Whigs: It's Time for a Comeback

With apologies to Tippecanoe...and Tyler too.

This is your chance. Come out from the shadows. I know you haven't been a political party in 150 years, I get that. But this might just be the chance of a century.

The leaders of the Republican Party have just finished convincing themselves that the reason the public was so turned off by their ideologically backward, anti-intellectual policy agenda was that it just wasn't ideologically backward or anti-intellectual enough. And by leaders of the Republican Party, I of course mean the folks waiting in line to kiss Rush Limbaugh's Oxycontin-dusted ring. That, by the way, might explain this whole thing. The Oxycontin. Kissing that damn ring. What else explains how a real-life group of adult people could make this many boneheaded decisions in a row? Michael Steele said yesterday that people didn't know what he was doing, and that's the way he liked it. Sounds like the Oxycontin to me.

President Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, wrote in an op-ed yesterday that "we may find out what it means for a political party to hit rock bottom." I'll tell you who knows just what that's like: The Whigs.

Less than 25 years after its founding, the Whig Party was toast. Chapter 7. Done. In under a quarter century. They were a strange coalition of folks, all with very disparate interests and expectations. The party never knew exactly where it stood or exactly what it stood for. They pushed, for example, for a central bank, but when Whig President John Tyler had the chance, he vetoed the central bank's charter. That was a pretty big deal by 1840s standards.

Ultimately the party couldn't unify its factions and lost total control. Sound familiar? It ought to.

It certainly can't be easy being a Republican these days. Must seem like a bunch of dead ends, what with President Obama's popularity higher than (dare I say it) Ronald Reagan, and with a party leadership that looks like it's straight out of an SNL sketch. (One of the funny ones. With Tina Fey.) But listen up wayward Republicans, there's hope for you yet, and no, not that icky kind the president loves to talk about.

It's time for you to unite, here, now, at this historic moment, and do what was meant to be done. It's time for you to bring back the Whigs.

Think about it for a minute. The Whigs came into existence for the sole purpose of opposing a Democratic president's agenda. I know you like the way that sounds. They were also big fans of state's rights and loved to talk about "adhering to the great conservative principles," and we all know that's something you can get behind.

Now, of course, you shouldn't be too worried about emulating the old party issue by issue. It's not something we've ever really been that big on. After all, Democrats used to be racists and Republicans used to be, well, Abraham Lincoln. So to some degree, you shouldn't get too hung up on what the Whigs used to be. Start thinking about what they can be going forward. Give it a whirl, see what you can come up with. Whatever it is, it can't be worse than Bobby Jindal.

The party system has been stable for a while, sure, but this nation has a long history of parties ebbing and flowing out of existence. Usually, when a party becomes so impotent, its leaders so misguided, that it can't even provide a coherent alternative to the status quo, that's when there's a chance for a new party to make its move. Jefferson got it done. So did Lincoln. Now it's your turn.

The rise of the Whigs starts with you. Make it happen.

Comments

[TheIndependenceParty]

The Republicans have cast themselves as the new "Flat Earth Society", .... embracing faith over facts, dogma over dignified discussion, and inviting virals under their "Big Tent" that have infected their party with beliefs that are in most cases inconsistent, and in many cases simply ridiculous. Such is the lot of a party in the minority by design.

The Republicans, as constituted at the moment would have snickered at my stalwart fathers and grandfathers and mothers. They were farmers, and factory workers, and loyal party members. The Wall Street and Board Room crowd would have been disgusted by them, ... had they ever known them.

The real question, in the end, ... is how does a party maintain itself as advocates of individuality, liberty, self-reliance and self-responsibility, when its upper echelon is populated exclusively by political and economic apparatchiks, and the ultra-wealthy. Only through lies!

[Buddy McCue]

Sad, isn't it?

What's strange about that is that the things that Social Conservative like are often at odds with what the Economic Conservatives want.

Example: Social Conservatives (with whom I share many opinions) like to imagine a "good ol' days" kind of America, where people like Floyd the Barber (from the Andy Griffith show) would run his business and cut hair, and do alright for himself.

But the Economic Conservatives brought about the deregulation of corporate business, cutting back on the post-Depression restraints against the consolidation of industry. They used to call such consolidations "trusts;" now they call them conglomerates, but there's little difference.

So now Floyd the Barber must work in a strip mall, at SuperCuts (or some such chain) and answer to an owner who never knew how to cut hair. Now people who simply own things for a living are the ones who conservatives look to as "self-made men."

That's just not right.

[gmlaster]

Good point. Conservatism is not at all a bad thing. But what the GOP is doing is not even in the same galaxy with social conservatism. Nostalgia for the good old days is one thing, but for these guys, the good old days include Inquisitions, drumhead trials, the union of church and state and of course, rampant abuse of power.

[Walden2Now]

I would like to see the emergence of one or more new parties. However, in order to prevent a situation in which an election is one with only a plurality of votes, I would also like to see the adoption of Instant Runoff Elections, as proposed by Jesse Jackson Jr. and others.

[GrannyForObama]

Last night a Republican Congress member who shall remain nameless was running on in primetime about how the "Republican Party needs to get back to the conservative principals it was founded on." This in fact is a big myth. In fact the first Republican Platform is readily available on the web and I urge everyone to google it and read it. The party was founded on an anti-slavery and anti-polygamy platform. It called for admitting the State of Kansa into the union as a free state. It also supported a railroad to the Pacific Ocean constructed WITH AID BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and that Congress make appropriations for the improvement of rivers and harbors.

It also stated that "the highwayman's plea that 'might makes right' ...was in every respect unworthy of American diplomacy and would bring shame and dishonor upon any Government or people that gave it their sanction."

I have said it before and it is a national tragedy...the Republicans have become the party of the mean, the stupid and the unrepentent Confederates. At this point, the Whig Party would be a great improvement. Great article!

[RepugsOut08]

"The Republicans have become the party of the mean, the stupid and the unrepentent Confederates."



Amazing, isn't it? The party of Lincoln, partly founded on anti-slavery, chooses, in the 1960's, to begin a racist southern strategy to get voters angry about Civil Rights. Once they made that pact with the devil, their ultimate fate was sealed. Let's hope the Republican Party, as it stands now, is finished.

[retiree2]

Third parties have played a valued role in our campaign system, but the two parties that control our nation (and the silly voters who continue to support them) have created laws that seemingly keep third parties from having a voice in this very system.

I like the idea of a resurrected Whig party. The original Whigs were comprised of disaffected Democrats as well as disaffected National Republicans (the party of John Quincy Adams).

The party could be resurrected as long as there is a leadership that is seeking policies that are for the betterment of our nation.

I'm a little miffed at myself since I voted for "change I can believe in," but once again, feel that I have been snoockered. Federal spending is way out of control and at some point "X", regardless of what the economists say (and they're VERY divided on this!) this nation cannot afford to continue this reckless and undisciplined spending.

[queotic]

"I'm a little miffed at myself since I voted for "change I can believe in," but once again, feel that I have been snoockered. Federal spending is way out of control and at some point "X", regardless of what the economists say (and they're VERY divided on this!) this nation cannot afford to continue this reckless and undisciplined spending."

When you voted for President Obama, were you aware of his positions? Did you listen to his speeches? I did and he's doing exactly what he said he would. Did you think Obama would wave a magical wand and fix tall he problems of the past 30 years? It's going to take time, money and hard work to get us out of this mess.

[metogamekun]

Okay, let's look at the GOP agenda:

- States' Rights - opposes California pushing for more control of its environment

- Personal Freedoms - abortion and homosexuality

- Fiscal Responsibility - 'giggle'

- Strong Defense - seems to contradict the one above with outlandish military spending

- Family Values - divorce, promiscuity, going after paiges

They seem pretty turned around. Perhaps the Whigs it is?

[GuyRC]

I have to disagree with you on Fiscal Responsiblilty, that one requres at least a 'guffaw'

[yorkie]

THIS SHOULD BE READ AND VISITED HERE BY EVERYONE ONLINE PERIOD !! THE USA NEEDS A NEW THIRD PARTY OR 2ND REAL ONE TO REPLACE THE OLD PARTY !! (NO LONGER GRAND) !! WE ARE STILL IN AN OUT OF DATE SYSTEM FROM THE 1950'S......WE NEED TO REFORM OUR ELECTION AND POLITICAL PARTY BALLOT ACCESS LAWS ASAP !!! BOTH DEMS AND OLD PARTY HAVE BEEN IN CAHOOTS HERE AND WE SUFFER FOR IT !!!! WE NEED A VIABLE MODERATE OR CENTRIST PARTY TO SERVE INDEPENDENTS, DISSEFECTED REPUBS ETC...THIS WOULD HELP DIFFUSE THE INFLUENCE OF THE PRO-LIFER RELIGIOUS CROWD..... UNTIL THE 50'S WE HAD A SOMEWHAT VIABLE SOCIALIST PARTY WITH PEOPLE LIKE FORMER VP HENRY WALLACE RUNNING FOR PRES.....IN 1912 WE HAD SOME STRONG PARTIES LIKE PROGRESSIVE OR BULL MOSSE, WE HAVE BECOME WAY TOO HOMOGENIZED POLITICALLY......THE GOP WAS OUTGROWTH OF NEED FOR NEW PARTY WITH THE OLD WHIGS AND FEDERALISTS DRIFTING AWAY BACK THEN....

[TheIndependenceParty]

Had to turn down my glasses with all caps there, Yorkie.

[dyfet]

I am not sure I would want to go all the way back to the wigs, but a return to some aspects of the beginning of the last century, when Kropkin's "mutual aide" was still fresh, labor was getting organized, and the U.S. had some of the most important progressive figures, maybe recovering those parts of a past period would be good for this country today. The traditions of progressive socialists, like Hellen Keller, the spirit of Heymarket, and that aspect of the history and culture of this country have been truly been lost and forgotten. That to me is what America was supposed to be about.

But if we go back to the 18th century, then this time maybe they could do that constitutional convention right this time, and bring forward all of the ideas found in the Gayanashagowa, including especially a model for participatory democracy, rather than just some of the parts which were used to create the U.S. constitution and federal system we have today. The Gayashagowa already had worked successfully for 500 years before the arrival of the first European boat people. The U.S. constitution did not endure even half that...

[TOOO]

Third parties have been tried... and got nowhere. So, for the time being, we're stuck with a two-party system.

So, since we're probably going to be stuck with the GOP, I really hope they can get their act together. Mr. Steele needs to show he can live up to his last name, and put some discipline into his party. When almost all of the Republicans voted against the stimulus package after Limbaugh told them so, that's quite a huge coincidence. Apologizing for insulting Mr. Limbaugh is one thing, but kissing his posterior is another. How about, "I'm sorry I offended you, but we don't take orders from an entertainer." (Okay, he'd be laughed off the stage, but they need to start somewhere.)

[AngelaQuattrano]

We are stuck with a two-party system, due to the way politics is set up. But there is no guarantee that the Republican party will remain one of those two parties.

It's inevitable that when a party self-destructs, another one wil take its place. The Republican party is working hard to stay on that trajectory into oblivion right now.

[dave1111]

Like it or not, I do think we are witnessing the end of the GOP. What to name the new parts? how about True Independents and True Conservatives?

[MPolonia628]

http://www.modernwhig.org/

Someone beat them to it!!

[Joethepauper]

The Republicans would be against most of what that website stands for. They don't like science and they don't like alternative energy (unless it's oil, coal, or nuclear) because it's an alternative to their cash cows. I suspect they will just try to "rebrand" their party like Enron and Blackwater did. They will call it something else and deny that they were ever "Republicans" at all. Maybe we can give the term "conservative" a negative connotation over time like they did to the word "liberal". They are too dug-in to ever change their wrongheaded ideas, so changing their name is their only choice. They should be hangin' out with the Greens, though, because maybe some environmental "conservation" would rub-off on them.

[tomsemioli]

Excuse me Mr. Lowe, but wasn't it the Democrats who cried about Ralph Nader as the third party spoiler?

[hark]

Enough with the gloating. The Republicans could worship Satan and still beat the hell out of the Democrats in 2012 if the economy hasn't rebounded.

And the chances of that happening grow slimmer and slimmer, as Obama/s "stimulus" plan dwarfs in comparison to tax cuts and bail outs. It should be the other way around. We should be investing massive amounts in a 21st century economy and energy infrastructure. We're not. Instead we're wasting our resources trying to reconstruct the financial and auto industries to the state that brought them down, all while the scope of this economic meltdown widens and deepens.

Already, voices are mounting in opposition to Obama's policies from places one wouldn't expect, as the stock market continues to tank.

This could prove to be a Pyrrhic victory, if the Democrats party on and fail to govern. There's a huge job before them, and the odds of success are not great.

Remember, all the Republicans have to do to win is to demonstrate that government doesn't work. The Democrats have to prove that it does. And right now, they appear to be making it easy for the Republicans.

[ScooterLiddy]

You don't get it do you? The Religious Right is collapsing (Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, et al), torture as policy is passe, wars without end (GOP), bankrupting the nation (GOP), global warming deniers, anti-science, anti-alternative fuels, anti-intellectual, anti-American deadbeats are not what America is looking for. Now and forever.

[Pete]

What a load of crap. President Obama has been in office for less than 2 months, and already he has shown what government can do when adults are making decisions based on the aggregate good of the country. Can you explain his approval rating if it's true Democrats are on the defensive in terms of having to 'prove' government works? You've got it backwards. The Republicans proved that government can cause tremendous amounts of problems when it is purposefully sabotaged. All the Democrats have to do is actually, wait, hold your breath for this one" GOVERN.

I'm not sure who you support, but to be critical of an administration only 2 months old is a great example of how this country got in this mess... immediate gratification, me me me...

[Joethepauper]

Have some patience. I think you took the Republicans too seriously with all that sarcasm about Obama being the Messiah. He's just a man, and he has no mystical healing powers for the economy. What we are hearing about the bonuses and junkets was a result of the first round of TARP reverberating. It takes a while for economic data to be compiled and analysed. There will be a profound difference between the management of TARP under Bush vs. Obama. Nothing is perfect, so don't be surprised if there is some waste, fraud, and abuse. The recipients of TARP don't change their ways, and if some do, it's not an overnight transformation. They have been wealthy all their lives and surround themselves with people who would never tell them "NO". Now, at least one person with the power to tell them NO is finally telling them NO. If they refuse, they will be held accountable for what they do with the money. Quit watching the Dow, it's not good for you. It's fictitious made-up b#llsh#t, and the people running it are selfish, greedy pri#ks. If you had so much invested that your life savings is threatened, welcome to poverty. If this is your first taste of poverty, get used to it. I'm poor, and I never had the priveledge of gambling in the stock market because I could never afford rent, food, misc. bills, with enough leftover to invest in my own entreprenurial ideas, much less the stock market.

[cyclobenzaprine9]

Poor you. Still in denial.

[GuyRC]

I share some of your concern but the Republicans can't win until they find a voice and a message. Three years from now if Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin say "Government is the problem not the solution" they are doa. And right now the minority that stil call themselves conservative really want to hear that message, though they'd rather hear it from Rush Limbaugh.

[LoyalOpposition]

What the Whigs or Know Nothings, or whatever the Republicans are called, just don't understand, is that President Barack Obama is like a member of our very own family. I have heard this from several people, and since a sibling and I had been comparing Obama to our older brother, too, I know that this connection is much broader than just in my own family and neighbors. Therefore, whomever opposes President Barack Obama, opposes our family. Whomever wishes that his policies, his handling of the important issues that are affecting us all, end up in failure, are wishing ill for our entire family. So it is best that the Republican Party address the parts of the issues and policies with which they disagree with respect for Our President and the American People who elected him. President Obama has already said that he desires to have an honest dialogue with those who don't agree, and is willing to listen to their alternative, constructive ideas. That's all the Republican Party has to do to be taken seriously once again by the American People, and at this moment in time, by the world, that is watching. Keyword: Respectfully.

[Marklar]

I have often thought that we would be better served as a people with more of a multiparty system similar to the parlimentary systems used in the rest of the world. That would create real discussion of issues and would mean that people would actually have to compromise on things...rather than just concentrating on the next election so they can undo all the stuff done by the other party.

[denholt]

Amen. Unfortunately, what we have in the Rush-publican Party is an inability to make any concessions in the interest of the common good. Put simply, Rush-publicans have no understanding (or ability to understand) the notion of living together in a civil society. They are only concerned about themselves as individuals, with 90% of their focus being on their own individuals wallets/bank accounts. I see this as an insurmountable obstacle to the democratic ideal, which most Rush-publicans are quite unfamiliar with.

[Ludwig]

This column wasn't very serious, but I am serious in hoping for the collapse of the two-party system. Thus I want to see not one but TWO new parties. I want the R's to split between the libertarian, fiscal conservative wing and the warmongers and haters. Then I want to see the D's split between the progressives, greens, anti-imperialists and the corporatists. On many issues, the libertarians and progressives could collaborate. In any case, there would be anti-corporate voices with much greater room to maneuver.
Think about it.

[Buddy McCue]

I AM thinking about it. I like it.

[PATina]

Agreed We definitely need a multi-party system.

[PhilipB]

Well said.

[tjfdownsouth]

Yes, I think there is a large gap in the middle that neither party fully represents. More people at the table for debate is always better.

[jinxed]

I totally agree ... its nice to know I'm not the only one who feels this way.