Do We Have a Chance to Remake the GOP as a Conservative Party?

There are a few facts about the current political climate that are 100 percent beyond question. One is that the GOP establishment hates Tea Partiers and conservatives far more than they hate Democrats. Secondly, if there is amnesty for illegals, the GOP will become a permanent minority party. So, if amnesty arrives perhaps we have the opportunity to eliminate moderate Republicans and remake the GOP as a truly conservative party for the first time in history?

So, the latter part of my first paragraph is an admission of sorts. The Republican Party has never been a truly conservative party. It really is the moderate, establishment’s party, not ours. Granted, when founded the GOP was actually the radical party. It was for the elimination of slavery, not the tolerance of it. There was little mincing words with the so-called “black Republican” Party. But its post Civil War incarnation is what it’s been for most of its history.

As it evolved after the North won the Civil War, the GOP became the party of big business. At the time that was essentially the “conservative” position to take, but the fact is one cannot use the words “conservative” and “liberal” to describe American politics until FDR began his assault on the business sector and George McGovern put the final anti-American nail in the Democrat Party’s coffin.

The GOP did finally start edging toward constitution-based conservatism when Goldwater ran and won the GOP nomination in 1964. That drift toward conservatism was reinforced by Ronald Reagan who brought conservatives into the party as an actual power base. But the establishment GOP has always hated, hated, hated conservatives, and still do. They hated Goldwater and sought to ruin him–and succeeded. They hated Reagan and tried to Goldwater him–but failed miserably.

Still, since Goldwater, conservatives have been struggling for a corner of the GOP with only marginal success, the establishment doing its level best to hamper them at every turn. Moderate, establishment Republicans fight harder to destroy conservatives than they ever do to hurt Democrats.

So, what about the future? Well, we might just have an opportunity, here. We might just possibly have the opportunity to put the nail in the establishment’s coffin and turn the Republican Party into a real conservative party for the first time ever.

After all, why not? If the self-defeating moderates join the Democrats in forcing amnesty on this country, they will have ended any chance that the Republicans will be anything but a small, regional party confined to the south and a few parts of the west. The GOP will become a permanent minority party never having enough office holders to wield power in Washington as millions of Hispanics turn to the Democrat Party for a constant flow of freebies, handouts, and subsidies. Use California for your example.

Now, why not take this opportunity to excise the moderates from the GOP fold, remake the party into a true conservative party and rebuild from there for the future? If we are going to be in the wilderness for decades, anyway, why not fix this broken party with an eye toward the future?

I mean, if the GOP is not going to be able to win anything for the foreseeable future anyway, why not?

This, coupled with a concerted effort to re-take our schools from the anti-American left, could help rebuild an electorate that reveres the U.S. Constitution, loves Americanism, yearns for small government, low taxing and spending, and has a healthy respect for the law, all things the moderate Republicans–like their Democrat friends–disdain.

Well? Why not?

Finally, I should note specifically that this is all contingent on the mushy middle of the GOP allowing amnesty. If that doesn’t happen the GOP will still be a national party. But if amnesty does come about–and the moderates would truly love it to happen–we may as well make lemonade out of their lemons.

Let’s Put ObamaCare in Perspective
President Obama and the Navigators
  • Lawrence Westlake

    This blog post is a looking glass into what might happen if Sharron Angle got it on with Richard Mourdock and Carl Paladino in a threesome and then had Michelle Malkin give the ensuing hellspawn a vaccine against critical thinking with Glenn Beck then tutoring it for its GED. I mean, seriously, there’s retarded. Then there’s fully retarded. And you never want to go fully retarded. Speaking of which, what’s actually funny about blog posts such as this one (and by “funny” I mean in the vein of “The Toxic Avenger” or “Sharknado”) is that at present the GOP leadership consists of: Boehner (90% lifetime ACU rating), Cantor (96%), McConnell (90%) and Cornyn (93%). And each of those men have been in D.C. for many moons. Exactly how much more conservative do these mental midgets want the party to become? Across-the-board 100%? It’s a good thing Reagan didn’t hang on to witness in earnest this talk radio/Internet demographic farce. The man would have been appalled.

    • Commander_Chico

      I suggest a split.

      They could call the two parties the Whigs and the Know-Nothings.

      The Whigs would attract a lot of moderate Democrats. The Know-Nothings would attract, well, you know . . .

      maybe those who believe in “FDR’s assault on the business sector.”

      • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

        All the rest of the Democrats?

        That works.

        • jim_m

          Yeah, I thought we were talking about a GOP split but Chico seems to have lost the thread and gone for a dem split.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      Hey Larry…

      When your only upvotes are from our soi disant cognoscenti and his hood ornament it’s time to take a time out and reconsider what you’re doing. Or you can emulate 0bama and double down on stupid…

      • jim_m

        I’m thinking that Larry is really a lefty. Most of his rants are anti-conservative and anti TEA Party and when he does say something that is semi conservative it comes off as a lefty caricature of what a conservative might say.

  • Brucehenry

    Also Warner apparently doesn’t remember the 80s very well. The GOP “establishment” FULLY embraced Reagan and everyone in the party from Bob Dole to Jesse Helms loved them some Ronnie. The sumbitch could do no wrong.

    Where he got the idea that the GOP “establishment” hated Reagan is a mystery.

    For that matter, I don’t know who tried to “ruin” Goldwater but he was a cult hero as soon as his presidential run was over. He served many more years in the Senate and was considered an elder statesman of his party.

    • Commander_Chico

      Reagan and Goldwater would be called RINOs now by the Teatards.

      • jim_m

        Yeah Reagan’s desire to cut taxes would really have alienated the TEA Party.

        • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

          You know a group is on the right path when our soi disant cognoscenti dumps on them.

          • jim_m

            Next one of the lefty idiots will complain how spending went up under Reagan, completely ignoring the fact that the House was controlled by the dems for his entire Presidency.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            It’s hard for them to escape the talking points of their masters…

          • jim_m

            Well, that would require independent thinking and that isn’t allowed on the left.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Indeed not.

    • jim_m

      Yeah, the GOP establishment just looooved Reagan. The beltway centered establishment, which is more “moderate” shall we say, than the base, supported Ford in 76 and his main primary challenger in 80 was Bush 41, who had denigrated Reagan’s economic policies (one’s that put this country into one of the greatest economic expansions in history).

      The moderate and liberal side of the GOP loved Reagan so much that they ran a candidate against him in the general election (John Anderson) and he won the fourth most votes of any third party candidate in history up to that point.

      Yeah the establishment loved Reagan when his coat tails were dragging their dead asses into office.

      • Brucehenry

        Andersen had to run as an independent because he got no GOP support.

        It’s true that Reagan faced moderate opposition in 1976 and 1980, though. But after his nomination he could do no wrong. Hell, the GOP still makes excuses for Reagan even when he was obviously wrong, like Iran-Contra.

        • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

          And there we could have sworn you exhumed his corpse to beat on in this thread…

          • Brucehenry

            About as useful as tits on a boar hog is our soi disant “moderator.”

        • jim_m

          Exactly how is it that Reagan was opposed by moderates but the left constantly wants to claim how moderate he was?

          Funny how the left is so very willing to claim that conservatives have shifted in their ideology but ever so unwilling to acknowledge that their own ideology has shifted dramatically toward fascism.

          Tell you what, I will admit that Reagan was a moderate as soon as you admit that the democrats have embraced fascism.

          • Brucehenry

            The point is not that Reagan was a moderate — he wasn’t. The point is that, as conservative as he was, he wouldn’t be conservative ENOUGH for the crazy people who call themselves the Tea Party.

          • jim_m

            That simply isn’t true. While no one is going to agree with every single policy that someone else advocates (well they do this on the left but dissent is sedition on the left), there would have been broad agreement with Reagan.

            He did not believe in redistribution. He did not believe in the asinine tax system and he believed that people should have the freedom and responsibility to lead their own lives.

            Go ahead and live in your idiotic fantasy world where obama is FDR and Reagan is hated by conservatives.

          • Brucehenry

            In your eagerness to disprove a point no one is making you misunderstand the meme.

            Reagan is not “hated by conservatives,” and no one is saying he is. He’s revered, but Tea Partiers remember a Reagan that never was.

            The point is that Tea Partiers would have hated the umpteen times he raised taxes after the big cuts of 81 and 83. They would have called him a traitor and a RINO just for working with Tip O’Neill in ANY capacity. They’d run him out of town on a rail for the 86 immigration bill. They forget that he tripled the National Debt (but that’s OK, I guess, since he borrowed and spent to enrich the arms manufacturers). They might have an objection or two to his negotiating with Shiite terrorists in Lebanon, including Hizbollah. THey would have vilified his support for the EITC.

            He did all those things because he had to govern a complicated country and wanted to accomplish conservative goals. But Tea Party crazies who think Ayn Rand is awesome would hang the dude they claim to idolize if his ghost were to return and run for President.

          • jim_m

            Your ridiculous caricature of the TEA Party not withstanding, Reagan would not have been run out of town. What you fail to realize is that Reagan had to work with O’Neil to get anything done. The 86 immigration Bill was broadly supported as necessary but people actually believed that it would be the last time and that there would be something done to secure the borders. Of course the dems saw to it that nothing would be done and now they want to open the borders to all comers and give them all the right to vote at the same time.

            You think that the TEA Party would have never accepted Reagan for not being a strident ideologue. That is simply your leftist projection kicking in. It is the left that rejects anyone who steps out of line ideologically. It is the left hat refuses to allow any dissent to even be voiced.

            And if Reagan were to run for President no one would hang him. You have to destroy the brain to kill a zombie. Everyone knows that.

          • Brucehenry

            Oh, no dude, I realize full well that Reagan had to work with O’Neill. I’m afraid the Tea Party wouldn’t, though. That’s why you get articles and comments like we see here on Wizbang calling Boehner a sellout, Rubio a traitor, and calling for donations to Mitch McConnell’s primary opponent.

            But hey, if you think the Tea Party is a bunch of reasonable Deep Thinkers, more power to ya.

          • jim_m

            The criticism is not that Boehner is compromising, it is that he is being rolled every time. Boehner fails to take advantage of every opportunity to win any concession. And yes, after Reagan’s amnesty anyone advocating amnesty without first securing the border is going to be viewed negatively.

            The othher reason that McConnell and Boehner are viewed negatively is that they oppose anyone who is conservative and stands up for conservative values. They do not believe in limited government or even lower taxes. They believe in expanding government and they believe that they should be a permanent minority picking up scraps from the dems.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Show a citation from 1980-1989 that referred to Reagan as a “moderate.”

            Predictions:

            1. You won’t be able to because there are none.
            2. Having been challenged and having failed to substantiate your contra-factual claim you will neither admit it to be contra-factual nor withdraw it.

          • Brucehenry

            A soi disant “moderator” who can’t read with comprehension. I NEVER CLAIMED Reagan was a “moderate,” Boar Tits.

            Again, I said, as conservative as Reagan was, he wouldn’t be conservative enough for today’s TPCs.

            I specifically said, “The point is not that Reagan was a moderate — he wasn’t.”

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            I missed a third option I see…

          • Brucehenry

            Yeah you miss a lot.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            I should really start missing everything you spew forth…

          • Brucehenry

            Fine with me if I don’t have to deal with juvenile potshots in order to comment here. Ignore me. Please.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            All you have to do is leave…

          • Brucehenry

            Yeah I guess the point of having a blog with advertising is to reduce the number of page clicks. That how it works, Boar Tits?

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Some eyeballs aren’t worth the advertising revenue.

            And chicka really doesn’t need a hood ornament…

          • Brucehenry

            Some fashion choices aren’t worth making but yet you still sport that fedora.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            sez an anonymous greyhead…

    • warnertoddhuston

      “The GOP ‘establishment’ FULLY embraced Reagan”

      That was the most ignorant, ahistorical thing I’ve read from you in a long time. And you are a constant fount of total stupidity.

      In RETROSPECT, the moderate, left-leaning GOP establishment says they all loved Reagan. But DURING his years in office, they HATED him and constantly undercut him and slammed him in the media.

      Oh, sure TODAY they pretended they loved him. But they didn’t. ANd lets take his own one-time home state, Illinois, for instance. Illinois never in any way accepted the Reagan legacy. Its whole state party has never, ever leaned toward Reaganesque policies. Never. And yet, every Illinois GOP politician (and even some Democrats) runs around claiming they love him.

      They are liars.

      • Brucehenry

        Want to show some quotes from the 80s of the establishment Republicans undercutting Reagan and slamming him in the media? LOL.

        I guess it’s pretty convenient to rearrange history to fit your paranoia. “They are liars” just wipes away all the support Reagan got in accomplishing his agenda, huh?

        • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

          It was your initial claim that Reagan was embraced at the time by the Republican Establishment. Show period citations supporting your unsupported allegation.

          • Brucehenry

            Kind of unnecessary since he got his defense build-up, his tax cuts, and his escape from impeachment (it was never even seriously discussed, despite the stunning illegality) for Iran-Contra.

            But go ahead, Boar Tits, keep demanding citations. Anyone old enough who hasn’t developed dementia remembers it like I do.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            shorter henry: I got nuthin…

          • Brucehenry

            What do you and Warner have? It was Warner’s assertion that “DURING his years in office, they HATED him and constantly undercut him and slammed him in the media.”

            Really? When? When did Bob Dole or Lamar Alexander or any “establishment” Republican “slam him in the media”? I’d like to see ONE example of that, much less the “constant undercutting” Warner claims happened.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Quoth an ignorant ass:

            The GOP “establishment” FULLY embraced Reagan

            When challenged to support the assertion?

            Nothing but the braying of an ass.

          • Brucehenry

            Quoth an ignorant ass’s big brother or mentor or uncle or something:

            “DURING his years in office, they HATED him and constantly undercut him and slammed him in the media.”

            When challenged to support the assertion?

            Nothing but the braying of an ass. Or the squealing of a boar hog with his useless tits.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            My point is about YOUR baseless assertion which you still have not supported.

            Since you never support your own assertions, what standing have you to demand anyone else do so, hypocrite?

          • Brucehenry

            I asked him first, Useless.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            This is not the first time you have been challenged for citations and refused to either provide or climb down.

            Again, what standing does a hypocrite such as you have to make such a demand of anyone?

          • Brucehenry

            What demand? I make no demands. He can either pony up or not. You’ll support him whether he is factually correct or not.

            If he had any examples of this constant undercutting or this slamming-in-the-media I suppose he would have posted them.

            It ought to be easier to google examples of this undercutting and slamming than it would be to find examples of embracing, oughtn’t it? Just google “Bob Michel slams Reagan” or “Dole undercuts Reagan” or “Howard Baker breaks with president” or something.

            Come on, Boar Tits. Prove you’re not useless. If this undercutting and media-slamming was so constant throughout the 80s, it should take you two minutes.

        • warnertoddhuston

          Yeah, I said the allies DIDN’T win WWII, wanna show me some proof that they did? YEah, I say that the moon is made of cheese, prove to me it ain’t. Idiot.

          • Brucehenry

            You’ll wanna have a talk with ol’ Boar Tits. He likes proof.

            You say the GOP establishment, during Reagan’s term, “HATED him and constantly undercut him and slammed him in the media.”

            You imagined this.

            There is not one quote or video clip you can show me of anyone like Howard Baker, Bob Michel., Bob Dole, or anyone else in the “GOP establishment” doing any of this slamming or undercutting of which you accuse them.

            You and others in the Tea Party live in an alternate universe where things happened that actually didn’t, and things didn’t happen that actually did.

          • warnertoddhuston

            You either must be under 30 and NOT there like I was seeing it, or you refuse to look at real history. SInce you’re an extremist left-winger, I’d guess both.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Never rule out the options (especially in his case) of:

            1. Dumber than a box of rocks

            and

            2. Unable to admit error in any matter.

          • Brucehenry

            I was 26 in 1980. How old were you, 10? 15?

            Just one clip or article showing an establishment Republican “constantly undercutting” Reagan or “slamming him in the media” during the 1980s.

            You can’t find one. You are deluded. You made this crap up, or rather have heard it from your Tea Party crazy friends so often you have internalized it.

            “Zombie lies.” The specialty of the right.

      • Scalia
        • Brucehenry

          I read your linked article. It characterizes the GOP establishment during the 80s as too timid and cowardly to support some of Reagan’s bolder initiatives. Nowhere does it mention any “constant undercutting” or any “slamming in the media”.

          Warner’s false memory of the political events of the 1980s is of a piece with the conservatives-as-victims, white-guys-as-discriminated-against, liberal-media-conspiracy mythology — or should I say theology — that afflicts Tea Party True Believers. It would be hilarious if these ignoramuses (ignorami?) weren’t so numerous and so dangerous.

          • Scalia

            For the record, I’m only replying to the allegation that the GOP establishment “fully embraced” Reagan. Reagan helped to lead a conservative revolution, not only in the country, but within the GOP as well.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            I believe that was clear to all sentient beings…

          • Brucehenry

            Fair enough and perhaps “fully embraced” was putting it a little strongly. But the article was mostly about the supposed “cowardice” or “timidity” of establishment Republicans based on their failure to stop the override of Reagan’s veto of the Clean Water Act.

            Failure to support an extreme anti-environment position (or at least what was perceived to be one) on this one bill hardly refutes my contention that Reagan was, if not “fully,” rather warmly embraced by the GOP during his terms in office.

            He certainly wasn’t “hated” or “constantly undercut” or “slammed in the media” as Warner imagines. History that never was.

        • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

          Complete with citations from the era, no wonder henry down dinged it.

  • superdestroyer

    Who cares about the Republicans or any form of conservative party. More than 50% of the voters in the U.S. have become automatic Democratic Party voters who want a bigger government, much higher levels of government spending, and much higher taxes on others. There is little that the Republicans can do to offset this.

    Instead of trying to have an irrelevant second party in the U.S., it would make much more sense for the Republican Party to disband and all of the former Republican voters start voting in the Democratic Primary. Since the Democratic Party primaries will be the real elections in the future, why not use them to take away the advantage the Democrats have with so many automatic liberal voters?

  • Par4Course

    Great idea: Let’s narrow the party so we can guaranty the GOP will never win another national election and damn few state-wide elections. We already have too much of a circular firing squad. If we “purify” the party in the way you suggest, we will be kicking out a large segment. In fact, while I’d like to shrink the federal government, including taxes, spending and regulation, by about 90%, you’d probably kick me out because I don’t agree with conservative positions such as the War on Drugs or outlawing all abortions. A “true conservative” party in which everyone agrees on all issues will result in a small discussion group that will accomplish nothing – in other words, a Democrat dream party.

  • Par4Course

    “If we move in mass, be it ever so circuitously, we shall attain our object; but if we break into squads … we become an easy conquest to those who can now barely hold us in check.” –Thomas Jefferson, 1811

  • Hank_M

    Yes, we do have a chance to remake the stupid party into a more conservative party. But we need more than a return to basic conservative values. We also need a party with a backbone. We need a party that fights back, doesn’t bend over backwards to garner MSM favor, doesn’t worry about [rigged] polls and doesn’t spend a great deal of its’ time going after each other.

    We especially need a party that doesn’t listen to the “advice” the left and MSM provide and a party that rebuts every label and insult thrown it’s way.

    Seems to me that fiscal sanity, equal and consistent application of the laws, secure borders, a strong military and a solid safety net for the less fortunate are winning issues almost everyone can agree on.

    The left considers these extremist. They need to be confronted and forced to explain why.

    If the GOP is to be remade, they have to start by learning how to fight back, with the same intensity and if need be, viciousness that the left uses.

    During the so-called govt shutdown, the left referred to the right as bomb-wearing terrorists, arsonists, hostage takers, and worse. I never once heard a repub call the left out on their rhetoric. That needs to change.

  • Idahoser

    Let me explain all this confusion. It’s very simple. There were “Reagan Democrats” because there was a conservative leader. When there was no leader then, they were once again Just Democrats. That is today’s Republican Party.

  • ackwired

    It is time for people to find the party that they really believe in. Christian conservatives take the Republicans. Libertarians go to their own party. Sectarian conservatives find the Constitutional party, etc. The Democrats can similarly fractionalize to Greens, Socialists, etc. This would be good for the country. As long as we have the two party system, the two parties will continue to try to blame all problems on the other party, since they don’t have to convince the voters that they are any good, just that the “other party” is worse. Fractionalization may be the only way to save our country.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      You first. Show us how it’s done.

    • Commander_Chico

      You would have to change the electoral system to some form of proportional representation or change to a parliamentary form of government.

      Two parties are almost built into the current system, which is why it’s pretty much been that way since 1787.

      The problem with PR that is you might end up with fractured governments dependent on the most nutball small parties, like in Italy, Israel, or Iraq.

      I’d like to see one of the states try a parliamentary system, though. Have the governor serve at the pleasure of the legislature.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE