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.
No, I DEFINITELY meant Libertarians. See tagline.
I can stand moderates. Just can’t stand libertarians.
Actually the social conservatives are the most right wing of all voters without question, just as social liberals are the most left wing, without question, the libertarians, as few as they are, can be democrat or republican, but the party that uses libertarianism for it’s platform, is hard left on everything but money issues.
The tea party is made up mostly of social conservatives, not social liberals.
Absolutely! I just sent this to Saxby Chambliss. I have written numerous letters to get a form letter response. I told him that I was sick of these letters that usually have LITTLE, if any true response to the issue of concern. I’ve already told him that I would work to defeat him in the primary if he voted for tax hikes, as he has indicated he was willing to do.
“The party of business and defense.”
Actually the GOP has lost big business and the crony multinational capitalists. The Fortune 500 executive suite occupants and the Wall Street bankers are voting for Democrats and supporting Democrats with their wallets and their votes. The GOP business support comes from small to medium size businesses. Unfortunately for the GOP those small business owners are also social conservatives and libertarians. They know the Democrats will act against business interests so they support the Republican Party because it pretends to represent the interests. This support is given only because they have no alternative, not because they are particularly pleased with the party’s representation of their interests.
Democrats will over time capture the small businessmen with political perks and favors, or outright coercion, to make them dependent just as they have captured the support of the multinational corporations through tax loopholes and regulatory coercion. Look at what happened during the auto bailout. Auto dealerships owned by Republicans had their franchises arbitrarily taken away by the federal government. This was a warning to other small businesses. Toe the line or we will use the power of the government to destroy your business. The IRS, OSHA, EPA, EEOC, and other agencies will apply pressure to businesses owned by Republicans over the next four years. The unstated message will be, support the Democrat Party or pay the price. This is Chicago politics. No individual small business will have the resources to oppose the power of the federal government. They will fall in line and pay their tribute or go out of business. It is only a matter of time.
Who then will fund the coffers of the Republican Party?
It’s dead Jim.
I can stand moderates. Just can’t stand libertarians.
Because the country would collapse if people could buy a drink on Sunday, smoke in a bar, own more than one liquor store or distill their own whiskey.
The moderates are *far* better, since they just want to spend more than the government brings in, take away your right to your personal property, require you to send your children to state run education camps (public schools), increase taxes and increase the size of government.
I'm so glad that there are people like you who can really see which issues are critical for the survival of our republic.
The biggest obstacle in the Kulturkampf with the socialist left is NOT the Demcorat Party. Its the elites in the GOP.
Its time to cut ties with these people.
The GOPe’s opposition to the tea party is purely ideological. The GOPe are mostly big government fachists. Their philosopy is antithetical to Tea Party beliefs.
The GOPe actually has more in commeon with the democrats.
Libertarians weigh each issue with the simple question, does this infringe on personal freedoms?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Because you are at odds with Christian conservatives, we find your fiscal, economic, military policies and values are suspect also. Case in point? Your liberal pro-dope agenda. That is a deal-breaker for SoCons.
Sorry to infringe on your personal freedom to destroy yourself. But I will not apologize or back down from my approval of the WOD.
Fascist.
I think it’s fairer to call it a populist bent rather than a liberal one, but (as a practical matter) it does lead to more support for big government programs than they typical tea partier would be comfortable with. But, to be fair, the typical conservative today would be considered a flaming left wing liberal by most of the founding fathers.
Also, all three groups wear some blinders when it comes to their own candidates. Far too many people (in all three groups) live in their own political bubble. Often supporting candidates that have an aspect that makes them unacceptable to other factions (Santorum’s big spending and open antipathy towards the tea party, Paul’s foreign policy, Cain’s lack of experience).
There’s a difference between compromising your principles and finding common points of emphasis. Libertarians aren’t going to support a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, but the removal of activist judges is an issue both libertarians and social conservatives can agree on.
Libertarians are ok with a liquor store opening up next to a high school and a legal brothel across the street.
I don't like this standard. Not at all. But it is the only option we have. Now. Do you want politicians who believe this and are radical leftists trying to Fluke America with abortions, gays in the military, and a Socialist state?
Or do you want a SoCon with values and beliefs that you can trust who will work against the status quo we now have politically?
lolol
Is that the best you do do? Go ahead. Call me more names. You have my permission.
After all. I’m a while male Christian conservative. I’m used to it.
Even on a supposedly conservative site like Free Republic.
Here you're wrong. Gay 'marriage' does infringe on others' rights, and marriage has a lot of legal and financial implications that obligate other people. Health insurance, for instance.
I don't care what gays call it; I don't care what private arrangements they want to make among themselves as to hospital visitation, inheritance, etc. I am opposed to being forced to recognize it as a valid marriage, and I am opposed to gay adoption because it does harm others, namely the children
But they are perfectly free to spit in the face of God, if that is their choice. If He allows, who are we to forbid it? Just don't call it marriage.
while = white
Mister we could use a man like Mussolini again
C’MON! EVERYONE!!
“Libertarians are ok with a liquor store opening up next to a high school and a legal brothel across the street.”
Capital-L (meaning Libertarian party members) are. Small-l (libertarian leaning Republicans) are not.
What I keep seeing in this thread are examples of conservatives (be it tea partiers, social cons, or libertarians) that live in their own bubble, and consequently only see the other groups through stereotypes.
Libertarianism would work if everyone was born 30 years old with a fully formed brain and was a functioning adult. Unfortunately, to raise a child in a libertarian society is is hell on earth.
“What I keep seeing in this thread are examples of conservatives (be it tea partiers, social cons, or libertarians) that live in their own bubble, and consequently only see the other groups through stereotypes.”
It happens every single time.
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.