Thursday, March 24, 2016


By Allan McNew

I found an interesting assessment of the 1970's Republican party in Alexander Lamis' 1984 book "Two Party South" that rings true today: 

"A number of the Alabama GOP have pointed to the party's preoccupation with ideological questions as a major drawback. For example, (Atlanta Journal editor Ray) Jenkins said in 1974 that the Republicans 'just don't understand politics for one thing. [They] are given to these profoundly boring ideological disputes, and petty disputes at that. Republican politics is characterized by petty personal hatreds of one another, These even override ideological differences, and there are few
ideological differences...'

"The GOP Chairman Harris, in an interview four years after Jenkins's assessment, said:

'There is no doubt the Republican Party has been plagued... with ideological purity... It is a death syndrome, and we have to get over it before we can win.

We are viewed as cold, calculating people who don't give a damn about anybody... Let them starve in the streets. Balance that budget. And that is not true.'

"(Republican) Congressman (Jack) Edwards also lamented this GOP preoccupation with conservative ideological purity:

'Too often Republicans make it uncomfortable for the moderate - to - liberal Republicans, and they don't feel comfortable and they quit running or they change parties. So, while we tend to keep a greater purity, if you will, than the Democrats do, we also remain the minority because we can't seem to assimilate people of different views as well as the Democrats do.' "

Now, about forty years later, since the Democratic Party appears to be approaching critical mass of progressive-socialist tolerance of ideological heresy, there may be an opportunity to build on across
the board public disenchantment with the past seven years.

That is, if conservatives knock off the fratricide and the Republican elite spend a little time looking out for Main Street rather than using their constituency for votes like a pimp sells women. As long as I can remember, with the exception of Reagan, Republicans have managed time after time after time to throw gift wrapped victories back to the Democratic Party.

* Two Party South, Alexander Lamis, page 84 paperback

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Editor's Note: It has been conservatism, or in Bush's case a claim to conservatism, that won elections.  However, in Reagan's case it was conservatism coupled with an appeal to "Americans", rather than "republicans."  Personally, I have no problem with moderates and liberal republicans running away from the party.  In my opinion, they poison us.  The Democrats are on the verge of progressive-socialist critical mass because of their "tolerance" of non-American ideas. -- Douglas V. Gibbs


JASmius said...

It isn't "moderate" Republicans (approximately 10% of the party) who are running away from it. But by the same token, the GOP can't be a majority party without moderate/independent voters, because conservatives are a minority in this country (as are liberals). How is being relegated to the political and powerless wilderness not a vastly worse "poison"?

Douglas V. Gibbs said...

I disagree. Conservatives are the majority, but they don't participate. This idiotic idea that the candidate must move to the center to get independent voters is moronic. Most independents are people too pissed off at the GOP to register republican, but they are conservative in nature. 85% of the country believes in a Christian God, and 60% consider themselves right of center. When polled on the issues, only 14% are truly liberal. The rest of the Democrat voters are sheep. Education, advocacy, and activating the silent majority is the key to restoring the republic.

JASmius said...

The numbers say otherwise. Three pluralities - liberal, conservative, and the largest one, "swing voters," who are easily manipulated by the media. That's why the GOP can't be insular and ***thematically*** "pure-strain" but has to persuade the "swingers" to "swing" in our direction, not by moving toward them but by drawing them toward us, as Reagan did. That is the "education/advocacy" process that you describe - but it has to be done with optimism, good humor, and a twinkle in the eye, not anger and resentment against cartoonish "establishments" that are, whether you want to acknowledge it or not, natural allies. Anything else is futile, masturbatory self-congratulation.

Douglas V. Gibbs said...

Your anger and resentment against what you see as a cartoonish Donald Trump has been apparent. So, perhaps we need to practice what we preach. As for your claim about the numbers, based on what I've seen, in a base versus base election, the GOP wins. The problem is, the silent majority has remained silent out of anger against the establishment. After all, when it comes to voting, it is those who participate who have been picking the winners. In California that is about 9.7% of the total population of the State. If gun owners, who are largely conservative, were to all vote in this State, the State of California could be flipped. We don't need to coddle independents with a compromise of moderation because they are largely conservatives and libertarians who reject party affiliation for a vast number of reasons - rather than being moderate swing voters as we are erroneously told. I am not saying the swing voters don't exist. I am saying they would not be as influential in elections if conservatives would simply get off the couch. A purely conservative candidate would win in a landslide, but the idiotic belief that we have to appeal to "swing voters" (which emerged after Goldwater) has the consultants blowing election after election for the Republicans. Even though I understand that Trump is not a conservative, it is his seemingly conservative statements that pull no punches, and his refusal to moderate or consult consultants, that has the Trumpster winning the GOP nomination. Does he believe what he says? That's a different discussion. Can he be trusted not to waver, or act upon some of his ridiculous nationalist ideas? I hope so. But, as I have been arguing about Trump (with the pure purpose of informing and educating), his popularity is because he pulls no punches (according to his supporters), and he disrupts a system (the cartoonish establishment) that many have come to believe is not about party as much as it is about an inner-circle of ruling elite who have established a political machine that totally disregards the opinions of the voters, the foundation of the American System, or common sense.