Monday, May 11, 2009

Which Republican Party???

Which Republican Party?: This is the question plaguing the Republican Party right now. Yes the Republican Party still exists, though I will agree with Obama that Rush Limbaugh is a troubled Asset.

Jim Wooten wrote the following for the AJC. I am not going to post the whole article, but I do want to use some of it as a backdrop for the conversation:
CHENEY: Oh, sure. I think there is room for moderates in the Republican Party. I think partly it’s a semantic problem. I don’t think the party ought to move dramatically to the left, for example, in order to try to redefine its base.

We are what we are. We’re Republicans. We have certain things we believe in. And maintaining our loyalty and commitment to those principles is vital to our success.

I think there are some good efforts out there. Jeb Bush, I know, has been working on it. Eric Cantor , Mitt Romney, trying to find ways to appeal to a broader range of people. I don’t have any problem with that. I think that’s a good thing to do. But the suggestion our Democratic friends always make is somehow, you know, if you Republicans were just more like Democrats, you’d win elections. Well, I don’t buy that. I think we win elections when we have good solid conservative principles to run upon and base our policies on those principles.

SCHIEFFER: Colin Powell, Rush Limbaugh said the other day that the party would probably be better off if Colin Powell left and just became a Democrat. Colin Powell said Republicans would be better off if they didn’t have Rush Limbaugh out speaking for them. Where do you come down?

CHENEY: Well, if I had to choose in terms of being a Republican, I’d go with Rush Limbaugh, I think. I think my take on it was Colin had already left the party. I didn’t know he was still a Republican.

SCHIEFFER: So you think that he’s not a Republican?

CHENEY: I just noted he endorsed the Democratic candidate for president this time, Barack Obama . I assumed that that is some indication of his loyalty and his interest.
See, the Republicans refuse to moderate their positions. I am going to lay some political philosophy down real quick. Political parties exist to represent people. Political parties are not this grand entity that you belong to, in fact, the party actually belongs to you.

If a political party represents people, then it must adapt as people change. For example, if people who are otherwise republican accept gay marriage, then the party must adapt or lose their members. This assumes that the single issue is strong enough to pull them away from their party.

What we have seen is a shift. People are becoming economically moderate and increasingly socially liberal. Republicans refuse to give up their socially conservative views and the number of people who are socially conservative are dying off. They are being replaced by voters who are economically moderate and socially liberal.

This brings up the split. Do the Republicans follow Rush or Powell? Rush represents the social/fiscial conservatism. Powell represents the more moderated Republican party... the fiscially moderate, socially liberal. If the Republicans wish to remain a viable party, they should follow Powell.


Bryant J. Knight said...

I disagree. Rush does not represent fiscal conservatism. He represents fascism.

He loves massive government and has no problem with horrifying levels of spending:

He's a cheerleader for establishment statists, a petty little demagogue who sold his soul to Satan (i.e., the state) because things are simply more convenient that way. Screw Rush Limbaugh and his love of brutal, fascist, dictatorial, leviathan government.