Is the Republican Party dead?
Those who say so are overreaching. The Republican Party still dominates the landscape at the level of the several states. Thirty-one governors are Republican, compared to eighteen Democrats and one Independent. A whopping sixty-eight out of ninety-eight partisan state legislative chambers (remember, most states have two, a senate and a house) are Republican, with Republicans controlling both the governor’s mansion and the capitol in twenty-three states. In state government, Republicans have never been stronger.
So, of course, the GOP is not dead. But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t call hospice.
Perhaps the worst thing that could happen to the Republican Party would be for Donald Trump actually to win election. As a hypothetical, Donald Trump is one thing. As President of the United States? The odds are significant that the President Trump experience turns out to be so bad that we raise a generation of former Republicans whose passions are as intense as the former Democrats whom Jimmy Carter handed over to the GOP in the late 1970s. We do not have to speculate whether a national politician can be bad enough to eviscerate a party at the state and local level; I’ve watched it happen in my own lifetime.
“How can you fail to vote for Donald Trump and hand the election to Hillary?” some ask. I retort, “How can you vote for Donald Trump and hand the next five elections to the Democrats.”
But even if Trump should lose, there’s a widespread sense that the GOP has crossed some sort of a continental divide. For my part, I can say that my relationship with the party has certainly changed in a number of ways.
-
Who Are These People? For all of my lifetime I’ve listened to the shrill complaints of Democrats who have alleged time and again that the GOP is the party of various forms of hatred: misogyny, bigotry, xenophobia, etc. To my horror and chagrin, I’ve learned that they weren’t entirely wrong. With Donald Trump, misogyny, bigotry, xenophobia, and hatred aren’t Democrat insults, they’re planks in his platform. Yes, he’ll moderate his tone in the general election to some degree, perhaps, but nothing Donald Trump can say or unsay in the next few months can ever change the fact that hordes of voters in Republican primaries across the country cast their ballots explicitly for and on the basis of every ugly insult that Democrats have ever made against the GOP.
Emotions are high in this moment. Those emotions will fade over time, but even when the tide of electioneering emotion has ebbed, there will remain for me (and for a lot of other people, I think) the certain and dispassionate knowledge that most Republican primary voters in this nation are something that I am not. The occasional day arrives when I’m not angry at President Obama. The United States killed Osama bin Laden during his presidency. The United States secured the release of Pastor Saeed Abedini from an Iranian prison during his presidency. On rare occasions, I’m happy with something that President Obama has done. Nevertheless, even in those moments when I’m happy with President Obama rather than disappointed with him, I still always know regardless of my present emotional state that he and I are not the same thing politically. I now know precisely the same thing (and feel precisely the same way) about the Republican electorate.
Henceforth, even when Republicans do something good, I’ll respond by saying, “Isn’t that nice what they did over there?” rather than “Isn’t that nice what we did over here?”
-
Thanks for the Memories…I think. In this, the most post-GOP moment I’ve ever known, I find myself looking around our dorm room to see what I can pack up in boxes to take with me from our sojourn as roommates. There’s a thing or two. Ronald Reagan gave us the end of the Cold War. I’m just barely old enough to remember knowing that Russian nuclear ICBMs were aimed within thirty miles of my home. Yes, Vladimir Putin is still out there, but there is no equivalent to the Cold War in the world today. The GOP gave us that.
Otherwise?
Republicans in Georgia and Missouri just killed religious liberty bills authored to protect basic liberties that every American enjoyed for 240 years until just months ago. Republican SCOTUS appointees gave us the Smith decision (eviscerating religious liberty and setting up this mess), the Obamacare decision, the Obergefell decision, and every other act and scene in the cautionary tale that is the present state of American jurisprudence.
If someone tells you that he is a Republican, what do you know about him? Do you know that he is pro-Life? You do not. Do you know that he is pro-Religious-Liberty? You do not. Do you know that he is pro-Natural-Marriage? You do not. Do you know his stance on immigration? No. The Flat Tax? No.
Anything? No.
The GOP comfortably contains Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump. Republican affiliation no longer means anything.
The GOP just chose as its nominee a guy who stands for nothing more than his raw desire for power. The startling realization at this moment is how little contrast this action strikes when juxtaposed against the history and state of the national party.
-
The ABCs of a Failing Party. This morning a significant number of Republican leaders and Christian leaders are already attempting to unify people behind presumptive nominee Donald Trump. The line of argumentation is simple and consistent: Donald Trump is not Hillary Clinton. The moment is frighteningly similar to the dying throes of the Whig Party in the 1850s. The very name of the Whig Party revealed the one thing that unified it: Opposition to “King” Andrew Jackson and the movement he represented.
The question of slavery fractured the Whig Party because abolitionist Whigs discovered that although they still despised the Jacksonian Democrats, they despised slavery just as much. When that happened, the Whig Party died and the Republican Party was born out of its ashes, realigning voting patterns in ways that endured for more than a century. The Whig Party had nothing to offer other than “At least we’re not Democrats,” and therefore it died.
Is ABC (Anyone But Clinton) any stronger of a platform for the Republican Party? Not in any way that I can see. I’m ready to vote FOR someone, not just AGAINST someone. The GOP has finally gone and done it. They’ve finally managed to fill in the A-blank with an “Anyone” who is utterly unacceptable to me.
You see, in the past I’ve been willing to settle for candidates who were weak rather than vote for a Democrat. Now the GOP has advanced a candidate who is evil. Weak and evil are not the same thing. The ABC argument works well to convince me to vote for a weak candidate. It is utterly ineffective to convince me to vote for an evil candidate. Just as Whigs in the 1850s could not overcome their own consciences to vote pro-slavery just to oppose the Democrats, neither can I vote pro-Trumpism just to oppose the Democrats.
I’m not alone. I cannot recall any time in my life when solidly conservative Republicans like Jason Villalba were writing things like this. The captain may not yet have called “Abandon ship!” but there sure does seem to be a crowd gathering in the vicinity of the lifeboats.
Whether the Republican Party is dead or not, I think that the time is ripe for a new coalition to emerge. I think that a sizable portion of the American populace can be found who want neither the politics of Donald Trump nor the politics of Hillary Clinton. I think it is time to ask whether the death of the Republican Party might offer more opportunities than losses. What are those opportunities?
There is an opportunity to attract to a new party people who will never vote for the Republican Party. Nominee Donald Trump makes it even less likely that Hispanics or Blacks vote for Republican candidates. Until this year this refusal of non-whites to vote for Republicans (even when those Republicans were not white!) has befuddled me. After all, the facts consistently show that Liberal policies are horrible for minorities and for everyone else. Why do people keep voting for the policies that are destroying their communities and subverting their values?
Well, mystery solved: They’ve apparently made the acquaintance of these people who have championed Donald Trump. They know better than to vote with them.
But what if there were a third party that championed American values? I’m talking about a pro-Constitution, pro-Bill-of-Rights, pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-family, pro-immigration, pro-business, pro-law-and-order, pro-fair-taxation party. Are there Republicans who would change to support a party like that? I think so. Some would not, thankfully. I’d only be excited about such a party if it were utterly repugnant to Donald Trump and everyone who has excitedly promoted his campaign.
Are there Democrats who would change to support a party like that? I think so. And that’s the key to any hope such a party would have for success. It would necessarily fracture the Republican Party and weaken its strength. To succeed, it would ALSO have to fracture the Democratic Party and weaken its strength.
The keys to success here lie in appealing to family values while highlighting liberal overreach (e.g., letting guys pee in the ladies’ room), demonstrating that pro-economic-development and pro-law-and-order policies are better for minorities than are liberal giveaways (and “pro-law-and-order” must mean support for a justice system that treats people justly), and absolutely welcoming immigrant communities. By the way, if illegal immigrants posed a threat to American jobs and the American economy, we should expect to see that the worst economies in the country were in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas rather than the Midwestern Rust Belt. Instead, places like Texas are a bright spot on the American economic map.
Could that happen? Could a party like that emerge? I don’t know.
But if it did, the demise of the Republican Party would be certain. And when visiting the grave, I wouldn’t bring flowers; I’d bring dancing shoes.
When I grow up, I want to be Bart Barber, without the poor taste in baseball teams.
Have you ever considered that his baseball upbringing (Cardinal Nation is a birthright, not a choice) have made him the winsome writer that he is?
#BFIB #CardinalWay #YesIKnowWeAnnoyTheRestOfYou
This year in St. Louis I’m going to try to arrange for Dave Miller to sit right in Jeremy Hazelbaker’s wheelhouse. Then I’m going to talk to him and distract him a lot.
Hospice? I think Dr Drake Ramoray can fix the GOP in a jiffy. If he is unavailable put out an APB for Dr Richard Kimble.
I just laughed out loud at this one! and am still laughing. HAHAHAHA
Bart really frustrates me.
I’ve written reams on this – fairly aggressive, made some folks mad, gotten a lot of heat. He comes along and writes this piece.
And it SEEMS to be fairly calm and irenic. But then you look at the message and he’s talking about dancing on the grave of the GOP! How does he do it? I write all this stuff and it comes off shrill, and he says something this strong, but it sounds all academic and velvety and prim.
Hate the guy! Go to Africa, Bart.
Where’s the Like button for what Dave just said…oh, and for what Bart has, once again, so well said?!?
Dave, for some reason BB… -8 (couldn’t resist a StarWars reference on “Revenge of the Fifth” Day)… has a gift for irenic pugilism. I think you’ve nailed the source of his training with the baseball affiliation he has chosen. It takes some work to advocate for “elevated Catholic bishops” as your team with a straight face.
[and for good measure, the requisite “annoy Dave” use of emoji]… O:-)
Irenic pugilism.
Nice.
Irenic irony or ironic ireny?
Or Me, Myself, and Irene???
Good night, Irene.
Let’s just be sure to shut down this part of the thread before someone chimes in with Come on, Eileen.
Good stuff, Bart.
A friend posted this on FB today – it is outstanding.
https://reformedlayman.wordpress.com/2016/05/04/no-a-vote-for-a-third-party-or-abstaining-from-voting-is-not-the-same-as-a-vote-for-hillary/
“So this election cycle please, don’t pass the blame on us. Don’t guilt trip us. Don’t say if you didn’t vote for Trump you have no right to complain about Hillary winning. Rather, GOP, take a look at yourselves and ask why you didn’t earn my vote and what drastic changes you need to make to change that for the future. Or don’t do that and fade away into that has been party that used to win elections but gave way to a new party. Either way is fine by me.”
Bart;
” Do you know that he is pro-Life? You do not. Do you know that he is pro-Religious-Liberty? You do not. Do you know that he is pro-Natural-Marriage? You do not. Do you know his stance on immigration? No. The Flat Tax? No.” Agreed; although the platform will be correct.
BUT, you do ‘KNOW’ the position of all democrat candidates on those issues. And you know that the opposition will be consistently wrong. And you also know the criticality of this moment (SCOTUS, eg.)
And you also know that 3rd party rhetoric will elect candidates who hate us on the issues you identified.
This is for real; not a dorm discussion.
Dale, Bart isn’t such a bad guy.
If you ever get to know him, you might like him. Just keep him out of your family.
Dale, in the section that you quoted, I was discussing the hypothetical politician who identifies as Republican (I’ve never written it that way, and the genius of that phrase hits me strongly. Some of the people who self-identify as Republican are actually Republican about as much as some of the people who self-identify as women are actually women).
But lets ask about Donald Trump specifically.
Do we know that he is pro-life? Actually, we know that he is not. During the GOP Primary (otherwise known as the season when Republican candidates veer to the right) Trump supported funding Planned Parenthood. Let his past donations and the statements that he made while not running for the GOP presidential nomination speak for him. We know that he is not pro-life.
Do we know that he is pro-Religious-Liberty? Actually, we know that he is not. He has called for the end of all tourism and all immigration based upon a religious test. He has called for Americans to have to register their religious preferences.
Do we know that he is pro-natural-marriage? Actually, we know that he is not. We’ve read what he wrote about Elton John’s same-sex marriage, and he could not have given more effusive praise. He has very carefully cultivated confusion on the question at this point during the campaign, and again, that’s during the GOP primary.
Do we know his position on immigration? Well, yes, we do. I’ll give you that one. I don’t think he’ll actually ACCOMPLISH any of that, but we know what he says. Good luck to him in building his New Maginot Line.
Do we know his position on the Flat Tax? He opposes the Flat Tax, saying it benefits the wealthy too much.
So, with regard to Donald Trump, we actually DO know his position on these question. I’m not forswearing a vote for Donald Trump because he MIGHT not be a conservative. I’ll never vote for him because he IS not a conservative.
Political conservatism is no longer represented by a party, although some individuals in political offices are conservative.
The good news, and it should never be seen as trite to continually remind people of this, is that God is still sovereign and will never be dethroned.
Once upon a time the Church thrived as Rome fell, albeit through difficult doctrinal disputes. Look at where the Church is today despite the global calamity we are seeing. We aren’t in decline, although it may seem that way if you follow only the numbers. The truth is that the Church is particularly strong in some unlikely places right now around the world. God is using the turmoil for his purposes, and we can rejoice in that. We just need to be faithful to continue the work that he has given us.
“Once upon a time the Church thrived as Rome fell, albeit through difficult doctrinal disputes. Look at where the Church is today despite the global calamity we are seeing. We aren’t in decline, although it may seem that way if you follow only the numbers. The truth is that the Church is particularly strong in some unlikely places right now around the world. God is using the turmoil for his purposes, and we can rejoice in that. We just need to be faithful to continue the work that he has given us.”
Jim, I made this very point last night in our bible discussion on 1 Peter.
Your reminder never trite, sir and we would all do well to remember it. We as Americans must remember and be mindful that if (when?) America falls into utter chaos, and/or we turn to authoritarian or socialistic governance the church is still the church and we have seen God’s faithfulness in causing the gospel and the church to thrive despite persecution and evil government. Honestly sometimes I need that reminder. OK, lately – daily I need that reminder.
“With Donald Trump, misogyny, bigotry, xenophobia, and hatred aren’t Democrat insults, they’re planks in his platform.”
This is the part that bothers me the most. They are indeed planks in his platform. That troubles me more than what Donald is. It’s why I’m jumping the Republican ship.
Some thoughts and observations on the “end” of the Republican Party.
This November, it is one thing not to vote for Trump. I understand how people feel and depending on his VP pick, I may even join you all in not voting for him. However, it is another thing to stay home, and not vote at all. To be blunt, that is the path of a coward. Everyone this November has a congressional race to vote for. 1/3rd of us have a US Senate race to vote for. We all have state congressional races to vote for. Some of us have state executive races (governor, ect) to vote for.
If you want to vote (or not vote) your conscience in the presidential race (or any particular race) that is your right. But to not vote at all is cowardly. It spits in the face of the freedoms this country was founded on. And I believe it can be argued it violates the principle of Romans 13 and 1st Peter 2. We are told to submit to the governing authorities. But in this country, the ultimate governing authority is we the people, through the election process. By not voting at all (not just not voting for a particular candidate), we are abdicating our responsibility as citizens. I would call that violating Romans 13.
Again, choosing not to vote for Trump is perfectly fine. I may not vote for him either. But not voting at all, that solves nothing, and may be more dangerous than Trump and Sec Clinton combined.
I absolutely agree. I would also call upon everyone to vote for a presidential candidate as well. Despite what D.C. would have you believe, there ARE more than two parties. Voting for the Libertarian, Constitution or American Party candidate sends a clear message of “Nope and Noper” about Donito Trumpolini and Mao Tse Pantsuit…
How is it cowardly?
I’m tracking with you about abdicating responsibility and Romans 13 and all that jazz but I’m not seeing the connection with it being de facto cowardly.
I use the term cowardly, because in my observations, an unfortunately large number of the people who complain about the state of the GOP and who are saying they never will support the GOP again, have never participated within the GOP at any level. They vote in major elections, and presidential primaries only, and then complain when there are no good candidates.
This year, most statewide office in Missouri is having a GOP primary. And yet, because of my involvement, as limited as it is (due to personal life issues), I know who I am voting for and supporting. For Gov I am supporting Chris Koster; for LtGov Bev Randals; for Treasure Eric Schmitt; and for SecState Will Kraus. (I still am split on the GOP MO AG race [Josh Hawley and Kurt Schaefer] and think both have their pros and cons, and both would make a great AG). I have gotten to meet, listen to and shake hands with Bev Randals and Will Kraus, and I have done further research on all of the candidates. My state house and senate reps (both GOP) are running unopposed. For US House, I am semi-gerrymandered into Rep Emmanuel Cleavers district and literally have no hope for a GOP victory. And the US Senate election is an incumbent GOP Sen Roy Blunt (not perfect but still a good Senator).
The point is, I am involved. At worse I am listening to these candidates in person, early and often. At best, I am letting my voice and opinions be heard. I have long decided that I am not going to give up on the GOP without a fight. There may come a day when I do pull out any and all support, but it will not be without a fight.
SV: Nice try but again no cigar.
Debbie,
If the shoe fits…
SV: If the shoe fits I’ll wear it and wear it proudly. I have no problem with that. But to say it’s cowardly is a poor argument. But if standing for my convictions is cowardly, ok I’ll wear that label.
Still standing by my convictions of not voting for evil or evil.
Again, not voting for Trump IS NOT in itself cowardly. Not voting at all, complaining about the state of the GOP while having NEVER participated in GOP events or made the slightest effort to change the GOP from the ground level…Yes that is cowardly.
That is akin to someone being a member of a church, rarely attends and never participates in the churches ministries. The one of the times they do attend, the pastor says something they do not like, and so they suddenly start attending, while trying to get the pastor fired. When the church does not fire the pastor, they get upset and make a big scene about leaving the church, go find a new church, continue to denigrate the first church to anyone who will listen. That type of person, is a coward. It does not fly in churches, and it does not fly in politics either.
Still not seeing it as cowardice. I’ll try again, so what is a person afraid of? And is it possible there are other reasons besides cowardice for not voting.
I wouldn’t call it cowardice (although cowardice could motivate it, I suppose…a fear of making the wrong decision?). Instead of cowardice, I would say that it is dereliction of one’s duty not to vote.
Dr Barber, I would put forward the proposition, that dereliction of duty should be assigned to those who do not vote, have not voted, and have no interest in voting. Those are not the people who I am referring to, though I can see how closely related they could be viewed in relationship to the group I call cowards.
Well, I am not voting in this election, jumping from the Republican party. If to you that is cowardice. I am fine with that. I don’t really care what it is I just know I’m going with what I strongly feel to be the right thing to do.
The choices are Hillary and Trump. No thank you. One has to give me a reason to vote, this is a reason not to vote and I’m still going to voice my thoughts. No one is going to tell me how to vote or not vote nor is anyone going to silence my voice with worn out arguments that are just words. That is the one beauty of America.
On the other hand, I have to put up with remarks like you are making SV, and I could keep all of my politics to myself to avoid it, but the reason I speak out is because I want it to be known why I won’t vote, why I am no longer Republican via this election because I think it’s important not to stay silent the choice for Presidential candidates is so beyond my scope of understanding.
So again Debbie, instead of leaving the President slot blank, or writing in someone else, or even voting third party, you are not going to go vote at all…And thus you will not vote in elections such as state legislature, for your US rep, or for any other election that is taking place this November. I would wager you have never actually participated in any political events (meet and greets, city/county GOP meetings, ect), and thus never had your voice heard where it can have the most impact. And yet you still are going to get on a high horse and spout egotistical self-entitled garbage? Yes, by doing this you are the epitome of being a coward. You are all talk and bluster until times when it actually matters, then you run and hide.
Lets review…Not voting for Trump and Hillary is not cowardly. Deciding to vote entirely third party down the line is not cowardly. Not voting AT ALL, in ANY race, because you are “mad” at the GOP, combined with not actually trying to participate in the GOP system beforehand…Yes that is cowardly.
And yes, people who do not vote at all, in any race, frankly should shut up because their opinions do not matter. You want to vote for the Flying Spaghetti Monster for President, great, tell me why you think it would be the best President. You want to write in yourself for every race to make a point, strange but even that is preferable to not voting at all.
I will fall back on an earlier analogy. No on here, including YOU Debbie, would give any credence to something someone says, who never attends your church, but shows up, becomes disruptive and shouts about wanting to change the church because there is something they do not like about it. If they have never taken part, never attended, never were involved, their opinions DO NOT MATTER! Why can we ignore blowhards in a case like this, and yet when someone does the exact same thing as it relates to politics, oh suddenly everyone has a right to express their opinions and have those opinions heard!
I’ve seen people state they might leave the President spot blank and not vote for either of the wicked choices we have from either party. I even toyed momentarily with the idea of dissing the Prez line and just voting down ballot (I have decided that I will vote third party or do a write in) – but I have not seen where any conservatives have abdicated voting for house and senate (if their state is up for senatorial elections).
(I still say we should repeal the 17th amendment and go back to state legislators appointing US senators. But that is another discussion for another day.)
I will fill every slot on my ballot. It’s just that neither Clinton nor Trump will be among the names receiving my support.
Yeah, me too….I said I momentarily toyed with the idea of not filling that slot. But then I’m like “Nah, I’m too opinionated for that!” LOL
But I will not vote for Trump. I have said that very early…I said it when people were still saying he would never last – the way he treated Megyn Kelly and the way he talked about Carson way back solidifed that opposition. I was #nevertrump before it was popular.
I did not join the hashtag nevertrump bandwagon (never used it except to call on someone using it to pick a candidate) because it offered no solution only opposition…I kept saying and now we have seen it to be true – although it should have been self evident to everyone…hashtags to not beat candidates only other candidates can do that. Many touters of #neverTrump self defeated themselves by not picking actual person who had a chance.
“I did not join the hashtag nevertrump bandwagon (never used it except to call on someone using it to pick a candidate) because it offered no solution only opposition…”
My turn to return the favor here, Tarheel. I’m of the same mind as you on this. I won’t vote for Trump, but the negativity on the conservative side has gotten as bad as what we are used to seeing from the liberals. The Trumpkins are hating on the NeverTrumpers and the NeverTrumpers are hating on the Trumpkins. Interestingly, I haven’t seen a whole lot from my liberal friends hating on the NeverTrumpers. I don’t think they know what to make of them. But they are hating hard on Trump whether they are Hillary or Sanders supporters…
…which I think is odd since he’s almost certainly a liberal in disguise, not that liberals are all that great at being perceptive.
One thing I do have to note is that one of the things the Trumpkins are preaching is that the data says that Trump is going to win by a landslide, and they are preaching him as though they have to convince everyone of it. If it’s a foregone conclusion, then nothing more needs to be said… right? They don’t need our votes if Trump already has it in the bag.
Great point, Jim. I’m stealing that!
I think the #NeverTrump movement will very soon name an alternative. At least, I hope that they will.
Tar heel, I have tried to make it clear that people like you are NOT who I am targeting. If I have given that impression that I was implying that about you I apologize. The people I have a problem with are the people who are going to stay home entirely this November, not vote in ANY race that is up for election where they live, AND (on top of that) who decide that their opinion on politics actually is worth a hill of beans.
I myself have said that if Trump picks anyone but a solid conservative for VP, I will not vote for him. I likely will write in Ted Cruz if this is the case, or if a big-name Conservative runs as an Independent (like Sen Sasse is advocating) I may vote for them.
But there is no way I will not vote at all because of Trump. In my case, there is too much riding on several state elections here in Missouri for me not to vote in those races. Further, in my case (not sure about other states) but the primary elections for these races still has not taken place (Presidential Primary is the only one to have happened), meaning there is still time to get my preferred GOP candidate selected before the general. I will not let Trump ruin my state as I fear he might ruin this country. I will do everything I can to make this state bleed Republican red in every other race and the only blue allowed is Royals and/or STL Blues blue.
Naw, I never took your comments as directed at me.
I agree with you, for a conservative to stay home and not participate at all because they do not like Trump is…well….stupid. If nothing else – we gotta elect real conservatives to the House and Senate so they can be there to work against Trump or Hillary’s liberal policies.
Well I can handle the labels stupid and dereliction of duty just fine. In fact I even smiled as I read it.
Tarheel: There are none of the above descriptive either. They are pretty much all cow towing to Trump. I will vote independent the next election. Nothing in the Republican party interests me. It didn’t last election nor this one.
My comments were pointed at those who do not vote at all – not those who vote.
There are a few down-ballot conservatives that have the R behind their name who are worthy of voting for (at least in my district)…despite the fact that the top of the R ticket clearly is not.
Ditto Tarheel.
If I were in Nebraska, I would be proud and vocal to support a Republican named Sen Ben Sasse. If I lived in Texas I would be proud to support Republican Sen Ted Cruz (duh! I voted for the guy for president!). If I lived in Utah, I would be proud to vote for Republican Sen Mike Lee (who is…GASP…a Mormon…and also one of the most consistently conservative, on every issue, members of the Senate). Or how about my state, Missouri. The up for election this year is Republican Sen Roy Blunt. He is an establishment Republican, but he is also one of the most consistently pro-life Senators in Congress (and he also happens to be Southern Baptist and was President of SBU a MBC/SBC college) I happily support him.
See, there are many “good” Republicans out there.
I’m as #NeverNotVote as I am #NeverClinton and #NeverTrump.
SVMuschany, I don’t agree that not voting is inherently cowardly, but…
I do agree that to not vote at all is not the best choice, at least in this respect. “Not voting” can be dismissed by candidates and parties as apathy. IOW, these folks don’t care what we do. At least voting for someone else (e.g. third party) gets counted, whether it is a vote for conscience or a protest vote. (For awhile I’ve been in favor of a “none of the above” selection on ballots. Seriously.)
I spent many active years in the Republican Party, because I thought they believed and supported what I believed and supported (e.g. smaller government). No doubt some of the candidates did, but I discovered many of them are just politicians gathering votes by saying what people want to hear. I started voting Republican in my early 20s, when all our local candidates were still Democrats. Shortly after I began working the polls and soon became the Precinct Chairman. We worked from the ground up and built the local party (though the credit for that goes to others and not me; statewide and nationally our county was already voting Republican). I’ve been a county and state delegate, but never went to the National Convention. I, for one, am disgusted with the Republican Party. And this didn’t start with Trump. Whether local, state or national, far, far too often their voting record didn’t and doesn’t fit their rhetoric. While most of my votes still go to Republican candidates as the best choice, I quit my party activity about 10 or 12 years ago and don’t regret it in the least.
We DO need to support Trump in a vain attempt to defeat Hillary…and we WILL need a replacement for the Republican Party when they lose the White House, the Senate and the House. All we need is a catchy name….how about the Common Sense Party…or the Sane Party….Or the Liberty Party.
You feel free. I cannot and will not.
Bart, I could have misread, but it seems you are insinuating that the election of Jimmy Carter (which nobody predicted would turn out as badly as it did) eviserated the Democratic Party. If that is what you are saying, I don’t know that history agrees with you. Certainly a Democrat wouldn’t win the Presidency for another 12 years, but the Democrats didn’t lose the House until 2 years into Clinton’s presidency. And the Republicans only held the Senate in the first 6 years of Reagan’s presidency, and then didn’t re-capture it until after Clinton.
Again, I could be misunderstanding you, but I wouldn’t call that an eviseration of the Democrats.
I didn’t insinuate that Jimmy Carter eviscerated the Democratic Party. I simply stated that he (together with Ronald Reagan) created a party-switching phenomenon by which a generation of people reared yellow-dog Democrat became unswervingly Republican.
Democrats still had some pretty solid constituencies left behind, but they still suffered defeat in ways that many have forgotten and few appreciate today. I remember when every Democrat gt fighting mad and ran the other way if you called him a liberal. Now a man proudly calling himself a Socialist is winning upset after upset in presidential primaries.
OK. So I actually DID say that Jimmy Carter eviscerated the Democratic Party.
I just REALLY like the word “eviscerate.” He hurt the Democratic Party. He hurt them very badly.
I think you’re exactly right about the lean left-ward of the Democrats. I might argue that it began with Humphrey rather than Carter. I remember my mom and dad arguing over my mom wanting to vote for Nixon and my dad (a Teamster) getting very mad about the house vote being split.
Regardless, while I like the word eviscerate also, I don’t think the Republicans are anywhere near done should Trump win the presidency. That is, unless many in the Republican fold that are conservative, and are sick and tired of the Establishment boys (Ryan, McConnell, McCain, Romney, Graham, Boehner, and others) would start a new party (see the Whigs dissolving into Republicans in the 1850s).
If that would happen, I’m all in. Otherwise I think conservatives are stuck between Trump’s ego and the Establishment guys arrogance. The latter, in my opinion, created the former.
Nobody reads my blog any more (since I hardly ever post there). I posted this article on my blog for one and only one reason: So I could copy the HTML from there and paste it back over here after Dave previewed it and messed up the formatting. 🙂
I didn’t touch your formatting. The only thing I did was add a space where none existed.
Oh, and I added a question mark where it seemed one was appropriate.
When you preview it WordPress automatically kills the formatting. It can’t help it—it’s more Android than Apple.
Really?
Then in the future, just let me know you’ve got something and post it yourself.
You do an awesome job running this place. I’m just picking on you for fun. I don’t mind. I just fix the formatting after it drops. No big deal.
WordPress’s WYSIWYG editor doesn’t think that numbered lists should contain paragraphs. So, for all of my … tags inside an … tag, WordPress strips them right out. That causes the spacing to be strange within the ordered lists.
Of course, the HTML standard has no problem whatsoever with ‘s in ‘s. So that’s why when I edit in WordPress (under duress) I always use the HTML editor, not the WYSIWYG editor.
Bart: “Nobody reads my blog any more…”
I do. It’s just that we have to keep reading the same old stuff over and over and over and over….
Get busy and start posting there. 😉
And then, as if to reach out and help struggling bloggers like myself, Trump gave us this gift today. New Trump Finance Chair Has Given Twice as Much to Democrats as to the GOP.
You buried the lead, Bart!
“Steve Mnuchin, a Wall Street hedge fund manager, has deep ties to the Democratic Party — including working for George Soros.”
Notice the last 5 words……
Let that sink in Trumpsters!
Bart,
Great post. 100% agree. It may be time to launch a Kingdom Party. And if it starts out fully interracial, it’s DNA would guarantee inclusion; thus avoiding the stigma that many Blacks & other minorities face when aligned with or voting Republican, that we are sell-outs, or a part of a racist party. If a vibrant, vital, & victorious Kingdom party, erupt from the Trump ashes, that would be a good thing.
I pray that The Lord would raise up a person who can successfully launch a new party that shares & reflect the values of God’s Kingdom. If Trump wins, it would be a great time to recruit for such a party.
Wise words Bart. Thanks for adding your voice to the outcry and welcome to the party. I am glad to have you with us.
It’s hard to leave behind something that once held incredible value to you and for you. But it’s a lot easier when you realize they have actually left you behind. The GOP has done so for all of us who saw them as th me defenders of all that you laid out. It’s time for a change.
Funny, all your collective consciences did not compel you to speak out when a former president got us into a needless war that cost the lives of thousands. In fact, I remember reading most of your comments supporting the Iraq war. But now you’re worried and appalled by alledged misogyny? The irony would be laughable, if it weren’t so sad.
Bart, as smart as everyone declares you to be, you still haven’t figured out that a third is incapable of winning a presidential election. That sir, would do far more to ensure the Dems win the next five elections than a Trump presidency ever could. I am sure Dems would giggle with glee at our apparent ignorance.
John, I’m not sure what is the antecedent of “That” in the second sentence of your second paragraph. What is it, precisely, that would do more to give Democrats the next five elections than a Trump presidency? Grammatically, it looks like you’re saying that for a third-party candidate to win a presidential election would do so, in which case I’m wondering how on earth you draw that conclusion.
But I don’t think that’s what you meant, because you declared that to be an absolute impossibility (be sure not to visit the Lincoln Memorial if you’re ever in Washington).
Are you saying that for a third-party candidate just to RUN would secure the next five elections for Democrats? How, precisely? I really just don’t follow.
If you didn’t really mean to make predictions about twenty years of presidential elections, then I understand. Hey, I used “eviscerate” in this post when I really didn’t mean to go quite that far, so I know the feeling.
But maybe what you should do if you want to spin up a little rhetoric against my post is just call me “Lyin’ Bart” and talk about how big your hands are. That seems to pass for really effective prose these days.
An third party run.
Sorry, my phone isn’t cooperating.
No a third party run, Bart. Surely you are smart enough to know that a third party candidate has no hope of ever winning the white house. Forming a third party would only serve to get Dems elected, and you know that.
Oh come on, Bart. Your feigned ignorance is unbecoming. You know that a third party of the kind you are proposing would only ciphon votes off of the Republican party thus ensuring Democratic victories.
Abraham Lincoln won the presidency as the candidate of the new Republican Party. It split out of and then destroyed the Whig Party.
Can it happen?
It HAS happened. That’s what I’m “smart enough to know.”
Under the current system all that a semi viable third party would do is result in the 1992 election all over again. You know it and I know it, your 150 year old example notwithstanding.
So, while we’re on this topic, let’s talk about things that can’t happen.
1. It just can’t happen that the Republican Speaker of the House would decline to endorse the GOP Presidential nominee, right? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ryan-says-he-is-not-ready-to-back-trump-deepening-gop-divide/2016/05/05/fab4c590-12ff-11e6-81b4-581a5c4c42df_story.html)
2. It just can’t happen that a Republican senator from the Heartland would write an open letter calling for Republicans to vote Independent in this election. I mean, that just doesn’t happen, does it? (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/ben-sasse-trump-facebook-post-222833)
3. It just can’t happen that Republican elected officials from Republican strongholds like Texas are (correctly) branding the GOP presidential nominee as “a bigoted, orange, buffoonish, ignorant ape.” I mean, when have we ever seen anything like that? (https://www.tribtalk.org/2016/05/04/donald-trump-is-the-death-of-the-republican-party/)
4. It’s not possible that every living Republican former president would decline to endorse the Republican nominee, right? (http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36214738).
Or maybe, just maybe, we live in an unprecedented time in which one would be wise to ask whether the old rules apply.
Let’s try it this way, John: You tell us what you know, and I’ll see whether I can manage on my own to tell us all about what I know.
K?
Bart, I never said any of those things can’t happen. But, let’s say you draw off half of the GOP voters, do you really think you have any chance at winning? I’m sure the Dems would send you a thank you card though.
You could draw off 80% of the GOP voters and you would still lose.
Go back to the original post and read the part about taking voters away from the Democratic Party.
John, do you think that every single person who votes for the Democrats is in favor of letting little Susie go pee next to Billy Bob? Do you think that they all gleefully clap while Baronnelle Stutzman is hounded into receivership? Do you think that every single one of them is totally unmoved by the video of legs being ripped off of unborn babies?
If you do, then you’re wrong. A lot of Democrats do not like these things. But if it is a Democrat named Rodriguez, none of those things will drive him to support a party that says that his grandmother is a rapist and a thief because all Mexicans are that way. If it is a Democrat named Ibrahim who fought for the United States as a soldier in Afghanistan, the fact that he is pro-life and pro-traditional-marriage will not drive him to support a party that says that he is a terrorist because 100% of Muslims are terrorists.
Don’t you see, those of us who do not like Donald Trump but feel that we must support him because we have NOWHERE ELSE TO GO? Don’t you see? There are Democrats who feel the same way. They don’t agree with all of these things that are happening in their party, but no matter what happens, they’re never going to the Republican Party.
A strong third party? That could completely re-stack the deck.
I’m not saying that it will happen. I’m simply saying that it could happen, and that it would be the best thing to have happened in a long time.
It can’t happen this election cycle and probably not the next. I’m not willing to let Clinton appointment the next 4 or 5 Supreme Court justices. If that happens, we are done. That’s what I believe, Bart.
I’m sorry about being heated. Bart, I do respect you. I just strongly disagree with you here. Ross Perot was enough to sour me on third party candidates.
I know of no credible reason to suspect that a Donald Trump SCOTUS nomination will be one iota better than a Hillary Clinton nomination.
But what you and I both know is that Clinton’s picks would be unacceptable for sure.
Again, I would encourage you either to establish your credentials for your expertise about what I know or refrain from telling me what I know.
It comes down to this: Obliterating religious liberty (which he has promised to do) and forcing the military to commit war crimes (which he has promised to do) are just as bad as what Clinton’s SCOTUS justices would do. It’s not an unknown. Trump’s appointees would be just as bad as Clinton’s, albeit in different ways, and with no reason to think that they wouldn’t be just as worse in the same ways to boot.
Dr Barber, the sole “credible” reason to suspect Trump will nominate “good” justices to the SCOTUS, will be who he selects as VP. If he picks a solid conservative then we can at least have hope that he will nominate good justices. If he picks a moderate, we know that will never be the case.
And I remind John that President George HW Bush gave us Justice Souter and President Reagan gave us O’Connor. Those two justices were every bit as bad as Clinton’s Justices Ginsburg and Breyer. Just food for thought.
SVM,
That previous Republicans gave us bad justices is not new information for me. Look back up there…that’s in my original post.
I’m curious as to the details of this alleged link between VP selection and SCOTUS nomination. Are you suggesting that something about Dan Quayle foreshadowed the Souter nomination? Come to think of it, I’ve never actually SEEN Souter spell potato.
Are you saying what I suggested was untrue? You really don’t know that?
No. I’m telling you that it is poor form and is offensive. Speak for yourself.
In this one case it is correct, but it is a point that I never disputed and it is a point that is irrelevant, since I also know that Donald Trump’s nominees would be unacceptable.
How could you possibly know that, Bart?
Never mind, I retract the question. Good night.
In precisely the same way that I know that Hillary Clinton’s appointees would be unacceptable. Donald Trump has promised to set aside the First Amendment guarantees of religious liberty in order to impose a religious establishment with regard to immigration law. He has promised to force American citizens to register with the government their religious affiliations. He has promised to force military officials to commit war crimes.
Why wouldn’t I take Donald Trump at his word? Why wouldn’t I know that his SCOTUS appointees would be jurists who would permit every bit of that?
I was opposed to the Iraq war and called out W and Cheney for their falsehoods on WMDs. For which I was called a liberal, anti-military, and an Obama voter.
I’m none of those.
I would be careful with your generalizations.
I have also been vocally critical on this site and others of those who blindly vote GOP because they “represent our values.”
As sad as I am for how this is now turning out, it is nice to be vindicated. I’m glad to welcome all these new people to movement to end the evangelical church’s marriage to the GOP and to seek to put forth candidates of any party or no party who have a real faith and not a party slogan.
Let’s get this (new) party started!
Ryan,
I commend you on your stance, sir. But I will not support a party that can do nothing but guarantee that the Dems are elected. Sorry, I’m not as enamored with this idea as you all seem to be.
I’ve decided to solve the whole thing this way:
1. Democrats will say to Bernie supporters that a failure to vote for Hillary is the same thing as a vote for Trump, even if they are voting for a third-party candidate.
2. I am failing to vote for Hillary.
3. Therefore, my independent vote is the same thing as a vote for Trump.
There, now. Everyone’s happy.
Good night.
Hillary is Jezebel and Trump is Nebuchadnezzar; not a great choice. But the Third Party idea may not be the best. If the Republican establishment had forced Trump to be the nominee through a contested convention or some kind of tricky procedure, I could see a groundswell large enough to consider a third option. But that isn’t what happened. The Republican establishment opposed Trump; a large number of Republican voters decided for Trump. To run a more consistently conservative candidate or start a more conservative party will have trouble building the kind of broad-based coalition that has enabled past Republican victories. In fact, it may doom a conservative from being elected for long time if it further divides center-right voters and conservative voters, while the Democrats consolidate the progressives, minorities and young women voters. It would seem better to let this election cycle play out, pray for the best, vote down-ticket (if you can’t vote for the top) and do better in uniting behind a candidate in 2020. a conservative third party is such a gift to the liberals that it would probably be secretly funded by George Soros.
Bart,
I do not want to misrepresent what you are saying although it seems to be a foundation to most peoples frustration.
For clarity: The majority of Republican primary voters DID NOT vote for Trump.
From my view point the core issue that enabled this outcome was the RNC presenting 17 Presidential candidates to the media.
The media was the winner in this election cycle. Add revenues are at record numbers for news organizations that were losing billions. Thanks to the RNC strategy.
For a third party to succeed you need media. It is much easier to fix the RNC than to fix news media. Fragmentation with a third party is what the DNC and RNC dream of.
Lincoln did not have the instant spin doctor reporting of today. Unless you can factor this into the history of successful third parties, I do not see how a Lincoln analogy works. News took 5 days or more to get widespread reporting in Lincoln’s time. Today it is 5 seconds or less for issues to go viral and sometimes news may even be accurate. I hear you “may” have had breakfast with Lee Harvey Oswald just before the Kennedy assassination.
There were at least 3 respected #1 viewed conservative news outlets that went full Monty for Trump(new and old media). For a third party to succeed you would need The Media. I would not like to see what the outcome would look like of a new political party the media promoted.
Fix the RNC, fix the Republican Party. Third party, “Forget About It!” The one that succeeds to prominence will not be anything you would be able to support. Third Party will only led to a wasted hijacked effort.
This General Election cycle is going to be very entertaining. Starting with who gets determine the Republican Platform at the convention, Trump or the Party. Time to stock up on Popcorn just like Bush and Romney are doing.
John K,
The remaining problem with the RNC (and I don’t know a solution for this) is how highly unpopular it is with every growing demographic in the United States. It remains popular only among demographic groups who are shrinking.
So, fixing the RNC has to include some sort of a strategy that makes it appeal to Latinos and Blacks. Like that; don’t like it; doesn’t matter: That’s math, and numbers don’t care about feelings.
Presidential nominee Donald Trump puts Latinos much further out of reach for the GOP. They will not soon forget that this is the party of the spite fence.
American Blacks are already a long shot for Republicans, and that’s not easily going to be overcome anytime soon.
How’s the GOP going to overcome these demographics and try to hold onto or build a winning coalition? Here’s what they’re going to do. They’re going to kick social conservatism to the curb and retain only fiscal conservatism with an occasional splash of isolationism/nativism. So, the GOP is about to hand you your walking papers anyway (for further info, ask the state SBC conventions in Georgia or Missouri how their relationships with their GOP state governments are going right now).
And yet, that’s not the only potential solution for the GOP (although it is the one that they will choose). The GOP, if it wished to do so, COULD try to unite those Latinos and Blacks who have the sense God gave a goose and can see that you’re a man if you have a penis (this ain’t rocket science, folks) by not trying to hand Abuelita over to the drug cartels and by not taking four days to try to figure out whether you want the endorsement of the KKK.
Mark my words: These are the two options that the GOP faces (and they will choose the former rather than the latter). They will abandon social conservatism to try to build a coalition of fiscal conservatives, or they will soften immigration and some fiscal policies to try to build a coalition around social conservatism.
But even if they were to choose the path of robust social conservatism (which they will not), success in attracting Latinos and Blacks would not be guaranteed. The past has somewhat poisoned the well. Donald Trump is pouring in more poison right now. Latinos and Blacks will not easily be won into the GOP.
This is the way in which a third party, if someone starts it along these lines, has better odds. People who already know that they are not going to be a Republican would have to think about whether they could be whatever this third party would be. But it has to happen soon. There is only a window of opportunity here before the Democratic machine has brainwashed the upcoming generations of even these generally-sexually-normative groups. And it has to involve Latinos, Asians, and Blacks from the get-go.
Bart, I apologize for offending you with my comments yesterday. I see a lot of what you are saying, I just deteat everything the Democrats stand for.
I detest it, too, John. I wouldn’t have spent the energy to argue with you at such length if I weren’t sure that we were in the same neighborhood.
“So, fixing the RNC has to include some sort of a strategy that makes it appeal to Latinos and Blacks. ”
We agree fully on this strategy. Tactics and allies may be the point of disagreement. I believe a third party will be hijacked looking more like Trump than anything you perceive it to be at this time.
I am not sure how you accomplish Fiscal Conservatism without Social Conservatism.
I think we will see many things that will change our tactics between now and the convention. I think we will see many things between the Convention and November that will amaze us. I’ll pray for it to be beneficial for the Glory of God. I’ll also pray that as followers of Christ we prepare for a hard road ahead, and stop expecting and taking an easy path.
I have to say that I was impressed by Villalba’s description of Trump. But I’m not sure about the adjective “orange”. It is apparently an insult but I don’t quite get it.
The Republican party used to stand for something. It used to have a platform. It used to stand for conservative values, family values, and so on. You know the list. But now evidently the Republican platform has only one plank. Defeat Democrats. It is astonishing that the party that purportedly stands for traditional morality is willing to back the most immoral candidate in its history as long as they think he can win. That’s all that matters. It is telling that people who were calling Trump Satan Incarnate a week ago are now saying we should get behind him because winning is all that matters.
Orange jokes are Because of his awful spray on tan and make up jobs.
Heres one such pic and video of him – The article reminds us of how he spoke of his new best friend forever and ” excellent human being” Ben Carson – of course this is before dr. Carson endorsed him and is now hitting up his vice presidential search.
http://www.thewrap.com/donald-trump-compares-ben-carson-to-a-child-molester-video/
Ah, got it. I wish I could say the Carson thing baffles me, being compared to a child-molester and then turning around and endorsing Trump, but so many politicians in this election cycle have seemingly dropped their principles, if they possessed them in the first place, for the chance of power.
Here’s a great summary of Donald Trump’s politics. https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/campaigns-elections/the-gops-catastrophic-choice-trump/
That is a great article. But let’s not forget, he’s not politically correct.! That appears to be a major qualification for president these days.
I still feel like I’m in the Twilight Zone. Trump just tweeted a picture of himself with a taco bowl in front of him, with the quote: “I love hispanics!”
Everyone who ever made fun of Dan Quayle needs to beg his forgiveness. Whoever thought a man who alternates between acting like a walking Onion article and then advocating war crimes would have a serious shot at being president.
However this may affect your prayers and political practices, consider these things.
It is unimaginable that any third party candidate could receive a majority of the electoral votes, since to do so in our mostly “winner take all” system of state elector allocation, that would require the third party candidate to take the most popular votes in each of a large number of states.
Many do not know that in all but 2 states, presidential candidates get ALL of the electors from that state if they receive the most popular votes in that state. They need not win the majority of votes, just more votes than any other presidential candidate got in that state. (This avoids delaying run-off elections.)
So, to starkly illustrate the futility of a third-party candidacy, imagine this hypothetical. Let’s say that a really good third-party candidate were to arise. Further imagine that that candidate does so well as to run a close second to Trump or Clinton in the states either of them wins. So close, in fact, that Trump or Clinton only beats them by one popular vote in each of those states. That would mean that the third party candidate received the votes of over 60 Million Americans! Even so, in that case, the ENTIRETY of electoral college votes (except for Maine’s and Alaska’s) would be divided by Trump and Clinton, and the third party candidate could only receive, at the most, 7 of the 538 available.
I am voting in every race I can. I may not select a candidate on the ballot in the top race – I haven’t decided yet. But if I pick SBT (Somebody Besides Trump) I will have to factor in how my vote will likely affect OTHER posts (like SCOTUS justices) as well as the office of president.