|
GOP; heal thyself
|
|
Topic Started: Nov 14 2008, 07:26 PM (232 Views)
|
|
Dwayne
|
Nov 14 2008, 07:26 PM
Post #1
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
- Posts:
- 5,951
- Group:
- Senior Officer
- Member
- #153
- Joined:
- March 24, 2004
|
I came across some thoughts on federalism being a point on which to rebuild GOP image, which I found interesting. I hope others find it of equal interest.
- Quote:
-
Only Federalism Can Unify the Party "It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." - United States Associate Justice Louis Brandeis Our Founding Fathers understood one truth about political philosophy: To find common ground is sometimes impossible. When disagreement between political opponents rests on fundamental ideological principles, one side must forfeit its core beliefs in the name of unity, or suffer defeat. Consequently, to unify a young nation without engaging in an immediate civil war, the framers of the Constitution set up a system of Federalism that has since been abandoned by both political parties to America's detriment. Federalism is the system of dividing government and political power between the States and the Federal government. This form of decentralization guaranteed by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution ensures that regardless of which ideology achieves power at the federal level, it would not be granted monopolistic tyranny over minority views. Although Justice Brandeis' famous quote has been cited several times over the last few decades, the Republican Party, the Party that could benefit the most from its implementation, has abandoned its principles. Since Ronald Reagan, the Republican Party has doubled down on remaking the federal government in its own image. It went from a Party that advocated local control over education and accountability, to using Jimmy Carter's Department of Education to create a "conservative" federal program called No Child Left Behind. It went from a Party that advocated individual states experimenting with social policy to creating its own national healthcare agenda. It went from a Party that wanted to keep the government off the citizens' backs to one that prevented states from individually legalizing medical marijuana and online gambling. These are just a few examples. The greatness of Federalism is that States can freely experiment with public policy without significant political difficulty. Subsequently, if the ideas prevail, other states in the Union can mimic them. If the ideas fail, individuals can "vote with their feet" and leave. Conversely, if ideas crash at the federal level, our entire Country experiences a disaster rather than it being a localized phenomenon. The liberty offered from Federalism is precisely why it is the only way to save the Republican Party. The bottom line is that certain ideological factions, libertarians and social conservatives for example, may argue with one another until the end of time without agreement. While they are struggling for control of a weakened Party, the Democrats will continue to prevail. This avenue is no solution to our Country's problems. Instead of continuing down this road, the only way to unify the several factions that have traditionally voted Republican is to allow each other to have local and State control of public policy. Not only are there political differences between libertarians and social conservatives, but also there are cultural differences between different regions of the Country. We need to face the facts that people like David Brooks and David Frum, Washington establishment pundits, have virtually nothing in common culturally with Ted Nugent. Moreover, San Francisco has few cultural similarities to Montgomery, Alabama. This is not a moral judgment; it is just a reality that we need to accept. The great irony is that if the Republican Party adopts Federalism as a major goal of its Party platform, it will appeal to people across the political spectrum, even some Democrats. The reason is obvious: Federalism offers the individual more control over his or her life. The only tradeoff is that one must allow someone from across the Country to have that same liberty. Over the last few weeks, numerous pundits have argued over who is going to control the Republican Party, and what type of "rebranding" is necessary. This is never going to work. What the Republican Party needs to do is to offer all factions the opportunity to unite around the ideals of Federalism. Lastly, it must be noted that the term, "States' Rights" has a pejorative connotation gained from the era of Jim Crow Laws. This may explain why Republicans recently have abandoned the policy for fear of being labeled a racist. Nevertheless, fear that an ignorant few could engage in an ad hominem attack is no reason to avoid educating the masses of your true laudable intentions. In fact, those who accuse States' Rights for being code word for racism ignore how Federalism was used to protect slaves. For example, when the Federal Government passed the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which required the return of runaway slaves to the South, the northern states passed their own "personal liberty laws" to make it extremely difficult for the oppressive federal law being enforced. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Law_of_1850). It should also be noted that those who charge States' Rights proponents of being racist never have an argument for why many of the northern states outlawed slavery at a time when the majority of the Country as a whole was prejudice against Blacks. In conclusion, the Republican Party has only one option to avoid being swept into the dustbin of history. It must offer a solution to empower the masses to take control over their own lives. For the same reasons that the Founding Fathers did in the past, the Republican Party must unite around Federalism. Do not forget that unity via a decentralized government is why we are called the United States in the first place. http://copiousdissent.blogspot.com/2008/11/only-federalism-can-unify-party.html
If the GOP has moved away from the concept of federalism I have to say, I'd blame the social conservatives for that development. I find it is the social conservatives that always seem to argue for government interference in the states and on the individual for social reasons.
The GOP should be the party wanting the state to stop the act of marriage recognition. The state can certify a civil partnership, but leave to act of marriage to the church.
The GOP should be the party advocating an elimination of all anti-drug laws on a federal level and leaving this decision to the states.
The GOP should be the party that allows individuals to be individuals, and let states operate without the heavy hand of a federal government.
It certainly isn't the DNC, so it might as well be the GOP.
Edited by Dwayne, Nov 17 2008, 11:56 AM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dwayne
|
Nov 17 2008, 12:08 PM
Post #2
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
- Posts:
- 5,951
- Group:
- Senior Officer
- Member
- #153
- Joined:
- March 24, 2004
|
I hope that all posts on how the GOP can overcome and comeback from their defeats can be combined under this thread.
In that light, here's another article on some topics I've touched on having to do with how the GOP can comeback...
- Quote:
-
How the GOP lost my votePaul Hsieh Article Last Updated: 11/13/2008 04:44:31 PM MST After a resounding electoral defeat, in which voters in this once-red state rejected Republicans McCain, Schaffer, and Musgrave, the Colorado Republican Party will undoubtedly be asking themselves, "Why did we lose?" I want to let them know that they lost the vote of many former supporters (including myself) because they have chosen to embrace the Religious Right. I voted Republican in 1996, 2000, and 2004. I believe in limited government, individual rights, free market capitalism, a strong national defense, and the right to keep and bear arms - positions that one normally associates with Republicans. But I didn't vote for a single Republican in 2008. I've become increasingly alienated by the Republicans" embrace of the religious "social conservative" agenda, including attempts to ban abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage. The Founding Fathers correctly recognized that the proper function of government is to protect individual rights, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. But freedom of religion also implies freedom *from* religion. As Thomas Jefferson famously put it, there should be a "wall of separation" between church and state. Public policy should not be based on religious doctrines. Instead, the government's role is to protect each person's right to practice his or her religion as a private matter and to forbid them from forcibly imposing their particular views on others. And this is precisely why I find the Republican Party's embrace of the Religious Right so dangerous. If a woman chooses not to have an abortion for reasons of personal faith, then I completely respect her right to do so. But she cannot impose her particular religious views on others. Other women must have the same right to decide that deeply personal issue for themselves. The Religious Right's goal of outlawing abortions would violate that important right, and sacrifice the lives of actual women for clumps of cells that are only potential (but not yet actual) human beings, based on religious dogma. As a physician, I find that position abhorrent and deeply anti-life. In his October 24, 2008 radio broadcast, Rush Limbaugh told pro-choice secular supporters of limited government such as myself that we should leave the Republican Party. Many of us have already taken his advice and changed our affiliation to "independent." The Republican Party stands at an important crossroads. The Republican Party could choose to follow the principles of the American Founding Fathers and promote a limited government that protected individual rights but otherwise left people alone to live their lives. This includes affirming the principle of the separation of church and state. If they did so, I would happily support it. Or the Republican Party could instead choose to become the party of the Religious Right and seek to forcibly impose the religious values of one particular constituency over others (thus violating everyone else's rights). In that case, it will continue to alienate many voters and lose elections -- and deservedly so. Even though I no longer regard myself as a Republican, I definitely regard myself as a loyal American. My parents immigrated legally from Taiwan to America over 40 years ago. They had very little money, but they worked hard, sent two children to college and medical school, and are now enjoying a well-earned and comfortable retirement. Their life has been a real-life embodiment of the American dream. America is a beacon of hope to millions of people around the world precisely because our system of government allows honest, hard-working people to prosper and thrive. Our system is a testament to the genius of the Founding Fathers, who recognized that the proper function of government is to protect individual rights, such as our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Hence, I believe the Republican Party should choose the first path - the path of limited government, separation of church and state, and protection of individual rights. This is the America that brought my parents from a ocean away in hopes of a better life for themselves and their children. This is the America I want to live in. And this is the America I want the Republican Party to stand for. Paul Hsieh is a practicing physician in the south Denver metro area and co-founder of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM). He lives in Sedalia. http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_10976789
I don't agree with everything this guy says, but I will say this, social conservatives are welcome to The Party as long as they are ultimately individualists in all aspects of governance, instead of favoring big government approaches to social ills they don't like, such as abortion.
Where I totally disagree with this guy is that, as far as abortion is concerned, there are at least two camps who are categorized as opposed to abortion. One of those groups are the social conservative who are opposed on religious reasons. Another group opposed to abortion are constitutional conservatives, and frankly, they have very good reason for their opposition, because they are opposed to a federal government dictating to the states on something that is clearly an issue that is a state issue.
Overturning Roe v Wade is a small government issue that small government types should support.
|
|
|
| |
|
Admiralbill_gomec
|
Nov 17 2008, 12:09 PM
Post #3
|
UberAdmiral
- Posts:
- 26,022
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #5
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
Gov. Bobby Jindal had an article yesterday about this, stating that the Republican party needs to be fixed.
|
|
|
| |
|
HistoryDude
|
Nov 17 2008, 01:35 PM
Post #4
|
Shaken, not stirred...
- Posts:
- 4,810
- Group:
- Validating
- Member
- #444
- Joined:
- June 28, 2005
|
Interesting article. I, too, do not agree with everything he writes, but some good points. I think his over-all tone is a bit doomsday-ish, but it could be my interpretation. The GOP does stand at a cross-roads. But that is a normal situation that people and organizations face at various points in life. I think this doctor implies that the Party is in danger of dying. I don't see that at all.
I also think he is living in a dream-world if he thinks the GOP will return to the limited government of our founding fathers. The Party may advocate smaller government than the Democratic Party, but that's entirely different.
This guy sounds like a Libertarian, actually...
|
|
|
| |
|
Dwayne
|
Nov 17 2008, 01:54 PM
Post #5
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
- Posts:
- 5,951
- Group:
- Senior Officer
- Member
- #153
- Joined:
- March 24, 2004
|
- Admiralbill_gomec
- Nov 17 2008, 12:09 PM
Gov. Bobby Jindal had an article yesterday about this, stating that the Republican party needs to be fixed. You should get us a link or post the article.
|
|
|
| |
|
Admiralbill_gomec
|
Nov 17 2008, 02:41 PM
Post #6
|
UberAdmiral
- Posts:
- 26,022
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #5
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
- Dwayne
- Nov 17 2008, 01:54 PM
- Admiralbill_gomec
- Nov 17 2008, 12:09 PM
Gov. Bobby Jindal had an article yesterday about this, stating that the Republican party needs to be fixed.
You should get us a link or post the article. I need to get my brain checked:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/16/ftn/main4607907.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4607907
He was on Face the Nation and I just read a recap. DOH!
|
|
|
| |
|
Dwayne
|
Nov 18 2008, 01:15 AM
Post #7
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
- Posts:
- 5,951
- Group:
- Senior Officer
- Member
- #153
- Joined:
- March 24, 2004
|
Hey, thanks for the link.
Here's something else to consider, but I doubt it's this simple...
- Quote:
-
Internet ‘Rightroots’ Key to GOP RevivalPosted By Jon Henke On November 17, 2008 @ 12:00 am In 1980, Ronald Reagan won a remarkable victory and launched an era of Republican dominance. The ascendancy of Reagan and the Right was predicated on “a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom.” Reagan called it “the basis of conservatism.” That idea resonated with the American public in 1980. However, Reagan did not win this victory in the public consciousness ex nihilo. One of the dominant factors shaping public opinion is the availability heuristic — the tendency of people to give extra weight to the evidence that is readily available or to listen to the story that comes to mind easily. The public did not wake up one day to high inflation, economic stagnation, and the Soviet threat and say “government is the problem!” They reached that conclusion because the Right (and Reagan himself) had spent decades developing and communicating a compelling story about the cost and consequences of government. As it turns out, a compelling story is enough to win elections by a large margin. Unfortunately, after taking power, Republicans began walking away from their story. It is, after all, very difficult to be the anti-state party if you are the state. Republicans were captured by government, the exigencies of power, and the incentive to maintain it. In the years since 1980, Democrats cast about for a motivating purpose — a story that would carry them back to a long-term governing majority. They tried liberalism, moderation, and triangulation. Now, they’re back. But the Left did not retake the executive and legislative branches by being more liberal or more moderate, or by clever political jujitsu. Democrats became the majority because they changed the story. Complete Republican dominance of the executive and legislative branches gave the Left the incentive to pursue new strategies — to develop new infrastructure, new communications channels, and organizing methods. The Left moved messaging, mobilization, and money outside the traditional Democratic establishment, giving their movement new power and new energy. Much like the conservative movement breathed life into the Republican Party in the 1980s, the Left’s progressive movement has given new life to the Democratic Party today. It’s important to note that both the Right and Left built their movements out of paranoia at the machine they believed the other side had built. In The Power of Ideas, the story of the Heritage Foundation, [1] Lee Edwards wrote: - Quote:
-
Envious conservatives watched the powerful liberal coalition of academics, think tank analysts, members of Congress, White House aides, interest group officials, and journalists run much of the business of the nation’s capital and wondered: “Why can’t we put together an operation like that?” … As the future head of The Heritage Foundation described the state of legislative affairs in the early 1970s, “The Left had a finely tuned policymaking machine, and the Right had nothing to match it.”
Meanwhile, the modern progressives have [2] very [3] explicitly [4] modeled their new movement on the movement built by the Right in the ’60s and ’70s. Paranoia is an excellent strategist. Which brings us to the current problem: What does the Right do now? At the 30,000 foot level, the Right needs …
- better information organization, which will help a movement coalesce around …
- the organizing agenda, out of which flows …
- the storyline/narrative, which motivates …
- the grassroots/netroots to get engaged, mobilized, and donating, all of which is channeled effectively by …
- movement infrastructure, both online and offline.
Each of the items is a necessary precursor to the next. Without more effective information organization, we will not fix on a coherent agenda. Without a coherent agenda, we will not have a good story to tell. Without a good story to tell, we will not energize the grassroots and netroots. Without an energized grassroots/netroots, all the movement infrastructure in the world will be for naught. For now, the goal should be to build ideological infrastructure — organically — outside the entrenched political establishment. We should build unifying grievances. We should organize ideas and then people. The Republican Party will not lead the Right out of the problems that plague the Republican Party; it will have to follow. If a movement is to draw a party into its orbit, the movement must have the gravitational pull of messaging, mobilization, and fundraising capacity. For now, it is our role to uncover, organize, and deliver information. In other words — to change the story. http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/internet-rightroots-key-to-gop-revival/
|
|
|
| |
|
Admiralbill_gomec
|
Nov 18 2008, 03:43 PM
Post #8
|
UberAdmiral
- Posts:
- 26,022
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #5
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
FTA: "We should organize ideas and then people."
This is what the Dems did in '06 and '08. The GOP just sat there. They took the base for granted, and their campaign was pretty much, "Hey, at least we aren't Democrats."
Robert Heinlein once asked, "Who are the heirs of Patrick Henry?" (Read the article in his book Expanded Universe)
Who are the heirs of Ronald Reagan? We need another Reagan, but from where? Not McCain, not Romney, not Huckabee, and certainly not Giuliani.
The Sarah Palins of the world (at least of the USA) are the heirs. The outsiders, the base. I believe an actual conservative who was rooted in conservative ideas would have crushed the Obama express. It could have been Fred if we'd woken him up.
McCain tried to be too many things, and that dillydally over the bailout skidded his campaign to a halt. He never recovered from that, and he was always on the defensive when the press coldcocked Palin. He tried to appeal to their good side, and the sharks saw blood in the water. Palin did her own "rescuing" and McCain stood there holding a life preserver. Then the "McCain staffers" backstab. What a debacle. With friends like those...
|
|
|
| |
|
whitestar
|
Nov 20 2008, 12:48 AM
Post #9
|
Captain
- Posts:
- 1,469
- Group:
- Senior Officer
- Member
- #122
- Joined:
- February 23, 2004
|
Your just not getting the point,
"McCain tried to be too many things, and that dillydally over the bailout skidded his campaign to a halt. He never recovered from that, and he was always on the defensive when the press coldcocked Palin. He tried to appeal to their good side, and the sharks saw blood in the water. Palin did her own "rescuing" and McCain stood there holding a life preserver. Then the "McCain staffers" backstab. What a debacle. With friends like those..."
got nothing to do with the result, the people had ALREADY made their judgement before the campaign circus came to town. What you have described is always the case in the loosers camp... looking for a scapegoat when the inevitable approaches closer n' closer, infighting and bitching among themselves.
And then comes the bellybutton gazing.. Why did we lose? SIMPLE... you blew it and the people gave their judgement.. SIMPLE
Time-out, back to the basics, wait for the other side to again dismay the people (they will, sooner or later) and then offer an alternative, dress it up as the best thing since sliced bread, can't loose.
|
|
|
| |
|
Franko
|
Nov 20 2008, 04:08 AM
Post #10
|
Shower Moderator
- Posts:
- 7,303
- Group:
- Cadet
- Member
- #299
- Joined:
- January 9, 2005
|
I think the Admiral was discussing the problems that made McCain's campaign weak - not really trying to blame the whole thing on him.
I happen to agree. Obama would have likely won anyway, but I had many conservative friends as well up here in Canada that after a while began groaning at the conduct of the McCain campaign. There was a brief surge at one time, where McCain was starting to gain momentum, and then the financial crisis came along, which was almost like the death blow to anyone running as a Republican.
The details of course are far more intricate in that respect, but having to distance yourself from the incumbant president who is of your own party, and take on a candidate with popularity and charisma a la JFK or Reagan, is a pretty tough task.
|
|
|
| |
|
whitestar
|
Nov 20 2008, 05:46 AM
Post #11
|
Captain
- Posts:
- 1,469
- Group:
- Senior Officer
- Member
- #122
- Joined:
- February 23, 2004
|
- Franko
- Nov 20 2008, 04:08 AM
I think the Admiral was discussing the problems that made McCain's campaign weak - not really trying to blame the whole thing on him.
I happen to agree. Obama would have likely won anyway, but I had many conservative friends as well up here in Canada that after a while began groaning at the conduct of the McCain campaign. There was a brief surge at one time, where McCain was starting to gain momentum, and then the financial crisis came along, which was almost like the death blow to anyone running as a Republican.
The details of course are far more intricate in that respect, but having to distance yourself from the incumbant president who is of your own party, and take on a candidate with popularity and charisma a la JFK or Reagan, is a pretty tough task.
Lets leave it to the Admiral regarding whatever he actually meant but I understood yours. My point is this Franko... when it came down to two, the national polls showed a 5 point advantage to Obama... the election result showed a 5 point advantage, the election campaign seemingly irrelevant, despite world changing events on top of out of the blue unknowns and Joe the plumber. The people had already made their decision on the performance of the admin, it was as simple as that
|
|
|
| |
|
Admiralbill_gomec
|
Nov 20 2008, 08:53 AM
Post #12
|
UberAdmiral
- Posts:
- 26,022
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #5
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
- whitestar
- Nov 20 2008, 05:46 AM
- Franko
- Nov 20 2008, 04:08 AM
I think the Admiral was discussing the problems that made McCain's campaign weak - not really trying to blame the whole thing on him.
I happen to agree. Obama would have likely won anyway, but I had many conservative friends as well up here in Canada that after a while began groaning at the conduct of the McCain campaign. There was a brief surge at one time, where McCain was starting to gain momentum, and then the financial crisis came along, which was almost like the death blow to anyone running as a Republican.
The details of course are far more intricate in that respect, but having to distance yourself from the incumbant president who is of your own party, and take on a candidate with popularity and charisma a la JFK or Reagan, is a pretty tough task.
Lets leave it to the Admiral regarding whatever he actually meant but I understood yours. My point is this Franko... when it came down to two, the national polls showed a 5 point advantage to Obama... the election result showed a 5 point advantage, the election campaign seemingly irrelevant, despite world changing events on top of out of the blue unknowns and Joe the plumber. The people had already made their decision on the performance of the admin, it was as simple as that Franko was right, and you misunderstood what I was saying.
I certainly got the point.
|
|
|
| |