[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
The Water Cooler Title: Why Save the Republican Party? Since the election there has been much discussion of the future of the Republican party. Can it ever again win a national election, or is it doomed to permanent minority status? The most common response has been that the party must "reach out" (i.e., compete in the offer of bribes) to the exploding Hispanic population. Rather neatly and deceitfully avoiding the obvious fact that Republican sponsorship of mass immigration is the cause of their minority status. A few fringe commentators have urged that the party instead do more for its core constituency of conservative white people. But the party leadership has already repudiated this alternative in both word and deed. They have apologized for "the Southern strategy" ( though not for the numerous elections that it won for them). The alternative strategy would not be respectable, and no people are more terrified of being thought unrespectable than the Republican leadership. The world view of the Sixties revolutionaries is now the mainstream, and to challenge it identifies one at once as a clueless or malevolent occupant of the disreputable fringe. Conspicuously absent from this discussion is any explanation of why the Republican party should continue to survive at all, must less flourish. Why should we care? It is easy to understand why people vote for Obama. He represents his constituents. He speaks for them. He promises them ever more goodies. He satisfies the ideological malice of leftists and gratifies the resentment of minorities against old America. If you are a bailed-out banker, a defense contractor, an employer of immigrant labor, or a politician eager for the perks of office, you might be tempted to vote Republican. But why bother? Being a Democrat would serve you just as well. There is no valid reason for anybody else to vote Republican. True, there has been a kind of assumption for half a century now that the Republicans represent a conservative bulwark against leftist revolution. But is this true? Has it ever been the case? This impression is partly due to historical accident. The Republican leadership are elitists with no interest in "the social issues." But in the 1960s George Wallace demonstrated that there were votes to be had there, and so the party leaders grudgingly began to give lip service to them. They never had any intention of doing anything in regard to abortion, school prayer, affirmative action, the growth of federal power, or any other non-economic issue. There is an impression that the Republican party is "pro-business" or pro free enterprise. Well, yes, if your business is big enough to buy government favors. What has the party ever done for the other businesses that make up the bulk of American enterprise? The Supreme Court nominees who were supposed to turn the court back to a more restrained role have betrayed that promise again and again. And again. And again. The Republican party does not represent its voters (and never has). It represents only itself. Consider: the strength of the party is now in the Southern, Plains, and Rocky Mountain states. The presidential and vice-presidential candidates were both from the deepest and most liberal North. Republican voters are conservative Christians. Neither candidate could be said to represent that viewpoint. Republican voters are much concerned about the effects of recent immigration policy. Neither candidate had any sympathy for that position---quite the contrary. Republican voters are concerned about the loss of manufacturing jobs and the ongoing proletarianization of the middle class. Both candidates are on record with contradictory policies. Republican voters are opposed to Obamacare, perhaps the single policy inclination most widely shared among them. But the head of the Republican ticket is the inventor of Obamacare. Republican voters were clearly disturbed by the trillion dollar bailout of misbehaving bankers. No help there. While Republican voters are rather too inclined toward jingoistic responses to foreign threats, it cannot really be said that they want to start unnecessary wars, support a worldwide military empire, or watch Americans being killed abroad and pay for the privilege. Yet Romney was the most imperialist candidate in recent times. The Republican nominations were not made in a political convention. There was no political convention. It was an infommercial. The only candidate with any principles and ideas, and who had aroused any grassroots enthusiasm, was completely shut out. Note that the appeals for the survival of the Republican party never say why that is a good thing or what positive results might be expected from that survival. They simply assume that is something that is unquestionably desirable. The simple truth is that the Republican party survives only by the tactical employment of the great state-sponsored wealth of people who want to keep it as it is and by election laws which have made it nearly impossible to change the duopoly that controls American political action and allows the media unchallenged control of political debate. A situation which obviously violate the rules of democracy and the spirit of the Constitution. Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Those who have continued to vote Republican are perhaps not insane, but they have certainly exhibited irrational behavior and an inability to think outside the box that has been made to confine them. All in all, the Republican party is and always has been a strange and puzzling thing. I tried to explore this subject in an essay published by LewRockwell.com in 2006. My historical survey, I like to think, may be of interest to young people in search of answers or veteran readers wanting to reprise important matters.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|