In his latest move to become the Savior of the Republican Party (expect him to come riding into D.C. on a white horse sometime in the summer of 2011), Newt Gingrich has announced that the GOP needs to get its act together, or true conservatives may go third party in 2012. To that I say, AMEN!
A split in the Republican Party has been a long time coming. The last Republican presidential primary saw the GOP fracture into its three main bodies, with social conservatives rallying behind Mike Huckabee, fiscal conservatives behind Mitt Romney and warhawks behind John McCain. McCain, of course, managed to gather in more moderate Republicans than the other two, which catapulted him to the nomination. But once he was there, no one really liked the idea. Sarah Palin was always a sop to disaffected right-wingers, and as she catered to the base's ugly side, she left independents out in the cold.
The obvious answer, of course, is that the Republican Party no longer represents large portions of its base. What this country needs is, say, a Christian Democracy Party headed up by people like Huckabee and Palin; a Conservative Libertarian Party (colloquially known as the John Galts), which could fund itself through corporate sponsorships; and a Peace Party, which would actually be a hawkish party promoting massive defense budgets and an interventionist foreign policy, named in the Orwellian manner we've come to know and love in the Department of Defense.
But don't think the Democrats are immune! With multi-billion-dollar bailouts dished out to billionaires, health-care "reform" talk in which insurance companies are put front and center (thus negating any chance for real reform), an increasingly hawkish stance in Afghanistan, and a too-polite refusal to treat the previous administration like the war criminals they are, it's not like the Democratic Party is doing a bang-up job of representing its base either.
So, maybe Newt Gingrich is right. Maybe it's time to start thinking outside the two-party-system box. But Gingrich is mistaken about a mere third-party run. I think we need about ten of them, maybe more. Proportional representation, instant run-off voting, all the multi-party system goodies. Of course, as both political parties stand to lose from such a system, it would find no one in Washington to get behind it. Even Gingrich's own third-party threats are probably just the mere posturing of a man trying to paint himself as the one man staying true to conservative principles that the rest of the party has abandoned.
Here in Florida, as in many states, we have the option of getting amendments inserted into the state constitution via popular referendum. Currently, Fair State Florida is making a push to end gerrymandering, forcing the state to draw congressional districts that are compact and community-based, instead of the bizarre shapes they now take, which ensure that many districts are so solidly Democratic or Republican that representatives essentially have no worries as to whether they'll be re-elected. Ending gerrymandering and promoting public financing of campaigns may not end the two-party system, but it should make that system far more responsive to the will of the people.
Do I note a degree of derision in your reference to John Galt? Do you fell he was wrong to go on strike against the egalitarian society that had "the natural right" to fruits of his labors and demand that he produce more for them? By extension, if this note of derision exisits, does it apply to Conservatives and Libertarians? Is Produce as you can, consume only as you need the correct political dictum?
Wesley Mouch is definately my bete noir.
Thanks for your comment. I think one's take on Rand's philosophy, particularly as embodied in the story of John Galt, represents one of the fundamental differences between conservative and liberal thought. Now, I wouldn't suggest that Galt shouldn't have been able to prosper from his invention. However, I would also suggest that Galt's rejection of society -- the very society that provided him an education, which in turn gave him the knowledge to produce his invention -- represents a betrayal by Galt of the very people who made his invention indirectly possible. Galt did not simply go on strike -- he left society entirely, and by doing so, he betrayed it.
Like many people of the leftie persuasion, I believe in public education, public health, social justice and public welfare in general. But I also believe that, as beneficiaries of these boons, we have an obligation to give back to society. If we do not, if we cling only to our own interests, then we assure that each subsequent generation receives a slightly worse education, health-care system, etc. than the generation before, as so-called rational thinkers abandon their obligations to their fellow man.
"Rational self-interest" is just another term for mutually assured destruction.
If a local populace is spending too much money on car repairs due pot holes, is paying high insurance premiums because the poor roads are causing accidents, feels unsafe crossing bridges, is losing tourist dollars do to poor highway conditions, is spending too much time in commuter delays, etc. things will change. They will, with no federal intervention, solve the problem. Politicians will be elected or defeated, bureaucrats hired, and taxes will be raised, locally, to enact the solution. "A billion here ... ."
As for the personal obligation to repay society for its largess I do not believe that this is solely the province of liberals. As an interesting excercise, do a search (i refuse turn the proper noun, Google into a verb) on "liberal conservative charitable giving." Don't read just the first entry. Read, or at least skim, the first 20 or so entries (to get a balanced presentation). The results may surprise you. That being said, the fact that as a liberal or a conservative, you pay income taxes in a progressive tax system means that you are repaying society in inverse proportion to the benefit received.
--Continued--
It is true, that by itself, a reduction of $75B in federal spending would not impact federal tax rates. This is just one example of many federal programs that could be more effectively carried out through local funding and control. In the words that have been attributed to the late Senator Everett Dirksen, "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it adds up to real money."
Another example is Federal Highway Funding. I live in Illinois. Why do I want to send my federal tax dollars to New York for tunnel repairs. Why does a New Yorker want to send his money to Florida for road repairs. What sense does it make for a Floridian to send his money here to Chicago to repair my downtown bridge. Again, it can more effectively done at local/state level without the federally imposed requirements. Federal funding, oversight, and regulations did not prevent the recent I35 bridge collapse in Minnesota or the "Big Dig" tunnel collapse in Boston. Federal highway spending which began in the 1920s to define the National Highway system (US routes) should have ended in the 1970s with the completion of the Interstate Highway System. The planning and building of the Interstate System is an example of necessary and justified federal spending. The maintenance of it is not. The roadbed and infrastructure is a gift to the individual state and the self interest of the residents will ensure that it is maintained.
--Continued--
I'd like to see platforms - ISSUE ORIENTED rather than personality cult -
I'd like to see it reasonable for a NORMAL PERSON to run for office without having to turn into a rubber chicken dinner prostitute.
I think it's called progress.
Onward!
Did I say white horse? I meant white elephant.
God, that works on so many levels.