Where Do We Go From Here?

I've been thinking a lot about our devastating losses in the Midterm Election, and trying to ask myself, "Where do we go from here?" In order to properly answer that question, we need to determine HOW we get into this situation where we have lost both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

The mainstream media would like you to believe that the 2006 Election signals the end of the so-called "Reagan Coalition" and the beginning of a move to the Left in American politics. I do NOT agree. The Reagan coalition has NOT been destroyed, but I do think it's fair to say that it has been "fractured" somewhat over the last several years, and we witnessed the culmination of that in the 2006 Election. The bottom line is that Conservatives and/or Republicans have engaged in a lot of 'circular firing squad' behavior over the last few years, and that's not good.

I think the first thing we need to do is examine the various factions within our movement and see WHY they are angry or disappointed in the Republican Party at this stage of the game. The groups I list are what I and others consider to be the foundation of the so-called Reagan Coalition that has, for the most part, dominated American Politics between 1980 and 2004:

LIBERTARIAN CONSERVATIVRES--This group has always had an uneasy alliance with the Conservative movement because they do not necessarily agree with some of the moral foundations of our movement. BUT...Reagan was able to bring this group under the Republican tent with his heavy emphasis on Personal Responsibility, and Reagan's foundational ties to the original Barry Goldwater campaign of 1964 that pushed so many Libertarians under the Republican tent. This group has grown increasingly disenchanted with the Republican Party in the post-Reagan era because they feel they have been ignored at the expense of the Social/Christian Conservatives. This group has been drifting away for years, but their departure was exacerbated by the (regrettable but totally necessary) adoption of things like the Patriot Act. To Libertarian Conservatives, things like the Patriot Act merely reinforced their worst fears of Republicans turning into the Big Government types that they once despised. To see CLEAR illustrations of our losses among Libertarian Conservatives, please notice the erosion of Republican support in key states like Montana, Arizona, Colorado and Nevada. This is an example of a General loss of support among Libertarian Republicans. As for a very specific example, please note the loss of Congressman Jim Leach in Iowa, who made his anti-Gambling bill the foundation of his tenure, and Libertarian Republicans totally abandoned him this year and he suffered a stunning upset defeat. This group feels the party has sold out to Christian Conservatives.

BUCHANAN/ISOLATIONIST CONSERVATIVES--This group has been wrongly referred to as 'Paleo-Conservatives' and while they do represent a part of this group, that is not what the foundation of the group is. The true foundation of this group is based on Populism and Isolationism...two of the most dangerous political ideologies to have at least one foot in the Right Wing world. These are the people who jumped off the reservation in 1992 and voted for Ross Perot, thus giving us the Bill Clinton tragedy. Obviously, this group has been slipping away for years, but they really fled after the invasion of Iraq, a war which is not overtly about national interest...even though less Populist Conservatives realize that it is ALL about national interest over the long haul. This group thinks the party has sold out to Wall Street Conservatives.

CHRISTIAN/SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES--This group has truly been the backbone of the Party in the Reagan era and beyond. They have been reliable voters who generally have accepted modest return on their investment in terms of their loyalty...though they do expect SOME return, and their demands have increased in recent years. They have drifted away ever so slightly the past two years, mainly because of their disgust with things like the Abramoff and Foley scandals, as well as some other issues related to Republican corruption. But also, there has been a general feeling pervading this community that perhaps they have not been rewarded enough for their loyalty. Their worst fears seemed to come true when Republicans foolishly compromised on the issue of Judicial Filibusters. When that fool John McCain and his so-called Gang of 14 led Republicans to drop the so-called "nuclear option" that confirmed the worst fears of many Social Conservatives that the Republicans either took them for granted, or they lacked the moral courage to do the right thing in the face of pathetic behavior by the Democrats. This group tends to feel that Wall Street Republicans and Fiscal Conservatives have too much power in the party.

WALL STREET REPUBLICANS--This group is mistakenly referred to as "Rockefeller Republicans" by the media and other Right Wing elements...this is VERY inaccurate. The Rockefeller Republicans of yesteryear are now Democrats or Independents...the last of the Rockefeller Republicans was Lincoln Chafee, and he just lost his Senate seat on Tuesday, so they are ALL gone now. In truth, the Wall Street Republicans are essentially what the media has mislabeled as Paleo Conservatives. They are pure, laissez faire Capitalists, who place the accumulation of Wealth and Material gain as the ultimate extension of pure Democracy. They are what's left of the pre-FDR Republicans, along with the less ugly faction of the Buchanan group. They tend to think that the Social Conservatives have too much power in the party.

FISCAL CONSERVATIVES--They are different from the Wall Street Conservatives in that they tend to be more about Personal Responsibility as the foundation of fiscal discipline rather than the accumulation of wealth. This group has been VERY reliable for the Republican Party for decades, but has shown some signs of slippage in the post-9/11 era as Republicans in Congress have shown less and less fiscal discipline. They tend to think that the Social Conservatives and Neo-Conservatives have too much power.

NEO-CONSERVATIVES--While most of you on this forum will STRONGLY disagree with me on this, this group has been the second most important faction in the growth of the Republican Party in the Reagan years and beyond...only Social Conservatives have been more important. Reagan himself was a former FDR Democrat, and MOST of the really important influential Conservatives of the late 20th Century (Krauthammer, Fukuyama, Kristol, etc...) have been Neo-Conservatives. This group is now a popular target of all other Conservatives as they are being blamed for the Iraq War. Neo-Conservatives, with some exceptions, have remained faithful to their moralistic view of foreign policy despite events in Iraq, and have chosen to focus more on problems involved in the execution of the War rather than any fundamental failure in theory. So Neo-Cons have shown some slippage as they blame President Bush for not prosecuting the War as violently as necessary, nor articulating the reasons for the War as well as he should have. Neo-Conservatives tend to feel that the Wall Street Republicans have too much power.

REALIST CONSERVATIVES--Best represented by people like George Bush's father and James Baker. These are the people who warned the younger Bush about the follies of Neo-Conservatism and the pursuit of an over-aggressive foreign policy. While the problems in Iraq have made this group look smarter by the day, this is VERY misleading. This group is the one that laid the foundation for the absolute MESS that is the Middle East. The so-called Realists had their chance to solve things in the Middle East and elsewhere for over 50 years...and they failed miserably. They were the same people who told Ronald Reagan that his approach to the Soviet Union was too harsh. History has proven their ideology both flawed and immoral...but they are a necessary evil in our movement as they reign in the natural tendency of neo-conservatism to turn into Utopianism, or the Woodrow Wilson view of the world. The Realists tend to think that Neo-Conservatives have far too much power.

So in summary, you can see that all of these groups have major gripes with the direction of the Conservative Movement in America. Reagan was able to bring all of these diverse groups together under the flag of Patriotism and Optimism, and to a lesser extent, Newt Gingrich did the same thing during the Clinton years. George Bush was able to hold this coalition together in the ashes of 9/11, but as things grew more difficult in Iraq, these divisions began to crack the movement at the seams. The Conservative/Reagan coalition is NOT dead and it MUST be salvaged...

I have thoughts on how we can achieve this goal together, but I would like to hear you thoughts on what I've said, and where you think we should go from here. I'll post my thoughts later in the thread after I've seen some (hopefully thoughtful!) responses.

>OK, so how do we SOLVE that problem? What can we do to please BOTH Libertarian Conservatives AND Social Conservatives?<

WWII brought everyone together for the good and the ultimate victory of our great nation. Besides a willing and determined military, blacks, whites, young women and old men worked side by side in shipyards, and in munition factories, resulting in our ultimate victory. In contrast, the war on terror seems to have splintered the American people into many opposing camps, rather than unifying them for the good and the survival of the Republic. Unfortunately, Communist organizational infiltration, patience and perserverence has succeeded in fracturing Patriotism. Patriotism is now considered by many as a very bad word. But Patriotism is the only glue I know of which can bring a people together for the good of the country. However, I am open to other suggestions.

Thom Pain,

You are correct. But more importantly, we need an internet service to compete with the Left Wing bias of YAHOO, which is where so many people get their casual, daily news. Do not underestimate the impact of Yahoo on Independents who pay little or no attention until Election time. These are the people who know every single person on Dancing with the Stars or the Bachelor, but can't tell you the name of their own Congressman...

I agree with you 100%. We need to be persistent and omni-present on ALL media. Currently we are on talk radio and FR. Our presence doesn't amount to a hill of beans compared to b'cast TV, cable, Newspapers, Time/Newsweek/Parade/etc.

Millions tune in to even Katie and she is in LAST place.

Imagine if Tony Snow presented real news and conservative talking points on CBS every night. Imagine if "60 Minutes" was produced by Donald Rumsfeld!

Imagine what could be done with even a neutral news program, let alone a conservative bias.

If there is anybody on the Right the left hates as much as Bush, it's Newt. But he's also the guy with the brains and the ability to make it stick. I see he has a new, "21st Century Contract With America" up on his website. Interesting, especially for me, in view of the fact that I posted his OLD "Contract" on my blogspot just this morning! LOL! GMTA?

..we need to determine HOW we get into this situation ..

In retrospect, I am perplexed we didn't see this coming.

There were two special US House of Rep. elections this past year in normally GOP districts which I believe went to the Dems, did they not.

Or did I dream that?

Regardless, I am convinced there are several reasons the GOP got thumped, and they varied percentage-wise for each candidate.

In general, however, I blame the loss on:

(Iraq war dissatisfaction: 60-percent)

(Illegal immigration pandering by Bush/Senate: 15-percent)

(GOP Overspending and Corruption: 15-percent)

(And lastly, Blatant Media Hatred against GOP on... Stem Cell issue, Wilson/Plame/Rove/Libby fiasco, and Hurricane Katrina: 15-percent)

OK, so how do we SOLVE that problem? What can we do to please BOTH Libertarian Conservatives AND Social Conservatives?

A basic of conflict resolution is to find the most important thing which we can all agree.

1. Both respect the freedoms set forth by the founders of this nation. 2. Libertarian Conservatives and Social Conservatives can probably agree that give-aways such as welfare for the able-bodied is a travesty and unconstitutional.

3. Libertarians Conservatives and Social Conservatives agree on the 2nd Amendment.

4. They both respect the Military.

See? Start where we agree. Where we disagree, we can agree to seek the constitution for answers..the paper itself, NOT as defined by SCOTUS (which is another story)

I'm sure we can do something to make a cohesive party. Maybe sometimes we can agree to disagree, and allow each State to decide as is proper on matters of Abortion, Same sex marriage, etc.

The fact is the voters love split government! The control of all branches(except Judiciary) of government is somewhat of an aberration. Absolute power ect...
The congress in the hands of the Dim's might actually enhance the chances of a Republican administration in 2008.

By taking a good, hard, realistic look at what made Ronald Reagan popular and great: militaristic nationalism, Keynsian economic spending which make the economy boom, and middle class (as opposed to the Bush upper class) tax cuts.

In other words, Reagan was FDR with middle class tax cuts.

If you want a strong industrial base, strong military and invincible political power, the American model is FDR.

Reagan was the FDR of the 1980s.

Want to win again? Then act like FDR.

I agree that those are many issues which Reagan used to bind the two together, but BOTH sides now regularly denigrate the other side...much to my chagrin. How do we get them to stop engaging in the "circular firing squad" I talked about? That common ground SHOULD do it, but it's not at the moment.

BINGO!!! That is exactly the answer I was looking for. Act like a Right Wing version of FDR, which is what Reagan did. But will that fly with Social Conservatives who have become more demanding than they were during the Reagan years?

"OK, so how do we SOLVE that problem? What can we do to please BOTH Libertarian Conservatives AND Social Conservatives?"

LIke I said above: be FDR.

Blatantly and unapologetically skew the American economy towards protecting the jobs and financial security of the middle and working classes, build the military and fight the Nazis (Islamofascists today) everywhere. And don't worry about the mewling and puking of the upper classes, because they have nowhere to go (everywhere else in the world is worse for them, and the Democrats are worse too), but offer them advisory roles, etc., to co-opt them into government.

Reagan's hero was FDR.
The Democrats turned into America-hating pacifists and moral wastrels. This disgusted Reagan.
Reagan in 1981 was actually more LIBERAL than FDR was on most things, but the core: aggressive nationalism, military industrialism, and an economy aimed at the middle class were all the keys to the success of both.

Be FDR, and we will win again.

That common ground SHOULD do it, but it's not at the moment.

I am truly not trying to be flippant when I say "Pelosi and Rangle" will bring us together.

The worse it gets, the more we will concentrate on what is important. Foxhole buddy sort of thing.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.