GOP 3.0: Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater?
Parties change. Political movements shift, sometimes in ways that leave them unrecognizable.
The Republican Party began as a moral crusade aimed at ending slavery, America’s original sin.
It later morphed into a Main Street-Establishment movement, with a powerful libertarian wing in the West.
Then — in absorbing many former southern Democrats — the GOP took on a new menu of fundamentalist cultural values.
This gradual movement and redefinition was accelerated by the Roe v. Wade decision.
If Republicans saw slavery as the Republic’s original sin, many party faithful see abortion as our great modern sin.
The GOP has also emerged as a movement largely aligned with the nation’s original white majority, deeply suspicious of immigration and society’s new multiculturalism.
Lost in all this moving and shaking are some of the Republican Party’s most powerful leaders — men and women who find themselves out of step with the new reality.
In Texas, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison was trounced by incumbent Rick Perry in that state’s gubernatorial primary — Perry being a guy who flirted publicly with the idea of secession.
In Arizona, Sen. John McCain — his party’s presidential candidate in 2008 — is running only five points ahead of JD Hayworth, an AM radio host closely aligned with the tea party movement.
In Florida, Governor Charlie Crist has signaled that he may leave the GOP, after being pushed aside by conservative Marc Rubio, another tea party favorite who is leading the Senate primary race.
What’s clear in all this is that the Republican movement is still moving to the right.
It’s an open question how many of its veteran standard bearers will be able to make the transition and how many will be left by the side of the road.
It’s also unclear whether this new generation of movement conservatives will appeal to rank-and-file voters in general elections.
The movement has yet to find its new Ronald Reagan, someone who can unify the party and give it a friendly, agreeable face.
The danger for GOP 3.0 is that it could begin to look more like Barry Goldwater’s 1964 presidential campaign. A little too angry. A little too revolutionary.
As the original tea partier, Goldwater was a purist and a crusader who also lost in one of the biggest landslides in American history.
.png)
You should have said "returning to the right" rather than moving to the right. Much of the current problems resulted from the Repubs moving left and selling their souls while doing it.Better to go down with a clear conscience and standing for what you believe, like Barry, Nader, Dean, than to go down as a traitor to your ideals. I think the Republican party, (Democrat lite), is done for. Good riddance. MAybe, just maybe, something better will take it's place. I can dream, right?
Bret – I think you're wrong on your history. The Republican Party prior to Reagan and Gingrich was distinctly centrist.Nixon, Eisenhower, Rockefeller — the Republicans who pushed through the Clean Air Act and facilitated the Civil Rights Act.Sure, there were a few prominent conservatives — but Goldwater was an outlier and a disastrous one.Perhaps more interesting here than ancient history is the question of whether there is a majority audience in America interested in a party even more conservative going forward.We'll see that questioned tested in the August primaries, again this November and again in November 2012.–Brian, NCPR
PS -One of the ways that conservative Republicans have largely defeated moderates is to claim that legitimate, effective moderates never really existed.But the truth is that the moderate GOP had a long-standing track record of real accomplishment.–Brian, NCPR
I think that is correct. Nixon for all of his corruption, put forth relatively radical social ideas, for example proposing a national minimum income. But maybe we will see a whole new alignment? Conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans? Maybe parties just don't matter as much as they did 20 years ago?
Nixon would be considered a flaming liberal by today's conservative standards. Heck, maybe even Reagan would be considered liberal now.
of course reagan would be considered liberal now. he signed into law a tax increase! he led the u.s. in signing the u.n. convention against torture!
There's a lot of Brian's statements that I agree with:"What's clear in all this is that the Republican movement is still moving to the right."Agreed."It's also unclear whether this new generation of movement conservatives will appeal to rank-and-file voters in general elections."Agreed"The movement has yet to find its new Ronald Reagan…"Agreed—–There are some things I disagree with:"The GOP has also emerged as a movement largely aligned with the nation's original white majority, deeply suspicious of immigration and society's new multiculturalism."disagree The "white" majority is a boiling pot of multiple cultures. The problem is that the government is not provide a "front door" for the new immigrants to walk through. We are willing to "brown" just as we changed in the past. Assimilation is what is missing. We ALL need to "brown" together. "A little too angry. A little too revolutionary."disagreeThe left is painting this movement this way to discredit it. The "anger" is that the Constitution is getting ripped apart. The neo-teaparty is interested in preserving the Constitution, not cause social unrest.
I think all this shows why we need real multipartyism in this country. Why should both of the parties the media covers be moderate? Moderates are important to prevent riots being the only way to effect change but extremes are important to shake complacency.Let the Dems and GOP be the parties of corporate America. Let the Libertarians and Greens be the party of (human) citizens. Let the clash of ideas begin.
I'm sorry for being so dense, JDM, please educate me on what part of the constitution is being "ripped apart?"
Brian M- I disagree. Society has moved far to the left over the past 40 years or so. The Republican Party was more centrist when the country was more centrist. In the "Big Tent" move the party moved left to try and get voters. It backfired. Now they are trying to return to the right, but clearly don't have the faintest idea how to do so.The days when you could be a centrist are over. You are either right or left now. The middle vanished in the late 80's.
I think we all hope that the future brings more freedom to everyone. If that is the case the future lies with progressives (or liberals) and always has. Those things that conservatives consider too liberal at any point in time become old-hat for the next generation. Without some reactionary revolution, such as the teabaggers are attempting, in the very near future gays will have equal right to marriage and service in the military, for example. Generations pass and the things they find immensely important are ignored by those who follow.
Bret do you really think so? I think in what I would call national big dollar sound bite politics I agree. But the people, the actual people I meet and I think live in the US are not way out on the far left or far right they are indeed in the middle. Frankly I think Left Right politics are overrated, it has become a national game show. For example as a conservative I really don't think Dede Scozaffava is a Republican or a conservative, and I radically disagree with her on some core social issues; but I think she has the North Countries best interests in her heart. Hoffman is a "national" conservative in that he has the sound bites down and has this national support, but I don't think he cares one whit about what happens to real people in this district, he does not even know the district outside of Lake Placid, he is a plastic man a caricature of a conservative. Doesn't it bug you that these guys like Dick Armey from Texas or Sarah Palin are coming in here telling us who to vote for? As a conservative I say go home.
The GOP is more conservative than it was in te 60s and 70s; Dede Scozzafava is far more conservative than staunch liberals like Jacob Javits and Nelson Rockefeller were. Indeed, Rocky laid the foundation for NY's current fiscal crisis as the state never fully recovered from his wild spending and massive borrowing. On the other hand, the GOP is not quite as conservative on social issues as it was in the 90s; there is no more talk about prayer in schools or teaching the 10 commandments, and the gays in the military issue doesn't attract the almost hysterical reaction it once did. The party has shifted to the left on environmental issues as well: there really isn't any talk about abolishing the EPA or repealing environmental laws.That having been said, the GOP is more committed than ever to cutting taxes and spending -though most haven't specified what spending beyond the stimulus and TARP.
The NY Republican Party is unique though. When they were in power in the state did any taxes or spending get cut? What we saw was a large expansion of government under Pataki and the Republican Senate. I think in NY it is more about power and patronage and less about ideology. Patterson is the most fiscally conservative person we have had in that office for many decades. Which is why he had to go.
Mervel, yes, I do think so. True, people are "centrist" in the respect the majority equals "the middle". But on the whole American society is far to the left of where we were in the past. Being on welfare is no longer a cause for shame for instance. We have a whole sub-culture that has no issues with living off their neighbors, something that was shameful years back. That shame drove most people to try and get work, to move on to a better standard of living. Now people are on the third and fourth generation of "assistance" and don't even try to better themselves, deleting the available aid for those that really need it too BTW.Divorce used to be a last resort, now over half of marriages end in divorce and that hasn't helped our society at all. I don't mean to imply anyone should stay in an abusive situation but we enter into lifelong contracts too easily and lave those obligations on a whim now. That hasn't benefited our society either.People accept many things today that they would never stand for yeas back. Excessive intrusion by Gov't, taxes, regulations. We just accept things like NYS open burning ban without question. Or the way other property rights are trashed. Or the way our personal freedoms are threatened. We just accept it as progress or inevitable or something.So I don't think America is as far to the right as it was in the past. The national parties are far to the left of where they were and yet both are more locked onto their stance than ever.As for outside politicians telling me what to do- does anyone really listen? I mean, do you think people are so STOOOOOOPID as to vote based on what some politician says? If they are, then that explains why we're where we are I guess.
Brian M.,Without Goldwater, there would be no Reagan. He moved the "Overton Window" on what is discussed in politics, far to the right. And Reagan climbed through it.
Scratchy said:"On the other hand, the GOP is not quite as conservative on social issues as it was in the 90s; there is no more talk about prayer in schools…"Not so sure about that. These remarks aren't about school, directly, but…Sarah Palin, the most popular GOP politician at the moment, said:…She asked for the women — who greeted her with an enthusiastic standing ovation — to provide a “prayer shield” to strengthen her against what she said was “deception” in the media.She denounced this week’s Wisconsin federal court ruling that government observance of a National Day of Prayer was unconstitutional — which the crowd joined in booing. She asserted that America needs to get back to its Christian roots and rejected any notion that “God should be separated from the state.”“Hearing any leader declare that America isn’t a Christian nation and poking at allies like Israel in the eye — it is mind-boggling to see some of our nation’s actions recently, but politics truly is a topic for another day,” Palin said.http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100416/NEWS01/4160393/1008/NEWS01/Sarah+Palin+speaks+to+crowd+of+16+000+at+Freedom+Hall
bret, you're not being consistent in what you're talking about. brian's post was about the political ideology of the republican party. your first comment disagreed with with his take on the republican party. he responded with some entirely convincing examples related to the republican party. and ever since you've really just switched to talking about broader american society. these are not the same things! american politics, including both parties, have clearly moved to the right since the 70's.
Actually it is fascinating. American politics I would say has to some degree moved to the right at least on fiscal issues. American society however has become far less conservative individually. I would agree with Bret that this has not always been very good at all for our society.The fact is thought that ome of the ideas put forth by the conservatives particularly on economic issues worked, the world itself in this time period recognized the benefits of a free market system with less regulation. Which is why we now face much stiffer world wide competition.I think in the 70's there was true debate on that issue, today most people even most liberals recognize the benefits of the free market, this was not always the case. So in that regard Republican ideas have become mainstream ideas. Now it is not if we should have a free market or a government managed economy, that has been decided, the argument now is how much the government should do to help the free market or to fill in the holes in the market. As far as the Republicans go they are paying the price for the "southern" strategy.
HT- I'm trying to be consistent. I said I thought the Repub party had moved left, someone said no and they weren't centrist. I was trying to point out that being centrist depends on the publics "center point" which I think is far to the left of where is was years back, say 30-40 years ago.Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Anon 10;10 has a point. These days people are moving to outlaw any religion of the traditional type. New agers, Wiccan, Native American, Islam, etc. are embraced, but traditional American religion is to be stomped down at every turn.I'm a religious liberal, but the agenda is clear.
Bret – What are you talking about? Outlaw religion? Who? How? When Europeans arrived in North America, many religions were in fact outlawed.Through the long history of our country, religions were regularly banned or outlawed or persecuted.Protestants burned Catholic churches. Main-line Christians — with the help of the US government — drove Mormons into the desert. None of that happens anymore.Americans were also far more socially constrained, often remaining with one church through their lives.Now we're free to shop around — which most of us do.We have far more religious freedom and tolerance now than ever before.Or am I missing something?-Brian, NCPR
Apparently you are Brian. To make a long story short, we've allowed the courts and Gov't, along with political correctness, to dictate what is and isn't acceptable as far as religion goes. It's perfectly acceptable for my kids to bring home Kwanza information but teachers are not even permitted to discuss the true meaning of Christmas. It's fine to celebrate "Winter Soltice" ( a pagan religious holiday) but not Christmas. No one may speak of Christian beliefs in school, but my kids bring home information on Islam, Buddhism and what amounts to Earth Worship (Gia). We can discuss the workings of Sharia Law for Moslems and the possibility of the courts deferring to that law, but the mention of the 10 Commandments results in law suits, frothing at the mouth and the rending of clothing. In short, traditional American religious practices that we once considered good, wholesome ideals have been banished to the refuse pile by progressives and those who fins any traditional faith repulsive.To be clear, I'm not advocating a Gov't sponsored or dictated religion. I'm just a little tired and perturbed at what appears to be a double standard and an effort to banish traditional Christian religious practices to the ash heap. Personally, I'm a lot more at ease with a society that worries about it's morals and values based on biblical teachings than one more concerned with consumerism, entertainment and shock value.
What? No response Brian?