastic person that she is. So far everyone that’s allowed to be around her on the air are selected supporters and nobody to throw the challenging questions to her. So far, the few replies she’s had lack substance, are dismissive and not seen as genuine. You can hear it in her voice, see it in her body language and facial expression.
    Don’t get me wrong…I do listen to both sides. I spend a good amount of time watching and reading both sides of the parties views and ideals. I opinionate on what makes the most sense to me when I hear how questions are answered or the reactions/behaviors of those commenting or ranting when subject matters are discussed. I side with the more rational discussions that are important to me. So far, the dems are lower on my opinion scale on how to best direct the country and care for the people on foreign and domestic matters.

    1. rcoglio- Yours is an excellent assessment of CNN and the reprehensible modus operandi with which they moderated the debate- revealing a more devious intention on their part, and explained full the “why” that was behind this…good job. Bravo. You brought up things I missed in the essay to which you reply, and I am glad that you have come aboard. I see that your assessment of Hillary and her party are very close to my own and in ‘harmony”, as it were, with what I also believe is needed at this time and juncture in our history. Thanks for your considered and sage reply. -Drew Nickell

Comments are closed.