Home

Wanted: A Fighting Party

Posted May 12th, 2009 by Michael Erickson
in

Conservative commentator, and American nationalist, Patrick Buchanan offers a most compelling vision of how the Republican Party may make substantial gains in the 2010 midterm elections, if she returns to her historic roots as an advocate of our sovereignty, industrial recovery, energy independence, and personal liberty. This is the game plan as well of Republicans for the National Interest; and while we share the overall confidence of Mr. Buchanan, we stress that there is work to be done in orienting the Republican Party leadership once more into backing these issues in a credible, compelling manner.

 

Since the defection of Senator Arlen Specter to the Democrat Party, the RNC Chairman Michael Steele has been heaping his fair share of good riddance upon him, with which of course we would agree. Still, we cannot help but note that, if the Senator rather had made a different political calculation, and had decided to rally the NRSC into helping him take out Republican contender Pat Toomey in the Pennsylvania Senate Republican primary in 2010, the same RNC and NRSC leadership would have remained very much conspicuous by their muted tongues, when anyone brought up the matter of Specter's consistently liberal voting record.

 

Indeed, since the departure of Specter, the Republican Party leadership quietly has been looking for a more moderate Republican to take out Pat Toomey in the primary and thus to keep the seat in more or less the ideological persuasion as it is now. Essentially, even while attacking Specter the liberal, they are looking for Specter the sequel.

 

The same pattern has been replicated elsewhere, from Connecticut to California. There is a logical rationale: the conservative who can win in Texas could not win in Pennsylvania; the moderate who can win in California could not win in Alabama. Indeed, before he and other Republican leaders excoriated Specter as a political traitor, conservative Republican Texas Senator John Cornyn praised Specter as the man around whom the party must rally in order to “save” the GOP capacity to filibuster bad, Democrat legislation. He remarks:

 

“It's clear we need more candidates that fit their states. While I doubt Arlen could win an election in my home state of Texas, I am certain that I could not get elected in Pennsylvania. I believe that Senator Specter is our best bet to keep this Senate seat in the GOP column. A vote for Arlen Specter is a vote for denying Harry Reid and the Democrats a filibuster-proof Senate.”

 

What is interesting is that Cornyn made these comments after Specter joined with the two “ladies from Maine” (RINO Senators Collins and Snowe) to derail a GOP filibuster of the Obama “stimulus” package, which has added billions to our debt and increased the scope of government interference in our domestic economy. The one time we really needed this vote “to deny Harry Reid and the Democrats a filibuster-proof Senate,” Specter caved for only minor concessions in return.

 

If Specter had remained in the Republican caucus, then he would have provided a GOP cover to whichever extremist, leftist Obama chooses as his replacement for said retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter, and he would have been the “turncoat” Republican vote for a number of other critical issues, including illegal immigration and cap and trade.

 

In spite of that all too likely scenario, Specter would have remained a “prized” member of the Republican caucus; and said powers that be would have circled their wagons to secure one of their own, even though his votes made it more difficult for the Republican Party in general to provide a most tangible rallying cry against the Obama Administration. Indeed, the sport would have been in seeing the exasperated extent to which this leadership would have gone in defending his “turncoat” votes before their own base.    

 

The reason: the “K Street Republicans,” as I have come to describe them after they learn to adapt into the dominant culture of political graft in Washington D.C., realize that their hold on power relies not on whatever ideological positioning they maintain (except to the extent necessary to pander to their base vote in the next election) but on their ability to be a relevant voice in crafting legislation. It is that second capacity which reaps the rewards of office, both in campaign cash and various intangibles, and thus perpetuates their power (or, more accurately, their appearance of power). If the Republicans have “the magic 60,” then they obtain a lot more attention from those special interests able to offer largesse for their coffers; if not, then they are akin to ugly girls waiting around forlornly for suitors to ask them to the dance.

 

This type of sophistry is what prevails for “partisan politics,” when the politicians really feel safely removed from their electoral base and the party apparatus in turn does nothing to demand otherwise. Buchanan is right: the Republicans have a chance at taking back a lot of the seats, which they lost in the 2006 and 2008 election cycles, especially in view of the overreach of the Obama Administration; but they will snatch another defeat out of the jaws of victory in 2010, if they continue “playing politics,” instead of offering a real, principled opposition to the conniving leftists in the Obama Administration – and among themselves.   

 

Here is the Buchanan article as follows. Again, we agree with the overall platform that he describes. We add only that a renewal from within the Grand Old Party must happen here and now, before his suggestions are likely to bear fruit.    

 

Wanted: A Fighting Party, by Patrick Buchanan

 

As was evident at the White House Correspondent Dinner, it is deja vu, 1961, all over again. We have a young, cool, witty, personable president – and an adoring press corps.

"I am Barack Obama," the president introduced himself. "Most of you covered me. All of you voted for me. (Laughter and applause.) Apologies to the Fox table. (Laughter.)"

What is also evident is that, without its new superstar in the lineup, the Democratic Party is a second-division ball club. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are not terribly formidable. Last fall, the Congress they ran had an approval rating below Vice President Cheney.

Why then is the Republican Party agonizing publicly over what it is supposed to do? If history is any guide, the pendulum will swing back in 2010.

After all, in 1952, Eisenhower was elected in a more impressive victory than Obama's, and ended the Korean War by June. And, in 1954, he lost both houses of Congress.

Lyndon Johnson crushed Goldwater by three times the margin of Obama's victory. He got Medicare, Medicaid, voting rights and a host of Great Society programs. And, in 1966, he lost 47 House seats.

Ronald Reagan won a 44-state landslide in 1980, cut tax rates – and proceeded to lose 26 seats in 1982.

Bill Clinton recaptured the presidency for his party in 1992 after 12 years of Republican rule. In 1994, he lost 52 seats and both houses of Congress.

Though, demographically, the nation is tilting toward the Party of Government, the GOP must remain the party of free enterprise, and should follow the counsel of Australia's Robert Menzies, long ago:

"The duty of an opposition ... is to oppose selectively. No government is always wrong on everything. … The opposition must choose the ground on which it is to attack. To attack indiscriminately is to risk public opinion, which has a reserve of fairness not always understood."

Rather than debating what the national party position should be on foreign policy, health care, education, or social issues — which the party will decide when it chooses a nominee in 2012 — the GOP should focus now, and unite now, on what it will stand against.

Here the party has a good start. With the exception of Specter the Defector and the ladies from Maine, it united against the $800 billion stimulus bill. And as it is impossible to shovel out an added 6 percent of GDP in two years, without vast waste, fraud and abuse, this stimulus package is going to come back and bite Obama by 2010.

And, recall, in his address to Congress, Obama assigned Joe Biden to see to it there was no waste, fraud or abuse in spending the $800 billion: "And that's why I've asked Vice President Biden to lead a tough, unprecedented oversight effort — because nobody messes with Joe."

Joe has been set up to take the fall.

The next place to take a stand is against "cap and trade."

More and more Americans are coming to conclude, after the record cold temperatures in many cities this winter, that global warning is a crock — that there is no conclusive proof it is happening, no conclusive proof man is the cause, no conclusive proof it would be a calamity for us or the polar bears.

But cap and trade would mean a huge hike in the cost of energy for all Americans, the shutdown of fuel-efficient U.S. factories, and their replacement by dirtier and less fuel-efficient Chinese plants.

And we do know the agenda here is a vast transfer of wealth and power from U.S. citizens to government bureaucrats, and from the U.S. Government to global bureaucrats who will run the oversight and enforcement machinery set up by the Kyoto II conclave in Copenhagen.

A third issue on which Republicans ought to stand and fight is health care. For the end goal of Obamacare is the same end goal as Hillarycare: nationalization, bureaucrats deciding what care each of us shall receive, when we may receive it, and whether we even ought to have it.

If the Republican Party remains the party of the individual and the private sector, does it have any choice but to fight?

For if cap-and-trade passes, and Obamacare becomes law, the government share of GDP rises to European socialist levels, and, as we saw after the Great Society, there is no going back.

A party defines itself by what it stands for, and what it stands against. After the Bush era, the Republican Party has been given the opportunity to redeem and redefine itself — in opposition to a party and a president who are further left than any in American history.

A true conservative party would relish such an opportunity.

After all, the Goldwater young did not lie down and die after a defeat far more crushing than the one the party suffered last fall.

Is this Republican Party made of similar stuff?

 

 

 

A Letter from a Friend to Michael Erickson

On May 16th, 2009 Michael Erickson says:
I like Buchanan. He is partisan, yet discerningly partisan. I, however, think that he is wrong about substantial GOP gains in the 2010, mid-term elections. By historic roots, I take that to mean roots established within the last 100 years, more or less, i.e., post Theodore Roosevelt. Traditional Republicans need to reach further back if they want to displace the Democrats on the basis of an authentic difference. Although it resulted from a bipartisan dereliction of duty, the Republicans were dominate in government when the current financial crisis first became visible to a public whose perception has been progressively dulled. Buchanan is correct if he thinks that the public has a short memory, but it is not that short. The public needs non-corrupt leadership in the Congress, in the Administration, and derivatively on the Court. The Republican Party, however, as presently constituted, does not yet represent non-corrupt leadership to the extent that it can be readily distinguished by the public from their corruption-riddled Democrat brethren in Congress, in my opinion. I personally hold no grudge against Arlen Specter. I think that overall he has been a good Senator from a moderate to liberal state. I remember him from the time when he was an innovative prosecutor as US Attorney in the late 1960's and early 70's. My personal advice to him, if he had asked, would have been, "Retire from the Senate with dignity and a good record under the daunting voter registration realities for statewide office as a Republican in Pennsylvania." Again, I see no reason to be critical of a man who performed well, in my opinion, for decades. Essentially, too few self-described "moral" types among his natural constituency support him, and, therefore, this will contribute to the election of a Democrat (but not necessarily Specter) in 2010. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Penn., 1995-2007, was a fine Senator but lost 59% to 41% to former State Treasurer Bob Casey, a Democrat and not a particularly attractive candidate. Although Sen. John Cornyn, R-Tex., rightly said, "It's clear we need more candidates that fit their states," the electorate is not capable of shifting gears quickly enough to save the Republican seat in Pennsylvania. Again, Senator Cronyn's reasonable remarks resonate with me personally, but they will not so resonate with the electorate who has been otherwise programmed for decades. My opinion is that Republicans should not attempt to merely offer a "principled opposition to the leftists in the Obama Administration – and among themselves." Republicans ought to emphasize honesty in government through conduct. In a word, that is what is lacking in our government, apparently regardless of party affiliation. A public perception of honesty, not a perception of enunciation of honest principles, is, I think, most compelling. I agree that Republicans need to craft a new statement of that which we are for, an affirmative statement that primarily distinguishes us from the nihilistic philosophy of the Democrats, but the distinguishing feature of enunciated principles must be that Republicans not only enunciate sound principles, such as corruption free government, but those enunciated Republican principles are habitually acted upon after Republicans are elected and seated. I agree, "Joe has been set up to take the fall." But I presume that taking the fall is part of the job duties associated with the often belittled office of Vice-President. Further, that prior to his selection by Obama, Joe agreed by implication, if not in deed, to be a fall guy when needed. I know it sounds bad, but think about it. Maybe it is not such a bad idea. Could that be why GOP local parties always have two, not one, Vice Chairmen? Being more practical minded locally, if one fall guy is disgraced in a sense for a political faux pas, then another yet remains immediately to carry on the mundane tasks of administration. This would ensure that the beneficent principle of uninterrupted continuity of administration be faithfully observed. "If the Republican Party remains the party of the individual and the private sector, does it have any choice but to fight?" I reply, What about fighting to win? What about fighting for the people? Lincoln is the archetypal Republican President, is he not? Did Lincoln fight for the individual and the private sector? No. I agree that the Republican Party has been given the opportunity to redefine itself. Yes, but it may be unrealistic to expect a true redefinition to take place without first languishing as a minority party for some appreciable period of time. I cannot define an appreciable amount of time in a political context, but I know that the languishing has not yet yielded its fruit.

Redefine the Issues -- Conservatively

On May 16th, 2009 MN_Conservative says:
Hi! Pat's article is a good one and I heartily agree that we can't wait until 2012 to define the issues. The sooner, the better, as long as it's done well. I wanted to pass along something I heard on one of the radio talk shows that seemed like another good thing to think about. I think, too much of the time, we let the Left define language for us. Then we use it the way they define it and cede some of our power to them right away. For instance, we use 'Cap and Trade' because that's what they call it. I think we should call it the 'Monstrous Energy Tax' aka 'Cap and Trade' (I'm sure there's a better name for it but you get my meaning, I'm sure). That way WE define how we see it and how we want others to see it also -- but connect the Left's verbiage so people can begin to link one with the other. (We need to do this ALL the time!) This could be used for any number of issues. Universal Healthcare, Pro-Choice, Green Energy, Global Warming and Hate Crimes (have you ever heard of any other kind?) come to mind. There are SO many of them. We need to redefine these in ways that jolt people awake. Every time someone on the Left uses their shorthand method of communicating, i.e. throwing out one of the usual mindless terms, we need to throw it back their way with a thought-provoking twist. We need to cause them to THINK. Is that possible? We need to try. Thanks for letting me sound off! And thanks for taking these serious matters on!