At the American Spectator, W. James Antle III, responding to Ross Douthat’s suggestion that the TEA Party will be to blame for a Romney nomination, offers this reminder:
For the past 24 years, conservatives have failed to unite behind a single candidate, splitting their votes between the frontrunner and various right-wing alternatives who appealed to particular subsets of the conservative movement. Candidates beloved by the movement have failed to catch on with rank-and-file conservative voters (Jack Kemp in 1988, Phil Gramm in 1996, Fred Thompson, and, yes, Mitt Romney in 2008). Candidates hated by movement organs have actually done a bit better with the conservative grassroots (Robertson, Buchanan, Huckabee, and perhaps a good bit of the 2012 GOP field).
If these are conservative failures, they far predate the Tea Party. The movement has been more successful at pushing the party establishment to the right than in running the party itself.
Again, I don’t float the idea of a third party as a permanent rival to the GOP; instead, I’m suggesting that the only way to take over the GOP is to begin that process by disengaging from its leadership, its money, and its national organization, which relies consistently on the votes of a conservative base while simultaneously persistently beating off any attempts by conservatives to reform the Party’s power structure and hierarchy.
Splitting out the conservatives from the big government Republicans, whose only problem with the expansive federal government is that they aren’t controlling it, could perhaps clarify the field going forward — and make clear to the GOP that the conservatives don’t need them as much as they need the conservative / classical liberal / libertarian base.
Then, when the two factions reunite, they will do so under the leadership of constitutionalists and fiscal/legal conservatives, or else they will move to the left, join with Democrats and bring the current Democrat Party, today run by the New Left and their democratic socialist cohort, more to the center.
Either way, it’s a win-win in the long run. And it wouldn’t prevent principled conservatives in local elections from running as Republicans if that’s the best way toward a nomination and a victory. It is simply a means of doubling potential representation as a way to get around the establishment GOP’s perennial campaign to neuter small government challengers.
Discuss.
I still don’t see the need for a third party to do that. Screw the establishment. Screw the apparatus. Screw the RNC, the RNCC, the RNSC. Give them no support and no money, at least until such time as they reflect the values of the base, clean house and recalibrate the “accepted wisdom” that Republicans really want the Arlen Specters of the world. They can complain and opine and they can advertise whatever they want as much as they want. But what they can’t do is vote. Starve it and then kill it at the polls. That’s the only way. Primaries are crucial now.
The establicans are truly spooked by the money bombs that were done for Brown and other tea party types. They realize they are well and truly fucked if the funding goes straight to the candidate. That funding mechanism is all that keeps them in power.
In this instance, money walks and bullshit can’t talk – it’s broke. If the candidate isn’t beholden to the money men, the money men have no power. Of course, the national party needs money to fund and hold the primaries, but there has to be a way to fund that and nothing else. Screw them throwing money at candidates and doing the pickings before their steenkin potemkin primaries.
Permit me to suggest that the RNC and its collateral hangers-on inside the beltway ARE a third party, unresponsive to the plainly stated desires of their base, cutting deals with the opposition against their nominal party’s interest and otherwise acting as an independent political entity. Sooner or later we will need to send them the way of the Whigs they replaced.
I think it would split the current crop of media enablers and sycophants and create a schism in the messaging that the establishment relies upon.
Also, it would give them a proper perspective about how tenuous is their power. Right now, they openly scoff at the base — on record to, eg., NY Magazine.
Hell, George Will just told us the GOP is happy with a Republican Michael Dukakis. That’s what we’re all craving right now, according to Will. Hence the “rise” of Romney.
Somebody best loosen his bow tie, is all I have to say.
Tell me, is he delusional; or is he helping drive a narrative?
Both. Delusional and driving a narrative of unicorns what shits GOOD THINGS seem to go hand in hand in a will to power kinda way.
What was that joke about neurotics build houses and psychotics live in them? Seems apropos for Will et al.
I’d rather there were no political parties at all.
Problem solved, right?
Althouse linked a Buckley/Ron Paul Firing Line episode from ’88 today, wherein Buckley says to Paul (4:19):
Heh, same as it ever was.
Ditto both. And this is Will!
My frustration with the hundred year snubbing of constitutionalists and fiscal/legal conservatives, is as acute now as it was in 1972, when as a teen I started thinking about it.
What I want to know — the better to join the discussion and offer a plan of action with — is what’s wrong with the collective mind that behavior and thought tantamount to the seven deadly sins constitute, in part or the whole, the open and evident ruin of the constitutionalism the country literally calls its birthright and accepts as its policy, correctly or not? How are vices remodeled into straight-faced policies carried and delivered by straight-faced “leaders” not still vices?!
I say it’s the disorder that is leftism, but that old saw means virtually nothing, so is its combination of self-evidence and perceived, scoffed-at unseriousness. Is the simple lure of that first federal dollar, the needle in the arm that addicts? What, then?
Because I do think that explains the mind parasites that even a Will falls prey to.
I remember my folks saying there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between D and R, sdferr, and this was the Sixties. I think Buckley may have felt the same thing many of us do: Sometimes you merely do what’s right because it is — for no other reason than to reset the equilibrium in the energy field of one individual.
Call it what Jesus would do.
Not including Romney and Huntsman, I propose that the perception is that this is already happening. All other R candidates can be said to be representing some significant plank(s) in the TEA Party platform. This is the palpable reality of the Republican dynamic these days; that Obama is simply not an opponent, so far have things deteriorated, and that one of them represent 2012 without much doubt.
The TEA Party brought this all to a head.
What blows my mind, and what I think is another facet of the phenomenon of the political evil that is progressivism, is that it is they who are in the dock and not the wretched progg establishment that brought us this ruin, being interrogated by every last syllable that progressive establishment can gin up, and that they, as unwilling or even unwitting members themselves of that reality themselves,struggle to play defense against. The fervor is quite intense.
Which again supports the notion that this is an era of madness we live in, and perhaps identifying that thing from the much broader tapestry of the nature of humans in histories and societies and organizations is the nub of the understanding that may bring reform.
It has to be a madness rooted in what is personally off-limits but with a little finagling of law, can be rendered acceptable publicly — and that OWS manifests without so much as the cover of a significant concealing lie. Covetousness, envy, greed, sloth, intolerance, dishonesty, theft.
If these are your elements, you can find a home in both parties but in either you’ll be foremost a secular progressive.
The problem with a third party is the “plurality takes all” (aka first-past-the-post) voting system in place for most US elections makes a vote for anyone other than the top two “wasted”, in that it does not affect the margin of victory between the top two candidates.
If the TEA Party is a true third party, it will assure the re-election of Obama and hand back control of the House to Pelosi by splitting the anti-Democrat vote. We have to operate within the GOP by getting Barbarians elected to local and state committee positions, city councils, mayors, school boards, state legislators, (who control redistricting every decade) Congress, and RNC delegates.
It must be a takeover of the GOP, not a third party.
I’d be interested in hearing if the history types around here know of a successful instance of this happening.
What has worked? How?
(I don’t mean this to introduce a historical prejudice against a third party. I’m wondering if it’s worked before and then by what mechanism/s.)
If the Reps nominate mittens there will be a 3rd Party challenge. The Republican Party will split and eventually die, there will be a real 3 way race in 2012, Obama and his band of merry socialists will likely win, and they will then do their very best to completely destroy the country before 2016.
Of course it is mitten’s turn.
DINGDINGDINGDINGDING!!! We have a winner.
Some people used to be fond of claiming Abraham Lincoln was elected on a third-party ticket, but the Republicans had a presidential ticket in 1856 because the Whigs were already no longer a cohesive, viable second party.
On ABC.
We have third parties now. Do you hear anyone talking about them or their candidates on the Sunday panels? Herman Cain is the Establicans’ biggest nightmare. Are they talking about him on Sundays? Are they talking to him on Sunday? There’s the difference.
Which again supports the notion that this is an era of madness we live in…
What was it Nietzsche said? “Madness is rare in individuals–but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule.”
To Monster’s point about the perils of the third party, I would rebut in part that the third party could be very successful if it attracts the fiscally sane from both sides of the aisle. I work every day with true-blue Dems who are sick to death of Wall Street bailouts and “poor” people with unlimited data plans for their smartphones, and worried as hell about what kind of hell their kids and grandkids may endure to pay back the debts Obama is running up. If we appeal to them, then we’d have no trouble marginalizing the corrupt structures on both sides.
The problem is that both establishment parties will continue to paint us as kooks, and to encourage division among us, and to promote the most controversial statements from the most controversial speakers, just as they do today. It’s for that reason that I’m leery of striking out on our own. Our enemies would still be our enemies. But at least on the Republican side, we can try to subvert from beneath, knowing that while the establishment hates us and works to thwart our plans, at least they can’t attack us openly without losing us. Once we decide to go our own way, we can’t use our putative alliance any more. We become the enemy (and an existential enemy at that), and we learn what the Establicans can do when the gloves come off.
I’m still not convinced that all-out war is the better path. Though I am open to the possibility that it will come to that.
“Obama and his band of merry socialists will likely win”
new birther news
Link
This was precisely the idea behind Outlaw. It was also envisioned by the liberaltarianism folks. The left is run by its base; the right is run by an establishment big government big spending ruling class. Party doesn’t matter. It is government and bureaucracy vs. the rest of us. Some will splinter off as socialists; but many Reagan Dems are now Tea Party types.
They support free markets, constitutionalism, and an end to onerous regulation. They’d likely also support right-to-work.
There’s a coalition we keep trying for, but we never seem to get “our” candidates. There’s clearly an impediment, and much of it has to do with gamed primary systems and an intellectual apparatus who dictates to us who can and can’t be elected.
This is good: Cain, Gingrich Set to Spar
Will anyone air it?
You’re missing the point. I’m saying we do it not as some fringe movement but directly in response to, say, a Romney candidacy.
If that’s where conservatism goes, that’s what they’ll be forced to talk about. That’s what the TEA Party prefigures.
“knowing that while the establishment hates us and works to thwart our plans, at least they can’t attack us openly without losing us.”
The thing is, they are openly attacking us(the TEA Party types anyway).
And they’re losing us.
How, other than by declaration, would you propose to elevate it from fringe movement to contender?
As for the TEA party, they sure talked about it. They shit all over it…until election results started rolling in. Then they realized that mocking and dismissing it wasn’t going to work. But not until then.
You’re not going to get another party on the ballot after a Romney nomination. We might as well start a Pox On All Your Houses movement and start going Galt. THAT they’ll be forced to talk about.
I’d be interested in hearing if the history types around here know of a successful instance of this happening.
What has worked? How?
The Whigs disintegrated over the issue of slavery, with Lincoln’s new Republican Party picking up the anti-slavery faction. One might say that those same Republicans are today disintegrating over the issues of statism and debt, but I’m not sure that this division reaches the same fever pitch as the arguments over slavery did.
It may, soon. God save us all.
The Monster has a valid point.
I was a high school junior when the Libertarian Party first organized. I eventually registered as a Libertarian, believing it was just a matter of time before the fiscally sane, liberty-oriented of both parties came on board.
And the Libertarians have had modest success at the local levels … they do get minor candidates elected … but in 40 years, they have done squat when it comes to major elections.
Looking over that 40 years, they would have done better taking over the GOP from within. Now it’s up the TEA Party folks to do it … and they’ve been only operating since 09. A bid to be a third party will dilute what strengths they have right now, more than the Prog Poodle media has tried to do.
And I think Stephanie has suggested the perfect tool for the TEA Party to use against establishment GOPers — only ONLY donate to specific candidates. NO $ to the party organizations.
Starve the beast while feeding the usurpers.
By choosing and backing conservative candidates, and voting on those conservatives who win primaries, even if they do so as Republicans.
It would be a two-pronged strategy: our money would go toward those GOP candidates who are conservative, but we’d back third party candidates if squishes are forced upon us by a leadership. Really no more than an extension of the TEA Party ethos, only one where we’ve officially declared our independence from the GOP unless and until it begins representing our interests.
Here’s the thing. As the linked piece points out, changing the Party from within has been a failure, largely I think because we tend to follow an intellectual leadership that fools us into thinking they represent our side, only to suddenly veer toward Romney types. 50 years is plenty of trying. Maybe a new approach is in order. I’m open to suggestions.
I’m not sure winning with Cain or Dole or Romney or Bush I is all that much better for the brand than not winning at all.
You mean McCain of course…
Darleen, it’s always the money that makes em sit up and take notice.
Tea Party on strike would be a major problem for them.
I just wish the taxpayers would go on strike, too. The feds can’t survive without the middle class’s weekly/biweekly/semi monthly/monthly serf payments. Tis a reason they are autowithheld…
This could be interesting.
““modified Lincoln–Douglas debate” between Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich”
the “not romney” debate
that’s not really a fair match
ot wnd is covering justiagate
Link
I thought this line quite descriptive of the GOP: “while simultaneously persistently beating off”
Coulda stopped right there and still been right.
Source page for the Justia scandal investigation.
Just who was polling 1-2-3 in the last polling info? Why I believe it was Cain, Romney, Gingrich… not Romney debate indeed.
Maybe someone could devise a Romney Perry debate as a cure for the sleep deprived.
I would love to see the national party so funds deprived that they have to come to the tea party for a money bomb to hold their primaries. Or better yet, have the tea party take over the primary process. ;) I doubt they could do worse on logistics and GOTV.
“that’s not really a fair match”
yea mr. newt is a policy wonk but the hermanator might bring some outside the beltway thinking such as pepperoni & tuna toppings
the problem with 3rd parties is at the state level and where getting access to be on the ballot has been made very difficult by the duopoly.
I’m all for that, but it sounds less like a third party and more like some much needed tough love. “Get it right or GFY, and not a dime until you do the former.”
@39 /sarc
Yes @ 40. See Reform Party.
the rev al has useful thoughts for this discussion: resist we much
I’ve wondered whether Tea Party people in Iowa will self-organize to support a candidate from among the bunch in the Iowa caucuses. That is, if there are Tea Party people in Iowa, which I assume there are. Wouldn’t they see their own interests in that light: not wanting Romney, they choose the most closely allied candidate they can find, then themselves become his or her organized caucus workers?
pepperoni and tuna
Ahh, the Garafalo. Just don’t order extra cheese.
Now that I have completely grossed everyone out, Ima go work on my Halloween costume.
I love the Gingrich-Cain debate idea, they’ll both benefit from it and the entire liberty cause will benefit from it. It is a way to give someone with a vision for how government should operate with a chance to explain why we are where we are now and how to fix things, with some specificity. This debate format can be win-win and the MBM format is zero-sum, a real reflection of how we and they view the world. Drive the discussion or lose.
the “not romney” debate is made for cspan
the “doug hoffman/scott brown model” may be the best available template going forward. too bad there is only a 1 issue candidate challenging the speaker of the boner for his seat.
I wanted to go back to that Asshat article (in the NY Times, unexpectedly) and see how he came to the conclusion that the TEA Party is responsible for Romney.
2 failures: Bush serial disasters, and and the Tea Party’s what, ,attitude? “zeal and naïveté” ? “zeal and naïveté” are what we would think of as “eager, conscientious, and earnest”. How is that a demand for cranks and frauds? And how is an attitude a failure? What sloppy, sophomoric thinking.
“which left the demonrats
Republicanestablishment without a strong bench of viable national politicians, and the #OWSTea Party’smix of zeal and naïveté, which has elevated cranks and frauds and future television personalities to the party’s presidential stage.”see insert the projection and it makes sense
Re: #50;
Left out of the discussion is that whenever a suitable conservative candidate does start to rise to prominence, even ones who are not for whatever reason going to be in an upcoming Presidential race, they will be savaged by the media who will not hesitate to manufacture lies to destroy them.
The knowledge that this is guaranteed to happen, and that there is for a smart conservative much wealth to be made outside of politics, is the eye of the liberal needle through which conservative candidates have to pass.
Liberals have their own constrictive passageway to navigate but it is of a different nature and controlled by the Party leadership not the media.
if there are Tea Party people in Iowa, which I assume there are
someone keeps electing Grassley which suggests the teadoodle influence is relatively limited
Link
“someone keeps electing Grassley which suggests the teadoodle influence is relatively limited”
matter of time til this clown gets off’d politically by tea ladies
Are Iowa’s primaries open or closed?
The Whig party was largely an anti-Jackson party that won two Presidential elections (1840, 1848). Once Jackson was gone from the scene, it was only a matter of time before the Whig coalition disintegrated. If it hadn’t broken up over the question of slavery, it would have broken up over something else.
The present incarnation of the Republican party is an anti-communist coalition that, now that the Cold War is over, hasn’t found an issue capable of overriding internal disagreements over issues like statism and debt. Defeating Democrats for the sake of defeating Democrats isn’t going to hold it together for too much longer. Managerial Competence and Protecting Phoney Baloney Jobs Harrumph! aren’t likely to inspire, but Romney is the only one who can defeat Obama. So they keep telling us.
The Corn Party runs Iowa, folks.
If we really want to clear the logjam, we need four well-known candidates for President, not three, as in 1860. A candidacy does not require a party.
The incumbent would still enjoy a high chance for victory, but a lower one than in a three-way race.
Many state ballots list a half a dozen Presidential candidates, but there may as well be only two, given the results. The pundits, establishment and otherwise, should be responsible for making the non-Republicrats better known and respected.
Can you fill in more detail on that thought Brett? Cause on its face, it seems counter-factual, since what I see the pundits up to is precisely the opposite, tearing candidates down in preference for their particular favorites, whoever the favorite might be. I certainly don’t see pundits working to unify people around an insurgent Tea Party type anyhow. Besides, wouldn’t such a thing look conciliatory, kinda like following Gov. Daniels’ suggestion last Feb. at CPAC?
However that may be, how do you understand your term “responsible” to function? Responsible to who, or to what interest? From out of what authority? Or on account of what persuasion, or argument, other than the persuasion of the people expressed at the ballot box (which is, I think, obviously too ex-post facto for the purposes you propose to lay responsibility on them)?
Well, that was too abstract a desire on my part, wasn’t it? At best, my statement can only mean that our intelligentsia should develop that rarest of qualities, an intellectual conscience, and be responsible to that, seeking to convey objective fact as best they can. That is, of course, an impossible dream in a society that awards higher degrees to a greater number of people than are actually capable of higher learning.
It would be better of me to rely on human nature’s dishonest habit of overlooking the faults of their own faction while overlooking the virtues of their opponents’, but to encourage the intelligentsia to split into more factions.
It’s a more Madisonian approach, that’s for sure.