Saturday, April 5, 2014

Bridging the Republican Divide

Are we talking about an impossibility? Maybe.

It depends on how much Republicans want to avoid a Hillary Clinton presidency. The problem is, some party members might secretly be more comfortable with Hillary than some of the Republican contenders!

Does anyone recall Rick Perry referring to Mitt Romney as "Obama lite?" Most probably didn't catch what amounted to a mild slur. In effect, he was pointing out actual similarities between ideologies. Romney was "left" of the base, in fact "so left" of the Tea Party that he essentially ignored them.

You wonder if the Fortune 500 companies cared who won! We do know, that when Rick Santorum began closing the gap, their coffers opened wide on behalf of Governor Romney! They were likewise contributing to the Obama campaign.

There is also the argument of knowing "when" to take a chance and when to play it safe. "Playing it safe," generally always points to supporting the moderate or sticking with an unpopular incumbant. In the case of Delaware in 2010 and Kentucky in 2014, it makes sense. But in other instances, such as Mississippi in 2014, it's an excuse.

Look at Alaska. Even with no Sarah Palin the field is crowded. Joe Miller, the Tea party favorite defeated Lisa Murkowski in the 2010 GOP primary. An Establishment backed write in campaign kept Lisa Murkowski in the Senate.

Miller is back in 2014 and facing two Establishment Republicans.

Karl Rove likes Dan Sullivan. On paper, it would be difficult to do much better! A Marine Corp vet, Sullivan graduated with a B.S. in Economics from Harvard prior to taking a J.D. from Georgetown University. Condoleeza Rice has joined Rove in endorsing Sullivan.

Mead Treadwell, a product of Harvard's business school, is the current Lt. Governor and is showing a slight lead in some early polls. He recently shook up his staff.

Miller's resume is equally impressive. A graduate of West Point, he received his law degree from Yale.

Miller is the youngest of the three hopefulls at 47. He is originally from Kansas. Sullivan is 50-years old and from Ohio. Treadwell, the oldest at 58 hails from Connecticut.

Alaska is a "deep red" state. Mitt Romney won it by 14 points in 2012. Incumbant Democrat,Mark Begich has largely been a "rubber stamp" for the President's Agenda. Obamacare is especially unpopular in the "Last Frontier." Polls indcate that he would lose to any of the three Republican options.

The question becomes, "what" distinguishes Sullivan from the other two candidates and "why" is Karl Rove vigorously raising money for his campaign? Perhaps this is a non-factor. But, it should be noted.

Like his former boss, Condi Rice, Sullivan is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations. Is this significant? Maybe. While George W. Bush was not a member of this globalist organization, Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Henry Paulson and Dick Cheney are, or were. Maybe it's merely a coincidence.

To google CFR reveals some big names! Starting with Bill and Chelsea Clinton. Hillary was a member until this year.

Let's wind the clock back to 1980. Establishment favorite, George H.W. Bush had won Iowa and was leading in the New Hampshire polls. Ronald Reagan was on the ropes. Then, he produced leaflets, citing(accurately) Bush the Elder's membership in the Tri-Lateral Commission. Did it change the game? We may never know. What we do know is that Reagan won the New Hampshire primary and went on to clinch the nomination, taking Bush as his running mate.

In a previous post, we briefly reviewed Russian history. It was implied that "New Conservatives," were actually "evolved Trotskyites." Are we suggesting that the Republican Establishment is composed of "New Conmservatives?"

No. But, the crossover is alarmingly consistent. It begins with an apparent preference for big government.

Rand Paul defined the divide. In his book, the "Tea party Goes to Washington," he described New Conservative(Neo-Con) desire for a "large, Washington D.C. based government, whose purpose is to advance and facilitate conservative principles." According to Paul, "Constitutional Conservatives" seek "a more literal translation of the constitution." In effect, they are the "strict constructionists."

So what! Who cares! Aren't we splitting hairs?

No. In actuality, we are getting to the real "meat" of the conservative argument. For years, the Republican Establishment has been a haven for New Conservatives. Originally, these Republicans were considered liberals by many, if not most, Southern Democrats. With the Democrats' gradual exclusion of them, these "boll weevils" flocked to the GOP. Their new best friend was Ronald Reagan.

The Republican Party welcomed their numbers. Their ideas were another thing!

Those ideas did not fall totally on deaf ears! Traditional Republicans in Midwestern, Great Plains and Mountain states realized that they had an ideological, if not spiritual connect with these former "Dixiecrats." It began with an understanding of Reagan's "New Federalism" and the need for it's implementation throughout America.

Obviously "Federalism" calls for decentralization of govenment. This contradicts the basic psyche of New Conservatism.

Probably the most glaring exhibition of "New Conservative" versus "Constitutional Conservative" came in the 2010 Texas Gubernatorial Primary. It pitted, "Constitutionalist," Rick Perry(yeah, he was an ex-boll weevil) against "Neo-Con" Kay Bailey Hutchinson. Texans were exposed first hand to the true contrast. New Conservatives were none too pleased with the outcome!

It might also be noted that Karl Rove headed up "Team Hutchinson."

Is this impasse too deep? For some, possibly. But, definitely not all! Certainly not Rove! It comes down to "desire and willingness." Republicans must possess a strong desire to win elections. Secondly, there must be a willingness to "read the tea leaves" and change accordingly.

The party base is no longer in the East. In fact, today's GOP has become the party of the "South, Plains and Mountains," with the "Midwest on the cusp." The Demographics of the county have changed. Republicans must reach out to "non-W.A.S.P.S" if they want to again be the majority party.

From there the debate moves to the question of "Hamilton or Jefferson."

Alexander Hamiliton believed in a strong central government, run by the best educated, most affluent. In his opinion, this could be done more effectively from a central point, the fewer involved the better! It is surprisingly reflective of today's political culture in Washington, D.C..

Thomas Jefferson was for the little guy, the common man. His argument stemmed from the desire to "not have an American nobility," as Europe held. Jefferson believed that the greatest protection from such a fate was decentralization of government. In short, bring government closer to the people!

Certainly no conservative would appreciate being compared to Leon Trotsky. Yet, Trotsky was a decent human being, when compared to Joseph Stalin! Needless to say, the two men loathed each other. Yet, while their methodologies were quite different, their ideologies were one in the same. It can be summerized as follows:

"Big government is the best government. Big government is best facilitated from one central point. Big Government is most effectively administered under the auspices of the privileged few!" It is not even necessary that all of this "privileged few" be actual countrymen."

When viewed in this light, a recoil is predictable. And that may be what it takes to whip the Republican Party into shape! After all, the alternative is a Hillary Clinton Presidency! For those not having a problem with that outcome, it may be time to print exit VISAS!

My guess is, the bulk of the party will stay home, later acknowledging that "Republicans such as Colin Powell, Charlie Crist and the late Arlen Specter" were never needed; were actually the problem!

Having experienced this "cleansing" the GOP can move on to drafting a winning 2016 Presidential ticket. The determination must be based upon three criterior:
(a) "Constitutional Conservative," not "Neo-Con."
(b) Demographically expanded appeal.
(c) Adequate resources to mount a fifty-state campaign.

Will not there be some leaders who combine the tendencies of both brands of conservatism?

Not really. In truth, that would impossible! A "Constitutional Conservative" is like gold. It won't mix. You either believe in Jeffersonian principles or you don't!

Neo-Cons took the wrong road when they forget the most sacred principle;
"that small government is the best government." When they did this they became vulnerable to Socialist corruption. In the end, they forgot the most sacred axiom in a free society:

"When people fear government, you have tyranny. When government fears the people, you have liberty."

Ultimately, those favoring big government will depart in favor of their true "soul mate," the Democrat Party. Arlen Specter did. So did Charlie Crist and Lincoln Chaffee. Good riddance! Don't let the door hit you on the way out!

The misguided but well intended will likely retrace their steps, analyze and evaluate, returning wiser and more effective.

Will this be an immediate thing? No. It didn't happen overnight and may take years. Reformers must be cognizant of this reality. And there is one very positive offshoot of our revelation!

Where Neo-Cons may be "evolved Trokskyites," today's Democrat's represent Trotsky's rival, Joseph Stalin! For those who doubt this connection, I would encourage you to view Congressman, Curtis Bower's 93-minute documentary, "Agenda-Grinding America Down." It all fits.

Meanwhile, the true believers, the true lovers of liberty will effectively bridge that divide. Impossible? Sometimes all it takes is a "gut check." In this case, "remembering who we are."

No comments:

Post a Comment