Posted on 12/03/2012 7:31:09 AM PST by Brookhaven
Every party has its wings–different sub-groups that are part of the larger organization. The Republican party has three wings that the Republican leadership believes is so dangerous to the future of the party, that they tried to suppress their influence in the last election, and pointed fingers at them as the reason for the GOP’s poor showing in the 2012 election cycle.
The Tea Party
It originally sprung up in opposition to out of control government spending. It has become a grass-roots movement centered around government fiscal responsibility. It has a tendancy to work outside the Republican party machinery, which has engendered the wrath of the GOP establishment.
It’s not unusual for a primary candidate to be scorned by the GOP establishment, simply because the candidate is considered a tea partier. Tea partiers felt like they were locked out of the 2012 convention. The GOP is highly critical of any tea party slip ups and magnifies them into major failures. Conversely, the GOP establishment seems to conveniently fail to give the tea party credit for its successes (Marco Rubio for example). It seems as if the GOP establishment now wishes the tea party would just go away.
Social Conservatives
They are concerned about government using its influence to push the country socially to the left. While they get pigeon-holed as the pro-life/pro-traditional-marriage group, in the larger sense they are concerned about government policies that undermine family integrity (such as the welfare state) and an activist judiciary that (1) creates new rights out of thin air that push the country socially to the left, and (2) thwarts any attempt to reign in government social activism.
And, the GOP establishment hates them. They want their votes, but they don’t want them to speak. The aftermath of the 2012 election produced another flood GOP consultants blaming the loss on social conservatives.
Libertarians
You sometimes forget there is a libertarian wing of the Republican party (because it is so loosely tied to the party), but it’s there. When a libertarian leaning candidate emerges (as Paul did in the last primary), you realize how sizeable (and vocal) this group really is. Unfortunately, this group tends to pack up its toys and go home when it doesn’t get its way. Which, is exactly what the GOP establishment wants. If a group can’t be controlled, they would rather it not be part of the GOP. Libertarians (because they are so focused on individual liberty) are the least controllable of all. This is why they (like tea party activists) were shut out of the 2012 convention.
The core philosophy of libertarians is (1) the government should be limited to its constitutional functions, and (2) individual rights trump government and group “rights.” Not that far out there at all, really. Unfortunately, it’s easy to confuse the libertarian messenge with the libertarian messager. Both Ron Paul and the actual Libertarian party are much farther out onto the edge on a host of issues than the typical libertarian leaning Republican, giving many people the impression that libertarian is a code word for wacko. It’s not. It is though, the only wing of the GOP that attracts large numbers of college students and young voters (something conservatives of all stripes should be very aware of; if you can’t pull in young people, your movement will grow old and die).
The GOP establishment sees all three groups as more trouble than they are worth. Hence its constant maneuvering to silence, shut-out, and shut-down all three. But, without these groups, what would the Republican party be left with? Without tea partiers (fiscal conservatives), without social conservatives (family values and judicial restraint), and without libertarians (individual liberty and adherence to the Constitution) what would be left; what would the Republican party become?
The party of business and defense.
Is that enough? Can the GOP survive (much less flourish) emphasizing business and defense, while deemphasizing everything else? Obviously not, but that would seem to be the path the GOP establishment is taking the party down, as it continues to attempt to suppress the influence of the tea party movement, social conservatives, and libertarians.
Maybe it’s time the red-headed stepchildren focus on working with each other, instead or working with the GOP establishment. I’m not sure if this would take the form of another party, or a redheaded coalition within the GOP, but whatever form, it would certainly be more effective than the current situation.
Don’t think the three groups can work together? Social conservatives tend to be fiscal conservatives, which lines up the the tea party. Tea partiers want government to stay within its constitutional bounds, and so do libertarians. Libertarians are concerned about judges who legislate from the bench, as are social conservatives. When you lay it out, the three groups’ goals, they mesh nicely. Not perfectly, but there is a lot of overlap. Enough, certainly, to form a coalition.
Perhaps it’s time the redheaded stepchildren get together and quit being children.
PS
And, for those that think libertarians are inherently pro-abortion, consider that Ron Paul (the libertarian wing’s poster boy from 2012) is pro-life, Bob Barr (the 2008 Libertarian party nominee) is pro-life, and Michal Bardnarik (the 2004 Libertarian party nominee) is pro-life. Support for abortion does not seem to be a litmus test for libertarian thought. Most libertarians believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and the matter returned to the state level. A position a significant number of social conservatives also agree with.
Right off the Libs. They’re just a brain-fart away from voting democrat anyway.
Focus on the Tea Partiers and the SoCons. Find candidates who relate to our majority views. Win Elections.
Its. That. Simple.
“The party of business and defense.” WRONG! GOP-e would become JUST the “The party of business(crony Capitalism)” GOP-e has ALWAYS been WEAK on Defense.
Again, based on the incomprehensible popularity of Huckabee, this assumption should not be taken too far. I think there's a component of moderate/low income rural social conservatives very keen on Big Government farm subsidies, and "Sticking it to the Rich" on taxation.
Hence, we know where the transmission cooler lines run under the bus--we've spent that much time under it.
But, without these groups, what would the Republican party be left with? Without tea partiers (fiscal conservatives), without social conservatives (family values and judicial restraint), and without libertarians (individual liberty and adherence to the Constitution) what would be left; what would the Republican party become?
A two-time loser.
If the GOP spent as much time catering to it's base as it does catering to the Left, it might win more often.
And, for those that think libertarians are inherently pro-abortion, consider that Ron Paul (the libertarian wing’s poster boy from 2012) is pro-life, Bob Barr (the 2008 Libertarian party nominee) is pro-life, and Michal Bardnarik (the 2004 Libertarian party nominee) is pro-life. Support for abortion does not seem to be a litmus test for libertarian thought. Most libertarians believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and the matter returned to the state level. A position a significant number of social conservatives also agree with.
Incorrect. Libs are pro-life maybe on the state level. As far as the federal government? They OPPOSE a Constitutional Amendment endorsing the right to life for unborn Americans. Support for abortion does not seem to be a litmus test for libertarian thought. Heh. That may be true. But support for dangerougs drugs being legalized? Now THAT is a fundamental requirement.
No, as I say... The sooner we dump social liberals from the GOP, the sooner we recover.
That sounds like a great idea.
“Right” off the Libertarians. then everyone else you disagree with, then a political party for you. Works every time.
There's no evidence there are any more minable votes there - they all pretty much turned out, and Romney still lost. And even if there are more to turn out, the vast majority are in states Republicans win easily anyway.
Still waiting for the final certified election numbers but, relative to 2008 and 2004, the area Romney did best was the Bible Belt South.
I don’t think he meant libertarians when he said “libs”.
I think he meant the “moderates” who are halfast socialists anyway.
I love how so many of you guys “write off” (check your spelling) Libertarians right away because we don’t walk in lockstep with the religious side of the Conservative movement.
Libertarians weigh each issue with the simple question, does this infringe on personal freedoms?
What that means is, does this law/action infringe on the rights or freedoms of another, does it place a burden on another member of society other than the burden of non-interference (meaning your only burden is to ignore it).
When the answer is yes, we’re against such laws, such as gay marriage laws (I’m going to catch hell just for using that term on here as an example), it’s not that we support it, we just look at it from the individual freedom standpoint, it doesn’t infringe on our rights or freedoms and doesn’t place a burden on society other than having to ignore it, so it’s something that Social/Religious Conservatives and Libertarians aren’t going to agree on.
Now, in other areas Libertarians and Conservatives are in agreement, we want smaller limited government, we don’t believe in federal regulation of areas that it doesn’t have the Constitutional authority to interfere in, those matters should always be left to the states.
We also believe in a strong military, the Federal Government has that responsibility, we just don’t believe in a wasteful military, we don’t need as many bases around to world as we have, in those areas we should have agreements in place with various countries to use their facilities when need be, we really don’t need so many bases in Europe as an example.
Also, believe it or not, many Libertarians are Pro-Life, since we believe all people’s rights should be protected, even the unborn.
Our fundamental belief if individual freedom, people should be free to do as they choose as long as their actions are peaceful and don’t infringe on the rights and freedoms of another, we just don’t support anyone, be it Conservatives or Liberals, using the force of government to push their own personal beliefs.
The libertarian vote was pretty significant in 2012 (much larger than in 2008), they’ll help more in swing states than the other groups, and again unlike the other groups they aren’t already voting Republican.
I think the Tea Partiers and Libertarians have the most in common. The Libertarians include the property rights folks, as do the TPs. The social cons are more in the left wing camp. I have found that many support big government social programs. They also tend to want to legislate their brand of morality and social norms on everyone else. This is incompatible with the right of the individual from regulation, which is what the Libertarians espouse.
The GOP has stumbled into the elephant graveyard. The problem is that it doesn’t know - or believe - that it is dead. Memo to Boehner, et. al.: Give it up, you are irrelevant.
With all the people the GOP-e doesn’t want in the party, what’s left would be smaller than a Joe Biteme crowd of pro-life people.
“The Republican party has three wings that the Republican leadership believes is so dangerous to the future of the party...”
The No. 1 enemy to the GOP is RINOs. It’s time to throw them out.
The Geriatric Old Plotters are to conservatism and liberty what Vidkun Quisling was to Norwegian national defense.
Libertarians have put some hard line liberal democrats in office to the detriment of their own cause.
“The No. 1 enemy to the GOP is RINOs. It’s time to throw them out.”
What you call a RINO is the default setting for Republican leadership. Northern, progressive, elitist and now transnationals. The old Rockefeller Republicans, now seen in the Bush family and Romney.
Remember the rules changes during the convention? They ARE the GOP. They are not going to be displaced. They need to be simply abandoned.
Thanks. I kept looking at that word “Right”. I knew “write” away there was something wrong with it
I obviously mis-spelled the word. I should have said “Rite off the Libs....”
Democrats In All But Label Only.
Or DIABLOs for short.
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.