Glimmers of Hope for the GOP
by Patrick J. Buchanan
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
For conservatives fretful over the future of the party to which they have given allegiance, How Barack Obama Won: A State by State Guide to the Historic 2008 Election reads like something out of Edgar Allan Poe.
Co-authored by NBC’s Chuck Todd, it is a grim tale of what happened to the GOP in 2008, and what the future may hold.
Yet, on second and third reads, one discerns, as did Gen. Wolfe’s scouts 250 years ago, a narrow path leading up the cliff to the Plains of Abraham—and perhaps victory in 2012. First, the bad news:
Obama raised the national share of the black vote to 13 percent, then swept it 95 percent to 4 percent. The GOP share of the Hispanic vote, now 9 percent of the electorate, fell from George W. Bush’s 40 percent against John Kerry to 32 percent. Young voters ages 18 to 29 went for Obama 66 percent to 31 percent. And Obama ran stronger among white voters with a college education than did either Al Gore or Kerry.
Put starkly, the voting groups growing in numbers—Hispanics, Asians, African-Americans, folks with college degrees, the young—are all trending Democratic, while the voters most loyal to the GOP—white folks and religious conservatives—are declining as a share of the U.S. electorate. And demography is destiny.
Other grim news: As noted here recently, 18 states and Washington, D.C., with 247 electoral votes—all New England save New Hampshire; New York and New Jersey; the mid-Atlantic states, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland; Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota; the three Pacific Coast states plus Hawaii—have all gone Democratic in all of the last five presidential elections. And John McCain lost every one of them by double digits.
In this Slough of Despond, where is the hope?
Despite all of the above, John McCain, two weeks after the GOP convention, thanks to the surge in energy and enthusiasm Sarah Palin brought to the ticket, was running ahead of Obama.
It was the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the crash and the panic that ensued, which McCain mishandled, that lost him all the ground he never made up. Had the crash not occurred, the election might have been much closer than seven points, which in itself is no blowout.
Second, an astonishing 75 percent of voters thought the country was headed in the wrong direction. Obama won these voters 62 percent to 36 percent. But if the country is seen as headed in the wrong direction in 2012, it will be Obama’s albatross.
Third, only 27 percent of voters approved of Bush’s performance as of Election Day; 71 percent disapproved. Only Harry Truman had a lower rating, 22 percent, and Democrats were also wiped out in Washington in 1952.
Here is Todd’s dramatic point: “With the single exception of Missouri, which barely went for McCain, Obama won every state where Bush’s approval rating was below 35 percent in the exit polls, and he lost every state where Bush’s approval was above 35 percent.”
Obama rode Bush’s coattails to victory. Had Bush been at 35 percent or 40 percent, McCain might have won. But, in 2012, Obama will not have Bush to kick around anymore.
On candidates’ qualities, the situation looks even rosier for the GOP. In 2008, no less than 34 percent of the electorate said that the most important consideration in a candidate was that he be for “change.”
Obama was the “change candidate.” He patented the brand, and he carried this third of the nation 89 percent to 9 percent.
But in 2012, Obama cannot be the candidate of change. That title will belong to his challenger, the Republican nominee. Obama will be the incumbent, the candidate of continuity.
The second most critical consideration of voters in choosing a president was “values.” No less than 30 percent of the electorate said this was their primary consideration in voting for McCain or Obama.
Among values voters, fully 30 percent of the electorate, McCain won 65 percent to 32 percent, or by two to one.
What these numbers demonstrate is that liberals and neocons instructing the GOP to dump the social, moral and cultural issues are counseling Republicide. When African-Americans, who gave McCain 4 percent of their votes in California, gave Proposition 8, prohibiting gay marriage, 70 percent of their votes, why would the GOP give up one of its trump cards—not only in Middle America but among minorities?
A conservative who could have sharpened the social, moral and cultural differences might, from the exit polls, have done far better.
McCain’s diffidence on life, affirmative action and gay rights, his embrace of amnesty and NAFTA, all help explain the enthusiasm gap. Twice as many voters were excited about the prospects of an Obama presidency as were about a McCain presidency.
Lastly, on Election Day, only 7 percent thought the U.S. economy was doing well, while 93 percent rated it as not so good, or poor. The GOP will not have to wear those concrete boots in 2012.
The tide is still running strong against the GOP. But there may be one or two more White Houses in the Grand Old Party yet.
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
1 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 5 May 2009:
It escapes me how any conservative should want the GOP to survive and win more elections. It will only deceitfully capture the people’s concerns and defuse them. The Republican party’s demise is essential to any progress of conservatism.
2 Comment by MAP on 5 May 2009:
PB talks as though the Republican Party was a REAL conservative party, instead of the liars and deceivers it really is. The values of Palin did not represent the values of the party. She was merely bait to once again deceive the gullible conservative base. To really adopt a conservative platform (beyond talk and false promises) might even be impossible for the party because it would fly in the face of the ruling elite.
3 Comment by John Seiler on 5 May 2009:
@1. Dr. Wilson is right. This is an odd piece coming from Pat, whom the GOP has done nothing but abuse since 1992. I remember how, in the spring of 1999, when Bush II was gearing up his run in 2000, Pat complained that Bush II had already sewn up the nomination by getting $70 million from corporate America — a year before the primaries even began. Pat branded Bush II “inexperienced” — and bolted to the Reform Party.
If the GOP had nominated Pat Buchanan in 1992, 1996, or 2000, or Ron Paul in 2008, the party would have demonstrated its devotion to principle and decency — and would have won big.
Instead, they regurgitated Bush I, Dole, Bush II, and McCain. In none of those 4 years did they win the popular vote. (They won the popular vote in 2004 because of Bush II still could scare everybody about 9/11, and Kerry was a dunce who pushed an EXPANSION the Iraq War and didn’t denounce Bush’s use of torture.)
For Pat Buchanan, I guess old GOP loyalties hard, even though the party has stabbed him in the back so many times he looks like a porcupine.
For the rest of us, we can only hope that the GOP, mimicking an old Tarzan movie, gets sent to the elephant graveyard.
4 Comment by John Seiler on 5 May 2009:
I’ll add that pro-lifers should be the first to abandon the GOP. I’ve been an active pro-lifer since 1972, when Michigan, where I grew up, voted strongly pro-life on a ballot initiative. Two months later, the Supreme Soviet handed down the murderous and unconstitutional Roe v. Wade ukase.
Ever since then, like clockwork, every 4 years the GOP seduces the pro-lifers — then abandons them. For the Supreme Soviet, instead of promised pro-lifers, we got such good Republicans as Stevens, O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter.
The GOP-run Congress could have pulled the appellate jurisdiction of abortion, returning the matter to the states. It never did. And in 1996 Pat Buchanan proposed, during his campaign, that the president simply stop enforcing Roe as an unconstitutional edict, thus also returning the matter to the states. Bush II could have done that, but never did.
And the annual Jan. 22 pro-life rally in Washington was addressed by Bush II — but not in person. He was too embarrassed to appear in public with pro-lifers. Not his kind of people, ya know.
So, thanks a lot, Republicans — for nothing.
Now, Obama will make Supreme Soviet appointments that will keep the court pro-abortion for the rest of my life. I was 17 back in 1972. So, that’s an entire lifetime of GOP betrayal of pro-lifers like me — and of the babies.
5 Comment by John Seiler on 5 May 2009:
A question for Dr. Wilson: Assuming the GOP dissolves (oh happy day!), how do we make sure that what replaces it isn’t controlled by the same types: Bushes, Wall St. bankers, Halliburton execs, Neocons, weapons companies, local country-clubbers, Limbaugh chickenhawk loudmouths, Gingrich, etc.?
6 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 5 May 2009:
#5 That indeed is the question. I would hope for several regional secessionist parties that would collaborate in reducing the empire.
I do know that the Republican party has never been a conservative party and in its recent history its primary function (besides serving Big Business and politicians) has been to make sure no conservative idea makes any headway. As constituted it can be nothing else. Is there a conservative grassrootsa out there to build on? I would like to think so, but I don’t know. What do you think?
7 Comment by Derek Leaberry on 5 May 2009:
Before any conservative change can be made, the two-headed monster of Gramscian-Marxist Democrats and the laissez-faire liberal Republicans must be thoroughly discredited. Their mandate from heaven must be reputiated. That is why the current slow-motion collapse is not an entirely bad event.
As for the abortion issue brought up by another poster, the issue has been decided in the political sphere in the favor of the modern barbarians. Nine Scalias could strike down Roe and still forty or more states will retain abortion rights. Every state north of the Potomac and the Pacific Coast(but for Alaska) would retain abortion on demand while most others would have a variance of restrictions. On top of that, as Ronald Reagan and the two Bushes proved, abortion is not an important issue for the Republican Party except as an easy way to win votes of gullible Christians.
No, abortion will be decided individually. With ultrasound, not only do doctors know that abortion butchers a human, so do less educated people with two eyes and a conscience. There are fewer and fewer aborturers out there and they are an aging band, despised by decent people, including their fellow doctors, if, indeed, aborturers can be called doctors. Protests, billboards, media advertisements, mandatory ultrasounds, the purchasing of the buildings where aborturers’ rent, higher tax credits for adoptions and other activities, including prayer, will be 100 times more effective than the Republican Party in reducing abortions.
8 Comment by John Seiler on 5 May 2009:
#5. I just don’t know how conservative Americans are anymore. The whole culture is so morally debased, along with most of the people. Even conservative families are fractured. The religions don’t have their act together on this, or much of anything else.
It’s also evident, after more than 200 years, that the electoral college makes sure there are only 2 parties. Perot got 19% in ‘92 but no electoral votes. Wallace won some electoral votes in ‘68, then used that to become a Democrat — and might have won the nomination in ‘72 but was shot (he won Michigan’s primary). So any new party, almost by definition, would be made up mostly of ex-Republicans.
One thing we don’t know is how deep and long the Bush Depression will be. Everything Obama has done so far will make it worse. If there is no quick recovery, then Buchanan is right that the empire is finished from a lack of funds. There won’t be any more money for Neocon adventures.
A lot of young folks were involved in the Ron Paul campaign, which is heartening.
Finally, Time mag just ran an article by a liberal, “What’s All That Secession Ruckus in Texas?”, not automaticlaly rejecting secession. Link: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1891829,00.html
We may be so far from 1865 that secession no longer is a big deal. After all, every school child outside the South is taught over and over that the “Civil War” was about “slavery.” Lincoln “freed the slaves.” (Few have red DiLorenzo, et al.)
Well, there’s no more slavery. Secession would not bring back slavery. So why not let a state secede?
9 Comment by Daniel Maxwell on 5 May 2009:
@ 7
I dont know about that, I could see my state of Ohio banning abortion but it would be a fight. We are already rated a poor ‘abortion rights’ state by some of the pro-death think tanks.
10 Comment by Daniel Maxwell on 5 May 2009:
And I echo Dr Wilson. The GOP was started as a big-government party but has played pretend for about 90 years. Why should we care (indeed, we should hope) if it goes down in flames?
I say we restart the Nullifier Party.
11 Comment by John Seiler on 5 May 2009:
By the way, one of you historians should write a book solely about Wallace’s ‘72 campaign, which is more interesting than his ‘68 campaign. The key chapters would be on the Michigan Democratic primary, which he won with 51% of the vote.
Liberals said it was because Michigan has an open primary, so Republicans — with Nixon assured easy re-nomination — crossed over to back Wallace and sabotage the Democrats. That’s not what happened. For one thing, a lot of voters in both parties had come up from the South to work in the factories, and Wallace spoke to them.
A lot voters in both parties also were strongly against school busing, which liberal Democrats backed and Nixon did nothing to stop. This included the Detroit “ethnics,” especially working-class Poles, Italians, etc. A lot of them supported the Alabama Protestant. Busing was ripping up the state at that time, and remains one of the more insane social-engineering projects of all time.
My late parents attended excellent, integrated Detroit public schools in the 1920s and 30s. My father later graduated from the private Henry Ford Trade School with black boys. Today, the Detroit public schools are officially integrated, but in fact almost 100% black. Whites and middle-class blacks left long ago.
Books have been written about Wallace, but his ‘72 campaign deserves its own telling.
P.S. In case you’re wondering, in ‘72 I was 17 and couldn’t vote, but backed Ohio Sen. John Ashbrook, a real conservative, in his Quixotic campaign against Nixon in the Michigan GOP primary. (AshBROOK died in 1982 and should not be confused with the recent Attorney General AshCROFT, the torturer.)
12 Comment by Josh Cooney on 5 May 2009:
I say conservatives should withdraw from politics–taking their votes with them–and make damn sure they form a strong and enduring subculture. This will destroy the Republican party and may also startle the Democrat party as well. The Neocon, Wall Street, Country Club Republican will, I think, join ranks with the Democrats and this, in turn, would force various segments of that party to either defect (to where?) or, at least, cause a great deal of infighting and confusion. The Democrat party is not as homogoneous as people think.
If religous conservatives, Middle Americans, and otherwise normal, decent folk left politics, it would A) allow them to focus more on education and culture issues and B) cause a shock to the political status quo. I would welcome both.
Mr. Buchanan should redirect his considerable intellect and talent in this direction.
13 Comment by John Seiler on 5 May 2009:
#12. Back around 1975, after the 1974 overwhelmingly Democratic “Watergate Congress” was elected, National Review published an article headlined something like, “Operation Trojan Donkey.” It urged Republicans to join the Demo Party and work from within.
It’s worth thinking that over.
Out here in California, philanthropist Howard Ahmanson just switched from the GOP to the Democrats, saying: “The Republican Party of the State of California seems to have decided to narrow itself down to one article of faith, which may be described as NTESEBREE: No Tax Shall Ever Be Raised Ever Ever. Now, I’m concerned about this constant tax ratcheting, but I don’t think this is the answer. The Democratic Party in California, however, is now so big and diverse and all-inclusive that it has ABSOLUTELY NO PRINCIPLES WHATSOEVER. The Hollywood and San Francisco establishments within the Party may hold to some pretty detestable principles, but the party as a whole? I have not changed any of my opinions. There is not a single right-wing opinion I hold that some section of the Democratic Party doesn’t support it. Opposed to “marriage equality” and freewheeling abortion rights? A lot of Democrats of color will agree.”
The rest is here: http://orangepunch.freedomblogging.com/2009/03/23/howard-ahmanson-becomes-a-democrat-seriously/7929/
14 Comment by R. McCabe on 5 May 2009:
@6, “Is there a conservative grassroots out there to build on? I would like to think so, but I don’t know. What do you think?”
Absolutely there is, and it is growing. As a reformed neocon myself, I can state that it is mostly a matter of persistent reeducation — a changing of the value meals to choose from. I remember that uncomfortable feeling I would get when taking the wrong side of an argument simply because I knew I wasn’t liberal. Those feelings have gone away as more traditional conservatism has become available through grassroots education and the media revolution. The hysteria and lies, needed to defend the GOP on a full stomach, subside into a confident, honest calm that is truly contagious.
Ron Paul — an old man, a nothing, a laugh-off, an afterthought, an “other” to the media — broke serious fund raising records as a result of this media revolution and internet grassroots build up. I’m guessing most of these contributors and supporters couldn’t say “Republican” without stuttering. Who cares what it’s called?
The true question is, “Is it better to try to gain control over the GOP brand or to create a new brand?” I believe the chances of success (and of back-sliding failure) to be much greater with an infusion of real conservatives into the GOP. I just don’t see a legitimate third party happening, unless a mammoth rich guy steps in.
@7, “Nine Scalias could strike down Roe and still forty or more states will retain abortion rights.”
Your skepticism might be missing something here, though I’m fine with the rest of your comments about making progress in this area. Including the comments of a previous post, Roberts, Alito and Thomas all seem to be conservative enough (3 of the previous 4 appointed). Souter was a fluke (not to mention a very strange type of man) who deceived old man Bush, and I think the earlier trend of idiots appointed by GOP presidents was a function of most normal people thinking there’s no way it could ever get this bad after some of the initial radicalism became infused.
The importance of righting the courts cannot be understated. The damage the Warren courts did to our country, abortion being one example, is extreme and lasting.
Before everyone jumps in and lectures me about cramming laws down people’s throats, that’s not what I’m talking about. Even if something like abortion were defederalized, yet still legal in 40 states, it would at least open up a thread in the cultural sweater that has been knitted by those busy-body people from the 60’s and has blinded so many of my friends, alive only during the Roe v Wade era. So many of my friends view abortion as a rightful, logical extension of birth control, with opposition to that view being an extremist, underground, solely churchy position. Maybe, even if only 10 states held it the other way legally, it would grant some psychological, non-religious legitimacy to that second thought — that otherwise ignored whisper.
Of course, that is just one area the purpose of the Constitution and Bill of Rights have been inverted against the people and need to be restored for anything meaningful to happen.
Incremental victories are good.
15 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 5 May 2009:
10. Mr. Seiler, you point in the right direction. It was George Wallace who energised the American core and showed that it still existed. The Republican party has prospered ever since by a lying pretense of representing the issues that Wallace raised. Buchanan (in his primary campaigns, not his abortive Reform Party foray) also energised the real Americans, as did Ross Perot for a time and Ron Paul in the last campaign. It will take a leader with the brains and the courage to reach the people above the media and the party hacks as Wallace could. But such an opposition leader can never emerge as long as a substantial part of the electorate continues in slavish and deluded devotion to the GOP. The Democratic Party cannot be eliminated—it represents a real if evil tendency in American life—but it can be effectively opposed by an articulate, principled movement that would refuse to be bought or misled. Such can emerge when the core Americans become beleaugured enough—which is happening. And such a movement could appeal to young voters who are right now wondering in confusion.
16 Comment by Harold Crews on 5 May 2009:
Put me down as wanting the GOP buried deep with a stake through its heart in an unmarked grave. By all that is holy or decent may it soon be no more than a shameful memory.
17 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 5 May 2009:
Let me stress that I am not advocating a third party—I am advocating a new second party to replace the decayed whore of the GOP.
18 Comment by Daniel Maxwell on 5 May 2009:
Clyde Wilson @ 15
Wouldnt that have the unintended consequence of becoming just another GOP clone? The central bankers, military industrial complex and other false ‘conservative’ groups would want to be without a home for long.
19 Comment by Elizabeth A. Male on 5 May 2009:
I am encouraged by this article and the commentary here. I was beginning to believe a pod had been sent for every Republican voter and that each “republican” had been replaced by an automaton. I am encouraged that some believe, correctly, that the Republican Party is not interested in promoting life, limited-government or fiscal conservatism.
I pray that we find a way to unite and form a viable third party such as the Constitution Party.
20 Comment by Bernie on 5 May 2009:
I remember Sam Francis used to always say “The Republican party should be destroyed.” I know Sam is laughing up in heaven as his wish has all but come true.
21 Comment by Paul D. Alexander on 5 May 2009:
I voted for Ron Paul in the Georgia primary, and in the main election, I voted for Bob Barr (I’ve voted Libertarian from 2000 onwards — as far as I’m concerned, the GOP left ME, not I left it).
After the 1990s and especially after the Shrub years, it’s going to take a lot of convincing to bring me around to the Repubs again — I mean, how many Ron Pauls are there? The Demos may be the Evil Party, but the GOP is the Stupid one, and if you’re not going to vote for Evil, why vote for the Stupids?
22 Comment by Allen Wilson on 5 May 2009:
The Republicans are going to kill themselves off with their own stupidity even if they manage to win another presidency or two.
If the Pink Elephant were to die, and a new opposition to the Demos didn’t rise up quickly enough, then the Demos, being a fractious coalition of ethnic hatreds and manipulative, extremist ideologues, would turn on each other and disentigrate. There is the possibility of a scenario in which a Democrat administration and congress might infight, fracture, split, and then plunge the empire into a civil war, one which would be similar to short lived third world power struggles and coups de etat. Most normal people would have no stake in it, and so wouldn’t be motivated to join in, until necessity forced them to intervene and put a stop to it, perhaps leading to dictatorship.
In a period of hard economic times, such would be a realistic possibility. That’s why we need a real, grass roots opposition to replace the fake opposition embodied in the plutocro-trotskyite Republican party, before such a thing does happen.
23 Comment by Fred Breisch on 5 May 2009:
It just might be that the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned America about and Dr. Wilson refers to, coupled with the Federal Government bureaucracy and all its various departments, courts and security services, might likely counter or subvert any new emerging political party that might seriously threaten meaningful “change”. If a new emerging party did seem to be gathering strength and was offering resistance to the power structure, then those in power might organize violence in various forms against said efforts. George Wallace did energize the American core, as Dr. Wilson states, and he was taken out in an attempted assassination — hence the need for a great deal of courage, indeed.
This sounds improbable, even to me, but now there is so much power resting in the central government that this perversion of our system might be possible. When 18 year old young people can vote, especially in view of the current state of education (indoctrination) in America, I doubt that our democracy offers the answer. Most certainly the Republican Party doesn’t. I agree entirely with Dr. Wilson @1. Pat, God bless him, seems to have hope, but I have none.
Somehow we need to restructure and downsize the federal/state government apparatus and the Republicans have a horrible track record in this area. In fact, it has never happened other than through collapse, as history seems to confirm.
We live in interesting times.
24 Comment by Mark Higdon on 5 May 2009:
“Glimmers of hope for the GOP”
Who cares?!!!
25 Comment by T. Chan on 5 May 2009:
Re: Justices Roberts and Alito — are the charges of them being “pro-business” (that is pro-oligarchy) true?
26 Comment by Robert on 5 May 2009:
Pat is at his best when he is booted, spurred, saddled and riding on a mission against odds. He is at his worst when he is reduced to endless chit chat about Monica and Bill Clinton or how to restore principle to a corrupt party system. Here, for example, Pat is hankering after votes that could restore GOP party power in a digression from the same theme of the neo-cons: where are the votes and how can we get them. It is not leadership to pander and parade while repeating the old tired lying of the GOP being pro -life, small government, small business and states rights. Pat’s last favor for the GOP was destroying Perot’s populist party that could swing elections for democrats when the ruling republican leaders became too arrogant towards their base. He and Ron Paul and their supporters should now be working on restoring some type of populist consensus that would at least make the GOP do, in the few elections that remain for them, what Bob Dole did after Pat won New Hampshire, “Do it the hard way”—- Spend more money, tell more lies and resort to more character assasination than they would normally like. Any damn fool can see that humanly speaking the national GOP is hopeless on any issues of importance — Why not rally the remnant and ride to the sound of the guns one last time –for heaven and the future’s sake — like the honorable man that he is, rather than continue to carry water for the cameleons and party hacks that did him in when he and his country needed them most.
27 Comment by Josh Cooney on 6 May 2009:
By my count, that’s 14 votes to kill the elephant and no votes to keep it alive.
28 Comment by robert on 6 May 2009:
Josh,
What is more, it is simply rude to hang around a party for days after the hosts have repeatedly asked you to leave. McCain told Pat and his crowd to get out and he would provide the Greyhound bus for transportation, “We don’t need Pat Buchanan and his type in our party.” The party harpes over at NRO said the same thing, “It is time that the country turn its back on those unpatriotic …etc.” They have asked us for years to leave. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand the request. To continue to pretend that one is a welcome guest when one is not, is deplorable and dishonorable conduct in anybody’s home — even if years ago they offered a bowl of soup in return for standing guard as they robbed and pillaged your neighbor’s place before they demolished your own.I like Pat and think alot of his courage and tenacity. But he is an honorable man who should make an honorable exit and quit grazing his old elephant friend in other peoples backyards. It has done enough damage to America’s neighborhoods already.
29 Comment by Chesterbelloc on 6 May 2009:
I still say it is easier to take over the GOP machinery from the inside than try to create a “pure” party from scratch. If a coterie of twerpy neocons can, why not us? I don’t want to diminish how far the GOP is from real conservatism, and as long as it keeps trying to reconcile Christianity with the Enlightenment it is doomed to failure. But if men like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan think its still worth a shot, that should give us pause. The abject failure of neoconservatism has left most young GOPers confused and looking for a new philosophical foundation. I understand how angry paleos are at being stabbed in the back and pushed into obscurity by the neocons during the nineties, but let’s give it one last chance. Then we can found the “Patriot Party” or what have you and try to win an election somewhere, somehow.
30 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 6 May 2009:
McCain was the problem. He took George Soros money to defibrillate his New Hampshire campaign, and then refused to denounce the New York money-grubbers who engineered the financial collapse. Perhaps his silence was part of the deal because the big wigs from Lehman et al. are now working for Little Smokin’ Barry. He was the worst GOP candidate in a field of lightweight mental midgets. Ron Paul was the only principled man among them and he was savaged by the dying gutter press as either a nut job or a right-wing extremist.
31 Comment by robert m. peters on 6 May 2009:
The only glimmer which I hope that the GOP sees is that of the cynders which its members are kicking in political hell! As long as we have a consolidated, centralized, Jacobin, Hobbesian state, even the best intentioned political faction or party, even one Jeffersonian at its core, will be compelled to seek solutions by first winning access to the the Hobbesian state which has a monopoly on coercion and which sets the limits of its own power. The very seeking and the ultimate access to such power will corrupt the best intentioned cadre of men.
32 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 6 May 2009:
#26. If the neocons can take over the Republicaqn party, why can’t we? Because the Republican party is (and always has been) the natural home of fools, cowards,fascists, social climbers, greedy bastards, and opportunists of every hue.
33 Comment by robert on 6 May 2009:
Dr. Wilson,
I don’t doubt that you are correct about “the natural home of fools, cowards, fascists, social climbers, greedy bastards, and opportunists of every hue.” But with the recent “housing boom” in both parties and the recent leadership of both parties, couldn’t we include socialists with the fascists mentioned above and have a complete definition of the duopoly that has existed for years?
34 Comment by R. McCabe on 6 May 2009:
@29, Dr. Wilson, I have benefited from your tireless efforts of exposing the GOP for what it is. Could you please describe what your vision looks like for when it has successfully been dismantled?
You claim to not be looking towards a third party, so then when is the time to rebuild? When will we let the dead bury the dead?
Perhaps the problem is not with people like John McCain but with people who allow themselves to be bossed around and pushed out by the John McCains.
35 Comment by MilesGloriosus on 6 May 2009:
#26. If the neocons can take over the Republican party, why can’t we?
Because acting virtuously will almost always be harder than succumbing to sin, sleaziness and vulgarity. The neo-cons told right-leaning Americans that their was nothing wrong or cowardly about jettisoning their principles, while true conservatives ask people to adhere to them.
36 Comment by Randall Ivey on 6 May 2009:
I’ve raised this possibility before, and it has always been summarily dismissed, but why can’t Southern traditionalists and other like minded Americans hijack the Democratic party? After all, it is OUR traditional home, not that of its present day leftist proprietors.
37 Comment by Josh Cooney on 6 May 2009:
I certainly think there is a conservative grassroots out there. It may not be as large as in Wallace’s day but it’s there. There are also too many regular people who, while not conservative or populist, certainly don’t have any international Marxist agenda. Most people–even many liberals–don’t want to live in multicultural neighborhoods, fork over all their money to the government, or see their values and heritage constantly attacked. We can’t ignore the power of the elites, but human nature is human nature is human nature.
Unless the far left-wing of the Democrat party is going to enslave 90% of the population, they are going to have a difficult time enforcing their agenda on such a large country. This ain’t Sweden.
38 Comment by Robert Bruce on 6 May 2009:
PB baffles me to be honest, he comes off anti war(helps create The American Conservative,which is based on anti war sentiments) then proceeds to say the Afghan war is legit early on in second W administration on TV.Then he is on Morning Joe during close to election time, paling around with MSM dimwits saying the bailout was needed(WTF). These bailouts are going to help bury US manufacturing in the long run. As for the Palin pick? That was a joke. A brainless, but sexy ex beauty queen only excited the dumbass Christians, while everyone else was like “What, Who!!!!!” McCain should have picked Liebermann if he really wanted to win, but since he is a Dem at heart he threw the election. The GOP is dead!!!!! The LP is dead also, with the Constitution Party too aligned with Christianity to win anything. The neocons will only infiltrate and destroy any party within unless it is a useful tool for the elites in their drive for one world government. If a movement was to arise, it would have to mirror Marxist parties in discipline, passion, and utmost ruthlessness, hence any third party currently in existence is just fodder and a waste of time. Historical examples that I can come up with are The Iron Guard, Arrow Cross, NASDAP, and currently Hezbollah. Thing is these organizations tend to be facist, but the organizational setup is what should be mirrored. But even that would be a pipedream as very few would have the courage to join. The sad fact is that most people are cowards and rather watch American Idol, Desperate Housewives, porn, or play with their nice hi tech gadgets than actually stand up for something. Also, let’s face it, Christianity is a dying religion, as what is being practiced in the West(especially America) is a rather watered down, almost faux version of what Christ envisoned.
39 Comment by Robert Bruce on 6 May 2009:
As for 2 or 3 GOP administrations left, I say who cares!!!!!! Did the GWB administration amount to much? Did the elder Bush administration amount to much? Hell, did the Reagan administration amount to much in the name of limited govt? I am 39 and still haven’t had a real leader in a major candidate to vote for that really stood for limited govt. I voted Ron Paul in the Mich primary, but he will be too old to really compete in 2012. The GOP could capture the WH in the next 5 election cycles and they wouldn’t make anything better!!!!!!
40 Comment by Chesterbelloc on 6 May 2009:
Dr. Wilson, Miles Gloriosus,
I have attended CPAC often enough to appreciate how rotten the GOP elite is. But I still think a concerted effort to take over the GOP from the inside is a good idea. Either true conservatives win a primary and some of the fools and opportunists start working for them instead of the neocons, or they win over enough of the party so that they can ruin its national prospects by refusing to back unacceptable candidates. The Ron Paul campaign refused to back McCain, denying itself a slice of the pie in exchange for keeping its principles. If Dr. Paul were more charismatic he could have hurt McCain’s prospects a great deal more.
Regardless, I think everyone can agree that it is more important to raise families, think clearly, speak frankly, and live simply than to throw ourselves into the political process. If we have truly become a nation of cowards, fools, and opportunists, then political strategy is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Respectfully,
Chesterbelloc
41 Comment by Robert on 6 May 2009:
“I think everyone can agree that it is more important to raise families, think clearly, speak frankly, and live simply than to throw ourselves into the political process.”
Chesterbelloc,
I agree with everything that you state in this excellent summation. The only thing I would add to your list of primary and immediate goods is to learn Spanish. Which is just another way of rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. If by Titanic you meant a culture that once existed but is sinking fast.
42 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 6 May 2009:
When the jury box and the ballot box fail, reach for the ammo box. Do it now, prices will only rise. You may have to shoot your own food. How do you cook corrupt politician?
43 Comment by Robert on 6 May 2009:
One possible glimmer of hope is that South Carolina and Oklahoma have passed secession resolutions declaring that the national duopoly (GOP and DEMO-RATS) are in constant violation of the 10th Ammendment.
Another glimmer of hope that neo-con circles within the beltway are talking about is the news from Afghanistan that the only known pig in the country has been locked in a room, because people are worried it could infect them with the virus popularly known as swine flu. “This is no surprise,” to us said one annonymous neo-con source, “once you start spreading freedom, people act more responsibly. Under the Taliban, there were no pigs even allowed in Aghanistan, now there is one locked in a room. Sure it will take some time, but the surge is working and this is evidence of that fact.”
44 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 7 May 2009:
#34. McCabe. I am no political strategist. We need leaders of extraordinary insight and courage. I have been suggesting my only idea as to near-plausible strategy for years. Third parties, secessionist parties, etc. building up local revolts strong enough to elect members of the U.S. House. Where Dems and Repubs are nearly matched, could not a third condidate who was attractive, aggressive, and articulate, have a chance of winning? Get enough independents in the House and their willingness to work together and not be bought—then you reduce both parties to a minority, unable to organise the House. You have crippled the federal government as a first step toward peeling it back.
45 Comment by John Smith on 7 May 2009:
If Republicans really wanted to reform their party they could do so by adopting a simple rule: never vote for any candidate who earns over 100,000 dollars a year, and earns only his Congressional salary thereafter. The Republican party (like most Western conservative parties historically) has a severe class problem; for the toffs at the top politics is only a means at getting them in position to bargain with the Liberal establishment on behalf of big business, so they don’t mind trading support for social engineering to Liberals in exchange for financial gain (the Fannie Mae/derivatives fiasco was an almost perfect example of this process) because that engineering doesn’t effect them much. They live in the Archipelago of the Rich, not America.
46 Comment by Chesterbelloc on 7 May 2009:
@ 41
I unfortunately can’t speak much Spanish but I’m trying to read a bit of Mexican history so I at least know the problems we are inheriting from the south. While Mexicans carry quite a lot of baggage with them, at least they aren’t half-mad Kantian liberals, or the Islamists Europe is importing!
@ 42
You know if secession becomes necessary, and it is gone about in an orderly way, then I think it can be a peaceful process. The cowards in Washington love to take rights away bit by bit, and stomp hard on individuals and small groups, but a mass movement of determined citizens acting through their state legislatures would just leave them wringing their hands. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! That being said, there is a fat tom turkey that keeps wandering through my neighborhood and you can bet he’ll be dinner if the economy goes to hell.
Respectfully,
Chesterbelloc
47 Comment by Allen Wilson on 7 May 2009:
I think that in the end the imperial system will become untenable, and the empire will dissolve. That’s obviously looking back to the collapse of the Soviet empire, but it does seem to be the most likely possibility. It will then be up to the states and perhaps regions to determine their governmental makeup. That will be the time to retake the institutions of government and society. The key will be preventing what happened in Georgia and the Ukraine, so that no ‘orange revolutions’ take place. If we’re lucky, economic collapse will make that less likely or impossible, but it may become necessary to take out a few billionaires, and destroy their personal empires, Putin style.
48 Comment by Tom Flinn on 8 May 2009:
The GOP be damned. They had their chance and they revealed their true colors.
49 Comment by Derek Leaberry on 8 May 2009:
The Republican Party can spend a trillion dollars and expend 4000 soldiers to “free Iraq” yet can’t or won’t round up 20 million illegal aliens or prevent homosexual “marriage” in New England. In fact, the political capital used to “free Iraq” has made it so that the Democrats could monopolize political power, homosexual “marriage” was made inevitable, the illegal aliens were more entrenched in the land they invaded, and a Gramscian-Marxist was made president. Shows you what the Republican priorities are.
50 Comment by Sean Scallon on 8 May 2009:
It rather sad and melancholy to see so gifted writer as Pat Buchanan is cling so readily to the past to look for glimmers of hope. It’s not that Reagan Democrats or NASCAR dads or Sarah Palin moms don’t exist, but hey exist as a minority and live in areas of economic insignificance unlike as recently as 17 years when Pat made his first bid for the White House. Not only that, they themselves are fading away into time and their grandkids are Obama supporters and solidly so.
It may very well be Obama’s victory was largely based on anti-Bushism and may very well be that his failures will be taken out on him. After all, Reagan and the GOP suffered setbacks for economic problems in the 1982,’86 and ‘90 mid-term elections. But to simply suggest that if it wasn’t for last fall’s economic meltdown, McCain would have eked out a victory thanks in large part to Sarah Palin, is a fantasy. I suppose one could say Herbert Hoover would have been in better shape if the Depression had taken place. Or Jimmy Carter possibly could have won if there wasn’t a hostage crisis in Iran. If the Tet Offensive hadn’t happened perhaps LBJ would have been renominated too. All of this speculation is irrelevent. The finanical crisis happened and unlike Hurricane Katrina it wasn’t an act of nature. Its happening was due to a long line of bad government policies(by many policy makers) and when the bill came due as it did, it simply reinforced the notion the Republicans didn’t have a clue as to what they were doing with the economy, which is why McCain’s response to the crisis was so terrible. He really didn’t know what to do.
The long term problem for the GOP is that many of its so-called leaders, both its politicians and its supporters in the media, have yet to come grips with how disasterous the Bush II presidency was to it and have no real solutions to completely remake the party to be able to compete in the U.S. today, not of 1984. So they deceive the base of Republican voters with rhetoric which states what we believe in is not the problem. The problem lies with bad leadership, bad politicans and bad strategy and communications and just plain old bad luck. Thus nothing of what was said or done over the past eight years either matters or is worthy of reflection or thought or even apology because within a six-month period we can simply forget the past and become the party we always wanted to be, right? And little do these leaders realize that the question then has to be asked why weren’t you this way before? Do you only act your true selves in the minority? Then why not stay a minority and be consistent all the time?
In the wake of all this incompetency, its tempting to think the GOP is nearing death’s door. It would be a nice thing to have happen, but I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for it to happen. The Whig Party died after 1852 because a significant faction of it, mainly concentrated in the North and backed by political machines and powerful financiers of the country’s new industries, and leaders of its communications at the time (Horace Greeley for example) had the political heft and credibility to break away from the Whigs and gather in dissidents from the Democrats and the successor to the Whigs, the American Party, to form the Republicans. Likewise in the South, the calls for solidarity in the wake of this new Northern party killed the Whig Party in that region because their nationalism became unpopular.
What sort of credible schism could take place now in the GOP that ultimately kill it? Certainly not that of moderate Republicans, so few in numbers they are. Ron Paul Republicans could leave, but they would go right back into the third party ghetto. What the new party should be is that of the Old Democratic Party from 1868-1896 which was conservative, monetarist and localist and which achieved a rough partity with the Republicans until the Populist takeover. It would be the perfect piece to compete against the Nationalist GOP and Universalist Democrats. Unfortunatlely such a new party right now would be pretty small and have few adherents.
It may be that Clyde Wilson is right, that the GOP is complelty unreformable not just because it is the corpratist party, but also because it is the nationalist party of the country and the country has always had a nationalist party. I would like to have one more Ron Paul run for the White House as young-fool idealist before I become completly disillusioned. I still believe that political parties are not static as stones in the political tides of history. Certainly Jefferson and Jackson would be shocked to see the Democrats of today and no doubt Lincoln would be shocked to learn that one of the most Republican-leaning states of today is South Carolina. The GOP of today is so weak in so many places that it is ripe for takeover and there is such a vacumn of ideas, that it is also ripe for renewal. Some poeple may wish to bury it and I don’t blame them one bit. But if they do so they’ll be burying opportunity as well.
51 Comment by R. McCabe on 8 May 2009:
@44, Dr. Wilson, thanks for your response. I’m even less of a political strategist, but what you say makes sense.
@50, Mr. Scallon: “The GOP of today is so weak in so many places that it is ripe for takeover and there is such a vacumn of ideas, that it is also ripe for renewal. Some poeple may wish to bury it and I don’t blame them one bit. But if they do so they’ll be burying opportunity as well.”
That’s the truth. And thanks also for the brief lesson on what it took to dismantle the Whigs.
To those who think they stand a chance at reforming even an inch of the Democratic party wherever you live, then do it. If you think you have a chance of filling this vacuum in the GOP where you live, then do it. To those who criticize Pat Buchanan’s occassional intellectual inconsistencies or his refusal to turn his back on the sad realities of today given the political betrayals of his past, know he is out there every day with his sleeves rolled up and both fists swinging.
If you yearn for a republican America but have been so burned previously and thus refuse to take part in the politics, at least choose your words more carefully or stay silent and stop cutting off at the knees those who are trying to find a way through this mess.
52 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 8 May 2009:
#50. Mr. Scallon, I doff my hat to your insight and good sense.
53 Comment by Allen Wilson on 8 May 2009:
‘The GOP of today is so weak in so many places that it is ripe for takeover and there is such a vacumn of ideas, that it is also ripe for renewal.’
If that is the case, what would be a strategy for takeover and renewal? I assume that there would need to be a concerted effort nationwide in order to have any real benefit. How would such a project be financed?
54 Comment by Patrick on 10 May 2009:
The GOP lost its soul for the last time under Bush II, think of it as the N+1 GOP presidency where it went over the falls. It started with the lies of Lincoln and the corruptness of the reconstruction generation and their Faustian bargain with Big Business which lasted until trillion dollar lies under Bush II. It has always been a lying party pretending to be for the ‘average Joe’ while catering to the Eastern establishment and Wall Street oligarchies. A new party needs to be founded on the principles of government as enunciated by Thomas Jefferson…….small government, state rights, freedom of religion and speech, etc. To be blunt, any party that believes that we the people are subjects of the government rather than the federal government being subject of the people and their respective states is a null and void party. A heretical view in today’s politically correct climate but the truth.
55 Comment by Sean Scallon on 13 May 2009:
Thanks you for the kind comments Mr. Wilson.