An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

This is Not the Party You Thought It Was…

While I knew a number of these would be coming along all through the winter, (after the GOP lost an election that wasn’t exactly a squeaker) I’ll confess I felt a bit of nostalgia and empathy upon reading Sophia Nelson’s Lost Republican Love Song in the Washington Post this weekend. Much of it is predictable for those of us who have suffered through the same recriminations and regrets in the past, but a few highlights are worthy of mention.

After such a devastating loss, Republicans will have to do some retooling. We’ll have to decide whether we want to be the party that believes in smaller government, lower taxes and less regulation, or whether we’re going to be a litmus-test party that responds only to the demands of social conservatives. But most important, we’ll have to confront our most disastrous modern legacy: our poor relationship with black Americans, the very people the party was formed to protect from the expansion of slavery into Kansas and Nebraska in 1854.

That relationship may be lost for generations, thanks to a campaign by Sen. John McCain that seemed to simply concede the black vote.

I should first point out that there are a number of things Ms. Nelson and I do not share in common. I’m not a woman. I’m not a minority. (Unless we’ve started giving out assistance for the morally or intellectually challenged.) And I’m no longer a member of the Republican Party. I did, however, go through a considerable period of soul searching similar to Sophia’s a few years back. At that time I was working with my old blogging partner Ron, (who can be found over here these days) and he made many spirited attempts to convince me that “my Republican party” really didn’t exist any more, and I was simply shouting at the ocean in my attempts to make it come back. In January of 2005 I finally realized he was right and traded in my GOP card for a shiny new independent registration and a long, hard look at the small L libertarians.

Rather than coming from a minority background, my only GOP sin was growing up in the northeast with some of those small government, fiscal conservative, “leave us alone” Republicans who looked back fondly on the Rockefeller days. Once I broke out of the local cocoon through writing and other media I was quickly introduced to the phrase “RINO” and found out about the level of disdain which the “serious” social conservatives held for us. Without even knowing it I had inherited all manner of near-fatal political flaws. I had no taste for military adventurism in unprovoked situations, so I was apparently a secret admirer of something called “Code Pink” and was dubious in my patriotism, if not an outright, cowardly wuss. The notion of two lesbians in California tying the knot didn’t send me into spasms of outrage and see me sadly begin packing my wife’s belongings because our marriage had somehow been “damaged” by that event. (In fact, the idea of somebody else winding up paying alimony gave me the giggles.) Because of this, I was horrified to discover that I had no traditional values and was not a Good Christian American.

To my credit, though, upon learning of any Democrats who planned to take away my guns I would still light up the odd torch and run a whetstone halfheartedly over the tines of my pitchfork.

It took me a while to figure out why the GOP was so miserably bad at building support among minority voters. Even in oh so liberal New York, it wasn’t that there weren’t blacks, Asians or Latinos who wanted privacy, a lower national debt and a smaller tax bite nibbling at their paychecks. In fact, there were quite a few. It was just those other areas, mostly… those oh so dominant “social conservative issues” that gave many of them the screaming meemies. It had the same effect on me.

I applaud Sophia’s efforts, but I waited a long time for that bus to show up and have long since hailed a cab. I wish her the best, but as I view the reactions to Election 2008 around the Starboard leaning side of the blogosphere, I don’t expect it’s going to get back on schedule any time soon. I’ve also witnessed more than my fair share of the “Drive Out The RINOs!” movement these past couple of weeks. The environment is still not only one which isn’t welcoming to the moderates… it’s even more hostile in some quarters.

  • superdestroyer
    AFter eight years of conpassionate, big government big spending, big entitlement Republicans, maybe the moderate need to be kicked in the ass. The Republicans have tried the lets buy off mdoerates and the idea failed and the Republicans are not good at it.

    Maybe if the moderates would show social conservatives anything but the back of their hand, they would be more accepted. Yet, social conservatives are suppose to always support the moderate even though the moderate never suppports the social conservatives.

    If could point out a small government, more freedom moderate, you would also have a stronger case. But the moderates in the Republican Party seem to have never seen a new spending program that they would not support.
  • elrod
    Social conservatives destroyed the Republican Party outside the South and the Mormon belt. There was a period in the early 1980s when law-and-order type social conservatism sold well among working class white Northern suburbs. But those days of racial tension are a thing of the past. Now the social conservatism is defined by religion instead of race. And it's fundamentalist, evangelical Protestantism. There are certainly fundamentalists in the exurbs and rural areas of the non-South. But they are a small element as a whole.The GOP is dead in New England, dead in suburban NY, Philly, Cleveland, Detroit, Washington, LA, SF, Seattle, Portland, Denver, Miami
    and Chicago. It is reeling in suburban Cincinnati, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Houston, Tamps and elsewhere. The reason is a hyper-focus on wedge social issue.
  • superdestroyer
    Elrod,

    So take your thesis to the next logical stepl. How will the U.S operate as a one party state where the DEmocratic primary is the real election. Will most offices be up for grabs once a generation. Will current office holders hand pick their successors. How will people view politics with so little change in office holders?
  • GeorgeSorwell
    Oh, come on!

    Is it so unthinkable that Republicans lost a bunch of elections because they did a lousy job?

    You don't even need to picture George W Bush. How about George Pataki instead?

    PS And I certainly hope the expression the Mormon Belt goes no further than the comments section of this post. Sheesh!!
  • kritt11
    This is no longer Reagan's America. The GOP has not changed with the times and they will fail as long as they cling to their antiquated ideology. Obviously in the age of global warming and the war on terror, small government is a fantasy.The world has become too complicated to let the markets prevail. In so many cases, like the price of oil, the laws of supply and demand do not apply. And if the American people agree on nothing else they agree that they do not want the government infringing on their private lives and limiting their liberties.

    So imo, Republicans will continue to lose if they offer nothing besides their limited government- no new taxes-supply-side markets mantra and will do equally poorly if they advance a socially conservative agenda. They are beginning to realize this now, which is why there is so much vindictive finger pointing going on.

    Republicans need to admit they polluted, bankrupted and corrupted the shining city on a hill due to greed , deregulation and a stunning lack of oversight.
  • StockBoySF
    kritt said, "And if the American people agree on nothing else they agree that they do not want the government infringing on their private lives and limiting their liberties."

    Unfortunately that's not true on all issues, such as Prop 8 in CA. The religious right voted for it because they wanted their government to say gay marriage was unconstitutional.

    On more general observation about prop 8.... (not directed at you, kritt).... Forget the fact that prop 8 has absolutely no bearing one way or the other on how those effing religious right folks practice their religion. If they do not want to recognize or perform gay marriage in their religion, they are not forced to. All the religious right wanted to do was force their beliefs on others to keep them from marrying the one they love. I'm half way tempted to start a ballot initiative in CA to allow discrimination against religious right folks in the workplace.... that would give them a taste of their own medicine.... discrimination against someone (and taking away a basic constitutionally protected right) just because you don't agree with them. Obviously I wouldn't do it, but the point I'm making is that once the government (acting through the will of the people) take away a basic constitutionally protected right for the purposes of discrimination, where do you draw the line? Which rights do you preserve and which do you allow the people to decide on? And once you do draw the line why there and not some other place?
  • kritt11
    That's true Stockboy- I was thinking of the larger picture on abortion and flag burning rather than gay marriage. I don't think mainstream America is ready for it yet. You have to proceed with baby steps-- like civil unions first. I have been more concerned with the RR's advances in teaching intelligent design, limiting contraceptive options, (some fundies are even against any birth control besides rhythm) and federal support for stem cell research.

    The generation that has grown up since the Reagan years voted decidedly for Democrats, and they won 96% of blacks and 67% of Hispanics. So Reagan's three pillars which created the GOP's coalition no longer interests a working majority of voters. Like the dinosaurs they face extinction because they are not evolving with changing demographics.
  • superdestroyer
    stockboy,

    The left has created an entire legal industry in denying rights to individuals. All they left has to do is find a leftist activist judge and claim, compelling interest. The left has used compelling interest to regulate speech, to discriminate in the delivery of government services, to limit religion, and to limit people's ability to associate.

    People who believe that the left is for more freedom are focusing on sex and drugs. How else can they believe that the political party who wants to regulate cooking oils is really about freedom.
  • kritt11
    SD- What r ya smokin'? :-)

    What about-- promoting civil rights== freedom from discrimination?
    What about --promoting voting rights==== ditto
    What about --promoting safety in the workplace for millions?
    What about -- gay rights and a woman's right to family planning?
    What about -- Giving DC voters congressional representation?
    What about-- cleaning up the environment-so we can all breathe clean air?
    What about-- promoting product safety-- so we don't poison ourselves on imports?
    What about-- opposition to torture, and illegal warrantless wiretapping?
  • superdestroyer
    kritt, The left has been in front of the supreme court arguing that it is Ok for the state to discirminate on the baisis for race for hiring, educational opprotunities, government contracting. It is the left in the U.S. that has pushed for race/ethnic discrimination in the last thirty years (Brom Bakke to Seattle).

    The left has debased voting rights but refusing to enforce the law and opposing reasonable requirements on domicile and identification. It is Democrats from DC to St Louis who have been sued for voting right violations.

    The left cannot claim workplace safety and then require pizza delivery guys to drive inot the worst neighborhoods. To the left, the appearance of not profiling is more important that work place hazard. Besides, while the left promotes open borders and unlimited immigration, it had added millions of workers who are incapable of reading and understanding simple warning signs.

    The left does not care about consumer safety while promoting legalizing drugs. Besides, consumer products have been getting safer and the envrionment cleaner through both Republican and Democratic Administrations. Of c ourse, the Republicans believe the government should pay when regulations make land and property worthless but the Democrats like the taking without paying idea.

    It is hard for the Demcorats to worry about warrantless searchers after looking through Joe the Plumbers government records. When push comes to shove, governments will abuse their powers. What do you think will happen when the government requires sexual orientation on college applications or government job applications?
  • kritt11
    SD- The right is guilty of far worse. The right sides with mine owners over miners - allowing them to slide by safety regs in return for bigger profits. The right said nothing when it was found that Bush had ok'd illegal warrantless wiretapping of US citizens and ok"d torture. Secret prisons were fine too. It was fine for the FBI to send out letters harassing citizens for no good reason, and no one on the right complained when the administration outed a CIA agent for political reasons. Here in MD peace activists and environmentalists were declared terrorists- and followed by the FBI for 18 months with no evidence of wrongdoing.
    Internationally we are now the subject of derision because of our unwillingness to heed international treaties that we have signed.

    And Republicans have been guilty of caging, voter suppression and harassing voting rights groups so that their candidates will win.

    And who complained on the right when the Pentagon was not forced to clean up sites it had polluted or Big Tobacco was let off with a slap on the wrist?

    Maybe our kids will stop getting injured and killed when toy companies are forced to clean up their acts, and we stop importing all that cheap stuff from China.

    I personally will give up my freedom to die from lung cancer or heart disease-- if the left wants to regulate smoking and trans fats more power to them!
  • superdestroyer
    kritt,

    The Pentagon has spent billions in environmental costs and not one single piece of land had been rule decominated. California has been fighting over Hamilton Army Air field for over 40 years. The reason places are not cleaned up is because there is no way under EPA rules to say that they are cleaned up. See Jefferson Proving Ground.

    The left does not have to spy. They just force people to give them data (see the University of Delaware). Guess what happens in sexual orientation becomes protected stautus. The government will demand that every tell them their orientation to get into college, get a job, etc.

    The left has been outing CIA agents for decades. The left has decided that it is fine if street level criminals torture and kill people (see the family murdered in Baltimore when their home was burned). The left screams that the CIA did not do its job but then places limits on the CIA/NSA that give terrorist the abilty to avoid detection.

    the left wants to ban cigarettes but legalize hard drugs. and then make non users pay the medical costs of users.

    You are willing to be up rights to feel safe just like the right. I want to be able to decide where I leave, where I work, what I drive, and want I eat. The progressives want to regulate all of that and it will get worse with nationalized healthcare.

    the left also wants to regulate what is said in political speech, how people practice their religion, and who they associate with. There is no consitutional right that the left will not find a compelling interest to limit.

    If you are worried about dying how about controlling street crime and illegal immigration instead of trans fats.
  • kritt11
    SD- I'm much more likely to die from second hand smoke, pollution or heart disease than be the victim of a crime. The truth is crime is no longer a major issue-it has been going down for a long time. And the left wants political speech to be true and fair- not the garbage spewed on conservative talk radio that calls decent citizens terrorists and communists.

    Where did you get the nonsensical idea that the left thinks its ok for criminals to torture families?? Name one Democrat that has come out for that idea!
    As far as living where you want,eating what you want,driving what you want-----
    No one is totally free to do exactly what they want--- that is called anarchy.
  • superdestroyer
    kritt,

    Listen to urban politicians when a black criminal kills a police officer. they will justify it. Look at the No Snitching movement in the black community. Liberals Democrats support movements such as No Snitching. They also push for black juries to acquit black defendents.

    There is no easy solution for harden criminals, so the left what to wishdraw from the area and give the criminals whatever they want. You should also look at how urban areas have found ways to lower the crime rate by refusing to report crimes. Besides, any lowering of crime is due to large incarciration rates that the Democrats have uniformly opposed.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC