republican party

by

Wither the Republican Party?


Since 1854, the United States has had a strong Republican party and with the exception of 1912, when the party was split by Teddy Roosevelt and his Bull Moose party, and again with Ross Perot’s Reform Party in 1996, the party has stood strong. But this next election cycle could once again split the party in a matter that will affect it for many years to come.

I find it stunning the 60% of registered Republican votes support Donald Trump and this despite a latinity of his bad acts. And he is buttressed by Marjory Taylor Green who is on the far-right wing. Should Trump win in Iowa, anything is possible. But the party, where most of its elected representatives are centrists, needs to take control. And that can only come via it taking control of the narrative be played to Republicans and Independents who are right leaning. To date, the RNC has done nothing to take back the narrative of a “stolen election,” “the big lie,” and by owning its mistakes by refusing to partake in the January 6th Committe hearings and then allowing two of its leaders to fall to challengers. One more member, who I have called a “Fascist,” is Ron DeSantis and his campaign to control the thoughts and minds or the people of Florida. I do not, for the most part, agree with Liz Cheney’s politics but I gained great respect for her standing by principles that all members of Congress should adhere to, and I include Adam Kinzinger in that narrative.

Political parties win when they are run by the centrists of their party. These centrists are the deal makers of our nation. These are the people who actually make our government run smoothly; not as Congress is being run today. But make no mistake, each party needs its members who are more conservative or more liberal than the majority to bring in opposing thoughts to caucus discussions.

I do hope the Republican Party finds a way to make amends with Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger by finding a place for Cheney and backing Kinzinger as its choice for the seat he once held. It is the right thing to do. I ask of the Repulican Party leaders to do one thing and one thing only, just do the next right thing.

by

Republicans Abandon Truth for the Big Lie


What has happened to the Republican party? Their focus used to be on economics, smaller government and lower taxes. Today they are entirely focused on continuing Donald Trump’s big lie that the election was somehow stolen from him. Why do they not believe the Trump federal court judges and the U.S. Supreme Court who declared that the election was entirely without any substantial issues with the vote count. Did they not see the election results where Biden beat Trump quite decisively by 7 million votes?

Trump’s appeal while in office was to the dark base feelings of white America who fear non-white immigrants and who believe that Democrats have suddenly become socialists. If you hear Republican senators and congressmen speak you will hear them refer to Democrats as being socialists and that their socialist agenda is on display now. Really? The only person do declare himself as a socialist is Bernie Sanders. And now they use him in painting the entire Democratic Party as being a bunch of socialists!

Republicans are panning Biden’s entire $2.3 trillion infrastructure request as somehow being socialist. There is a problem in doing that: the portion of the bill which might be called socialist can easily be deleted if only they brought to the table a true compromise bill, something larger the the $600 billion they proposed.

All that aside, a thinking person has to ask why Republicans are still giving fealty to Trump? Simply put, he still appeals to that base of white America who believes everything that ever came out of his mouth. The exceptions in the party who have decided the truth is more important, Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney and a few others, are being criticized as being out of step with party unity! Hence, people like McCarthy, have decided to stick with the lie in the name of party unity. They believe they can take back the house this way.

If you look into their backgrounds you will find a common theme, they are all highly educated, many from institution which they describe as institutions of liberal education. That liberal education somehow did not affect their ideals as Republicans. They should all, and probably do, know that the truth must prevail. Our country depends upon that. But they are now fearful and have decided that they re-election is more important than the truth. They are highly intelligent people making horrible decisions.

I do believe that in time, hopefully long before the 2024 presidential elections, that the Republican party will return to its roots and that Trump will have faded into the background and be seen for what he is, a huckster who sold too many Americans a bill of goods that goes against all common sense.

by

Who Hijacked the Republican Party?


The Republican Party can trace its roots all the way back to Washington.  While it is true that Washington and Adams both were Federalists, they were also the conservatives of their generation.  Jefferson, who became president in 1801, was the first “liberal” and his was the Republican Party.  The party of Jefferson, however, disappeared with the Whigs only to return as the party of Lincoln.

None of our first four presidents were religious men.  There is continuing discussion among historians as to what, if any, religion Jefferson truly ascribed to.  But it was a very conservative Adams, and equally conservative Madison, who made a point of distancing the federal government from any form of religion.  Their reasoning was simple and clear.  They remembered the heavy-handed dictates of the King of England insisting that his subjects be members of the Church of England.  It was this absolute separation of church and state, as much as anything, that brought the original settlers from England to America.  The second part of the first amendment is an affirmation of that fact.

Mitt Romney is a very conservative evangelical Christian.  His running-mate, Ryan, is a very conservative Roman Catholic.  The irony of those two being on the same ticket is that each of their chosen religions was a huge detractor of the other during the 19th and a good part of the 20th centuries.  Each religion based itself of certain absolute ideas and ideals over which they were unwilling or unable to find any middle-ground with dissenters of that particular belief.  In the late-20th century, at least one Mormon tel-evangelist referred to Catholics as evil in no uncertain terms.  To be fair, and having been brought up Catholic, we were led to believe that the only true Christians were Catholics.  I believe Romney is crafty enough that he realized such a division could be brought up during his campaign for president, hence his drafting Ryan.  To many, the charismatic Marco Rubio was a better choice of running-mate, but that would have put two evangelical Mormons on the same ticket.

Back in the 1970s and 1980s, evangelical Christians, lead by Jerry Falwell, formed what they called “the moral majority” and started a systematic takeover of the Republican party.  To be sure, they were conservatives all and well-financed.  But the “moral majority” fell apart when Jim Baker, and other prominent far right-wingers, were found guilty of marital infidelity and other such things.  But the Falwells were simply the figureheads for well-monied ultra-conservative Republicans.  They quite simply set an agenda and required all Republicans to buy-in or see their campaign funding dry up.

Not all Republicans have toed that line.  I do not believe that Scott Brown, a Republican US Senator from my own state, is of the ilk although I do think he has found himself in the position of voting for positions that are unpopular with his constituency rather than risk becoming a pariah.  Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has also shown courage of conviction to buck his party’s line.  Unfortunately, he is far from being a centrist.

The “Tea Party” has a hand in all this.  It is the answer to the Libertarian ideas of Ron Paul.  But unlike Ron Paul, it has a close alliance with evangelical America.  While Ron Paul takes a very pragmatic approach to reducing government, the Tea Party seeks quick draconian measures that would basically kill the middle class as it increases the gap between the rich and the poor.

I think everyone should be allowed to practice whatever religion they desire.  But I do not want their religion, or mine for that matter, being used as a basis for public policy and law.  Religion is one of the most personal things that exists.  Even among the most conservative group of people of a same religion, you will find differences in their beliefs.  And while these difference may seem minor, they are important to each individual.  How do you dictate what, religious in content, a country should hear, should have as a part of its public policy, and worse, a part of its law?

Good government and good government policy can only be built upon the absence of religious belief.  It is not unpatriotic, for example, to be an atheist, although ultra-conservative Republicans will have you think that so.  I demand freedom from your religion, as you should demand of me.  My First Amendment right says that will be so.  I do not, however, believe that is the plan of evangelical Republicans who have found a leader in Mitt Romney, and who have kidnapped the once proud and pragmatic Republican Party.  Please give back the Republican Party of Lincoln, of Teddy Roosevelt, and of Dwight Eisenhower.

by

American Politics Sounding More Like Iranian Politics


That I should make such a charge might sound rather harsh at first blush but it does need consideration.  The Republican party this year has decided to make gay marriage its featured issue.  It is a moral issue steeped in religious conviction and having little to do with proper helmsmanship of a government.  Since 1979 Iran has been run by a series of religious ideologues who rule, according to them, by the rule of the Qur’an.  The Republican party will couch their issue in moral correctness but you need only ask yourself on what basis that correctness is formed.

Decades ago the Republican party always portrayed itself in the light of national security, hawkishness, and conservative economics, and that was more than enough for them.  In 1952 they enlisted Dwight David Eisenhower to be their presidential nominee.  In truth, party leaders did not know what Eisenhower’s political preference was when they asked, but he was a national hero and someone who epitomized what they stood for.  Eisenhower ran roughshod over Stevenson that year and again four years later.  He could best be described as a “Nationalist” who Americans idolized.  The most popular political button of the era said, “I Like Ike.”   That was enough.  Not once in either elections did any sort of religious banter enter.

In succeeding elections, right through Clinton’s first election, economics and defense continued to lead the way.  Only once during that time, the early 1980s, did religion make a forray into politics and that was the Jerry Falwell “Moral Majority.”  This far-right political rhetoric, as had been historically true, quickly ran amok and fell into disfavor with the general public.  People recognized that they were not served well by any religious group that tried to control their political convictions.

Today that far right ideology has made a resurgence in the form of the Tea Party.  Madison Avenue marketing has made this into a group that harkens to our nation’s founding, and the men who bravely defied King George III.  But was it lost in translation is that those men of 1774 were a group of disparate political beliefs, some were even self-described agnostics.  Their aim was to make a single point that truly represented the beliefs of all Americans and had absolutely no political designs whatsoever.  The be certain, had the crown relented, ended the tea tax and returned colonial governorships to the control of the people, the revolution, at least at that moment, would most certainly have been delayed, if not completely avoided.

Our country has many pressing problems but nowhere in the top ten, or probably even the top 100, should be found the issue of gay marriage.  That issue, as it is being promoted by the left, is one of civil authority only.  That is the only place it can be politically.  Otherwise it becomes an issue that is contemptuous of the first amendment.  I expect that few American church, at least in the near future, will allow gay marriage within their domain.  But that a political body gives credence to a lawful joining of a couple needs to be left at just that.  It is absolutely not an assault on the institution of marriage as a religious institution.

One thing people of conservative ideology need to consider is the children.  It is not illegal for a lesbian couple to conceive a child.  In fact, once that child is born, the lesbian mother is held to certain legal standards.  A legal marriage between that couple serves to extend that legal, and moral, responsibility.  Even more, gay men can legally enter into a contract to have a surrogate birth a child.  And as in the case of the lesbian couple, a gay male couple would also be held to the rule of law in the care of that child.  Without marriage, the law has little standing with the otherwise unrelated parent.

The thing is, this is one of the most foolish issues the Republican party has ever brought to the front.  To me it says they are more interested in spending short resources on defending that position than to finding solution for the far more pressing issues of the day.  We still have a fragile economy.  We have enormous issues with our military strength and our foreign policy.  We are struggling with issues of non-renewable energy sources, water shortages, and a decaying national infrastructure.  Does it not make more sense to put those issues at the forefront than allowing gay people into legal contracts?

Iran has allowed itself to be led by ultra-conservative religious groups.  They are the “Qur’an Thumpers” of their nation just like the “Bible Thumpers” of ours.  I have no problem with religion.  I think it a very good thing.  But as was recognized in 1789, it has no place in our government.  We can never be a country that is religiously defined except that each person is allowed to believe as he wishes and that no one religious view can prevail over another.  If the issue of gay marriage is allowed into our political arena then it is necessarily dragging in a strictly religious viewpoint.  No court could make a decision on gay marriage, from a moral point of view, as to do so would be to assault the first amendment.  The far right has made this a moral issue and therefore a religious issue.  Following this tack is tantamount to agreeing with the direction a government like Iran takes.

by

Rush Limbaugh Takes on the Feminazis


I do not understand why any woman in the United States who has any self-worth would want to be a Republican today.  I cannot help but wonder if some of these women have been completely brainwashed by either their parents or their spouse.  As much as I despise the politics of both major parties in the United States, the double standard of the Republican Party galls me the most.

Rush Limbaugh thought it all right to call Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown University Law student, a slut and a prostitute.  I do not know how much more insulting one person can be but Limbaugh honestly believed what he said.  He, of course, tried to retract his statements when the stuff hit the fan but he did not mean it.  He spoke his truth with the first words out of his mouth.  The sad part is, he speak for a lot of the Republican Party.  How can I say that?  There was little condemnation that emanated from his fellow Republicans following his statement.

Limbaugh says what other think, and he has a long history of such remarks.  He knows the more outrageous he sounds the bigger his audience.  But the sad part of that, a lot of his audience is allowing him to do their thinking for them.  Some years ago they took great pride in being called “ditto-heads.”  Even though that is not being said anymore, the sentiment has not gone away.

Back in the 1980s when I was in graduate school, I took two courses in women’s studies.  In both courses there were about 20 women and me, the only male in the class.  I can tell you unequivocally that about half the class wanted to cut my balls off and feed them to me.  I finished both courses and received an A in each.  The courses were taught by a female professor so I did not get any break there.  But I learned a lot in those courses about women’s history.  The said part is, too many men still view women in a negative light.  It is my belief that the majority of those men are quite conservative.  They still like the barefoot and pregnant tack.

Sandra Fluke was simply testifying before Congress about her experience with birth control.  Prior to that she had no celebrity.  No one outside her family and friends knew her.  She was just someone’s daughter, someone’s sister, someone’s friend.  But then Limbaugh that it appropriate to attack her for her beliefs.  In doing so he has assaulted every daughter, every wife, every sister in America.  His narrow bigoted beliefs trumped everything else, at least as far as he was concerned.  Rather than address Miss Fluke’s appearance before Congress in a rational and respectful manner, he chose to defame her otherwise good character and vilify her before all America.  The bell is rung and cannot be unrung.  Sandra Fluke has been negatively labeled in the minds of millions of conservative American women for no good reason at all.

In Limbaugh’s mind, every daughter, every wife, every sister, every mother who has used birth control is a prostitute and a slut.  There is no other was to interpret what he has said!  Every mother, every sister, every daughter, every wife who has used birth control should be outraged.

For these reasons, and others, I find it so very difficult to understand how any American woman can look herself in the mirror and be happy with herself if she has not condemned Limbaugh’s actions.  I cannot understand the Republican Party’s loud silence on the subject as well.  Limbaugh labeled all women who fought for women’s rights and equal protection under the law as “feminazis.”  He has not taken that back nor has the Republican Party distanced themselves from him.  It just makes me wonder.