Warning Signs For The Republican Party: A Third Way?

The Republican Party establishment should take note, when you have two national political leaders like Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin both talking about supporting center-right Democrats as a means to a ruling majority, a seriously disgruntled base, in addition to on going mostly non-partisan demonstrations in the streets, you have three significant developments you shouldn't ignore.

The governor, 45, said she shared former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's view that Republicans, now trailing Democrats and independents in registration in many states, should back moderate to conservative Democrats in congressional districts and states where Republicans stand almost no chance of winning.

The object would be to build a majority coalition that reflects what polls suggest is the center-right tilt of the U.S. electorate as a whole.

I wouldn't take this quite as far as a third party move, not yet. But more an independent center-right movement, as Tammy Bruce suggests. For the Republican Party, it could be a part of an internal struggle for the party itself.

Still, it's worth repeating. What should be heard loud and clear by the Republican elite is that, you now have a significant portion of your traditional voting base that has just about had enough and political leaders within your own party now giving voice to that serious frustration. Combined with the Tea Party movement, while it wouldn't be easy, this all makes a third political way in America far more possible than it has been for decades.

Palin elaborates:

"I will go around the country on behalf of candidates who believe in the right things, regardless of their party label or affiliation," she said over lunch in her downtown office, 40 miles from her now-famous hometown of Wasilla — population 7,000 — where she began her political career.

"People are so tired of the partisan stuff — even my own son is not a Republican," said Mrs. Palin, who stunned the political world earlier this month with her decision to step down as governor July 26 with 18 months left in her term.

Comments

[Dale]

Republicans who are poo-pooing Palin better watch out. If she decides to campaign for their opponent in the primary then they might be in trouble.

[Gary Ogletree]

Right now the Republican Party's sole value is as a vehicle to elect conservative candidates, only because a third party would hand the election to the National Socialists. As far as sending them money, no way, we will donate to the candidates we like. A wholesale departure from the GOP would be great, but too risky while the National Socialists are in power.

[syn]

I have no problem with either Palin or Gingrich campaigning for Conservative Democrats however I do trust Conservatives won't embrace Newt's ridiculously absurd idea of joining hand in hand with Pelosi's Al Gore Global Warming-Climate Change Fraud.

Newt should have known better than to willfully embrace such insanity just to score a few measly political points; fraud is fraud no matter how many ways GE, NBC, Slim Pickens attempt to play their sick con-game upon free people.

I like Newt however his move to accept Climate Change Fraud was way out of the realm of common-sense anything.

[rrr]

So, in other words, according to Palin and Gingrich, Republicans need to tack to the center to build a winning coalition? Unbelievable. Isn't this exactly what Republicans did in the last election? If this is what Palin and Gingrich propose it's clear that they are part of the problem. Let 'em embrace Obama Lite all they want. I'm out.

[Rob Crawford]

I think, rrr, that they're contrasting center-right with the likes of McCain -- who is, at best, center-left.

I could be wrong. If I am, then I hope the idea goes down in flames.

[Mike]

I don't think that is what Palin and Gingrich are saying.

They are explicitly saying they will support CONSERVATIVES regardless of party label and implicitly saying that most D.C. R's are not "conservative." I agree. If there was a genuine conservative that happened to be running under the D banner, I would vote for that person over a McCain-Graham-McConnell R.

[Steve White]

You do get the sense that Gov. Palin is sick and tired of business as usual in the Republican party, and who can blame her? Thank you, Mr. Steve Schmidt, for alienating one of the few bright spots in the party in your quest to explain how you didn't completely screw up your job as national campaign manager last year. Instead of rising to her defense, the national Republican party has abandoned the governor, and they're going to regret that.

Ms. Palin and Mr. Gingrich are correct: there are plenty of districts in this country where a Republican simply can't win. Supporting a Blue Dog Democrat is the next best option in those districts, and since BDDs tend to pay attention to their constituents, it provides some leverage.

Commenter rrr above misses the point: it isn't about tacking to the center, it's grabbing on wherever you can and pulling to the right. A district that is traditionally 70% Democratic in its voting habits isn't going to be fertile ground for an "authentic" conservative (whatever that is). But it could elect a moderate instead of a progressive, and that, according to Palin and Gingrich, would count as a victory. A coalition of BDDs and moderate to conservative Republicans could effectively set the agenda, whereas right now the progressive Democrats are doing that. Which do you prefer?

[Dantes]

Hey, Sarah, it's a lack of partisanship that bothers me. We have the democrats, and the RINO's.

Would be nice to have partisan conservatives. There seems to be this idea that government should be efficient, there should not be a division of powers, and everyone should support the crazy statists that have taken control of the country and are driving it into the ground.

[smitty]

There are two ways: Constitutional and "else".

[Wayne]

rrr...the idea is to either vote conservative first or if given a choice between a left-leaning RINO and a conservative leaning donkey vote for the donkey. At least you get a dem who (if enough are elected) can pull that party a little farther to the right as well.

[JEM]

As far as I'm concerned if someone is anti-climate-fraud, pro-fiscal-sanity, supports broad energy development and a robust foreign policy and restrained use of Federal power domestically, I'll support that person regardless of their party.

Abortion, gay anything, these are not issues I want to see on the national agenda.

[Marlowe]

Syn,

I hope you meant T. Boone Pickens, and not Slim Pickens. I'll pass no judgment on T. Boone, but Slim was a man among men. He went "toe-to-toe with the Ruskies" in Dr. Strangelove, as you may recall.

[syn]

Marlowe, many thanks for the correction; I did mean T. Boone Pickens who obviously is no Slim Pickens.

[Brooklyn]

The folly of abandoning the GOP is simply insanity.

Gingrich makes statements often out of his own self interest, in the face of what he feels is popular context.

Mrs. Palin, a fine American, ran on the Maverick ticket, and has developed her political career as a moderate reformer.

The hype after 2004, largely debasing the GOP and the Bush Administration was deeply misguided. It was purely self destructive in a conservative sense, losing perspective of reality and the context of the alternative. Pushing for sound policy is admirable, undermining your own interest is stupidity. Many of the high profile Conservative Punditry embraced emotive, reactionary, hyperbolic nonsense, failing to provide constructive insight.

We see the same fashion continues today. Some actually divide with ugly stereotypes of blue bloods, and pit the likes of Mrs. Palin vs. the GOP. It is ironic, as many seem eager to undermine their own interests, and what is best for the Nation.

The Republican Effort since the Obama Election has been admirable. Nothing is perfect, you will always have some blow by the winds in politics and adopt what they perceive is successful. But that is why one must never cede elections, like the way many advocated for 2006.

Abandoning the GOP, not working to empower sound Conservative policy within this Party, as Reagan once wisely did, would be pure suicide.

Fashion pushers are often wrong, and it would be sad for all, if the lead many over a cliff yet again.

[mark l.]

it would be very hard to campaign against a guy like heath shuler.

he won his nc district against a conservative with a ton of shady real estate dealings, within a very conservative group of voters.

although elected as a dem, he has been, to my knowledge, a stalwart opponent of pelosi and her joke bills.

if palin singled him out to help him, and give him credit for putting country and constituents above party, I would not lose any sleep.

[DensityDuck]

You know, a third party might well be a GOOD thing for actual conservatives. Right now, "limited government" and "social conservative" are seen as linked. Having a party that specifically defines itself as The Social Conservative Party means that economic conservatives can say "look, we AREN'T socially-conservative, that's the SCP over there and they AREN'T us."

Yes, this is basically Perot 2012. However, I would hope that this theoretical new party manages to say "come in, we like people" rather than "you're stupid if you don't join". Because the one sure-fire way to make stupid people mad is to point out how stupid they are.

[Mwalimu Daudi]

I think that Steve White is wrong in the respect: the so-called Blue Dog Democrats are actually leftists who occasionally vote against the wishes of the Democrat Party in order to appease the embittered God-and-guns-clingers in their districts.

I live in a heavily Republican district (all of the local and state elected offices save one are held by the GOP) which is represented by a "conservative" Blue Dog Democrat. This Blue Dog voted for Obama's pork bill, voted repeatedly to cut off funding to US troops fighting in Iraq, is calling for major cuts in missile defense, supports gun control, is an enthusiastic proponent of Obamacare, opposes extending the Bush tax cuts, and is even receptive to the idea of the "Fairness Doctrine". His sole claim to being a conservative is in voting against cap & trade - for now, he says.

And yet the national GOP is terrified to take him on, even to the point of refusing to fund a conservative challenger in 2008 (BTW: this challenger, with almost no money, came within six points of pulling off a major upset). This Blue Dog represents the ideal GOP candidate as far as they are concerned (Colin Powell’s ideal, anyway).

All of this talk about supporting conservative Democrat candidates ignores one glaring fact: there aren't any. As someone once snarked, a “conservative” Democrat is someone who gets caught naked in bed with Ted Kennedy and says, “Don’t worry - we’re not really in love!” Far better to support conservative insurgents (Republican or independent) and let the Democrats fend for themselves.

[Assistant Village Idiot]

Perspective (though how this plays out in strategy is debatable): The Republicans have never had anything like "control" of the branches of government, despite the rhetoric of the past 8 years. Democrats have the bully's mentality that any thwarting of their will means the other side has some unconscionable, and unfair amount of "control." Republicans have not produced results partly because of their own fecklessness and big spending, but also because they have never had the votes. Not close. Obama is working with larger majorities than any Republican since 1922. Many Democrats in the 20th C had similar majorities to work from. Most Republicans had split government. Bush had bare majorities only half of his eight years.

Grassroots frustration with Republicans had better take into account that they have never had the opportunity to do more than pass a few big-ticket items with a full-court press. Beyond that, it has only been hampering Democrats. Whether the Republicans we have elected would have done more if they could is suspect. But the cold reality is that the experiment has not been run for a hundred years.

Reality is a good thing to keep in mind when you are making plans.

[gjg]

First-Get out of everyone's personal business. I don't care what you do in your personal life and I don't want you do be involved in mine. I don't care if you marry a plant, animal or mineral, just as long as you and your significant other pay your taxes! This is what turns people off especially when those that preach get caught with their pants down.
Second-Responsible spending. Don't try to please everyone but provide for those that need it.
Third-Responsible regulation. Regulate what needs to be regulated.
Fourth-Responsible taxing.

Start to see a pattern here?
In other words, shut up on the moralizing and concentrate on the money.

[Dan]

Republicans will never win again as right-to-life, big-government democrats

[An American]

I'm ready to move on... cannot be progressive democrat, won't be "moderate" republican. I guess I have to become the new party. After 25 years, good bye Republican party.

It has been my experience, you can depend on Democrats being solid anti-american and depend on the Republicans to betray us (after an anemic whine and showing a false backbone).

[ExRat]

I changed my registration in '07 from Repub to "no pref" because of the way the Repub congress that was elected on the strength of Gingrich's Contract with America had mucked things up so badly by "going native" in DC and acting like the Dems did when they controlled Congress. (The current pack of Dems is doubling down, and if the country survives with its Constitution intact, they'll have to "GM" themselves to ever be more than a token minority among the next generation of voters.)

That said, one of the biggest frustrations I have had with the Repubs since Reagan is that their presidential nominees have all campaigned as if they didn't really want the job. Nothing inspiring, no "fire in the belly." Like lukewarm Pablum. Gov. Palin was a breath of fresh air and could have been the catalyst for reinvigorating the GOP, but the party insiders have treated her almost as badly as the legacy media have, and I see no reason why she should put herself out for the party as it currently operates.

First principles are more important than party loyalty, which Gingrich and Palin both recognize, and until the GOP leadership recognizes that fact, they won't be successful in regaining the majority.

[tcobb]

The TEA party movement and the people who support it can, I think, ultimately achieve a great deal, but not as a third party movement. What is needed is to impress upon every politician in the land that we are an INTEREST GROUP. That they understand. The NRA, AARP, the unions--politicians understand such groups very well and are reluctant to annoy them. The movement shouldn't be tied to any political party ever.

Forget about political parties--that's like a band of guerrillas going head on against the assembled might of an army--they will lose every time. But if you pick off a soldier here, a helicopter there, you may ultimately win.

The focus should be on individual races for the Congress or Senate, and the primaries. If the Democratic candidate is a small government advocate and the Republican is a "socialist lite" candidate, throw the support to the Democrat. Let NO party think that the movement's supporters can be taken for granted. And if it comes down to supporting a third party candidate in a local election--do it.

The other thing that must be done is to focus on the core issues and REFUSE to become involved in others, like abortion, immigration, or whatever. That is one of the primary defects in our system of political parties today--the parties "bundle" issues together. If you care about having a policy of X, you can only get it by voting for a package that contains W,Q, and Z, none of which you care for. Its kind of like buying cable TV, in order to get what you want you also have to pay for a lot of crap you don't want. A lot of the erosion of our liberties has been due to the nature and intrinsic structure of political parties. The movement can help to erode that structure.

[Janet C]

I seriously doubt that was the real Micky Kaus who commented, btw...

[Ken Hahn]

I can't agree with Palin here. I'd love to see some real conservative Democrats, but the blue dogs are lap dogs that Pelosi allows to vote against her when she doesn't need them. I will never support anyone who could vote for the Democratic leadership no matter what their stated beliefs are. A vote for Pelosi for Speaker or for Byrd for President Pro Tem forever disqualifies a person from the honorable title of conservative.

On the other hand, the Republican establishment brought us John McCain and seems to be determined to prevent any real conservative from rising in the party's leadership. The McCain staffers who spend their time sniping at Palin are about as interested in promoting Republican ideals as is Ted Kennedy. Like the Democrats, they love power. And if at all possible, again like the Democrats, I'll deny it to them. The GOP has about six months left to come to its senses and start representing the values that separate those who believe in the country from those who believe in the government. If Republicans don't want those values, someone else does. By the end of the year the Republican Party can stand with its members or see those members walk away.

I have been a Republican since I could vote ( 1968 ) and I'd love to stay one for the rest of my life. But Goldwater made me a conservative before that and I will remain one of those. If that must be outside the GOP, so be it. The Democrats cannot be allowed to win in 2010. A toothless, get-along-go-along Republican Party won't beat them. I'll vote for someone who wants to.

[Emerson]

I'm firmly with Newt and Palin on this, and I don't think it means what most of the posters here think. I'm an independent, center-right voter who'll never be a member of The Base. I want The Base to be motivated but I see them now circling the wagons and making expletive-infused demands for ideological purity. I want to defeat socialism, so all I'm asking from the party is to do what Reagan did - appeal to everyone from the right to the center. Nothing has to be watered down per say - it's more of a request not to turn off voters with resentment and demands.

[M. Report]

Let me propose a top-level distinction
for your consideration:
Politics as usual vs National Survival

Most political issues don't matter to me.
Not having to carry unconcealed every
time I leave the house does.

If the economic situation gets much worse,
and stays that way for very long, the US
is going to start looking like Argentina;
Sarah Palin understands this, Gingrich
maybe not so much, because she is a
survivor, and Gingrich is a politician.

[Toby]

Democrats should be just as worried about losing people. been a Democrat for 25 of the last 26 years. They can kiss my vote godbye as well as millions and millions of other Democrats are doing. What the talking heads don't get is peopole-regardless of party-are fed up with the corruption on both sides and elected leaders acting like Tyrants. I could care less who their party is, if a responsible, common sense politician emerges, they have my vote. This big governemnt heading towards Obama and corrupt Dems dictatorship is the last straw

People that never paid attention to politics before are doing so now as the Dems and leftist are quickly flushing the country down the toiletl. Only they will have money and will rule like Chevez

[plumpplumber(balding)]

Where to begin...well, the tea partiers represent a large number of "actual taxpayers", and we ALL vote. As I cruise the net reading conservative blogs, I notice a couple of things emerging from the noise. Folks are getting tired of paying for others. Do I really care about a strung out junkie and her baby? No, I don't. Do I want our taxes to pay for young "women" of whatever color that have 5-6 kids before they are 21? No, I don't. What is sinking California? Why should our money be spent on hopeless causes?

Another thing that comes up a lot is that most of us who are aware of history are really afraid of the leftist-marxist that is our President.

[ajacksonian]

Whatever did happen to the Reagan concept of reducing government, getting it out of my wallet, my life, my home and my bedroom? Even Reagan couldn't do that... but I'd rather vote for someone who would try to do that than someone worshipping Reagan and just performing the same way.

Conservatives who want limited government, less intrusive government and fiscally responsible government need to coalesce around those things and start forming the basis of removing government from our daily lives. We got by from 1789-1900 with that, and I sure bet the Nation could do just as well now as it did then... and we might even get to skip the unpleasantness of a civil war if we had an ounce of sense in our leadership. As it is... well... we are heading into Shaysite territory and soon, very soon, back to 1772-3. You can rollback government and not be a ratchet Republican.

Until I hear Rollback as a going concept, I won't believe any Republican or Democrat who claims to be conservative running for office. Say it. Mean it. Do it.

[tim maguire]

The best way to get your vote noticed is to put it in play. Guarantee it to one party or the other and neither party has a reason to care about you. That's the big downfall of most special interest groups--they stop caring about your votes and only care about your money. So if you can't deliver big campaign donations (and many times, even if you can, you still get forgotten the day after the election), then by declaring for a party, you remove yourself from the democratic process.

If your goals are ideological and not simply self-interest, then the Palin/Gingrich method, the Tea Party method, are the best (indeed, maybe the only) way to reform the Republicans.

[wally sandaver]

Most posters here agree with Palin that the rump Republican party can't achieve any electoral majorities. But most posters ALSO agree that socially right wing rhetoric (of which Palin is the #1 champion) is what has turned the Republican party into a rump. Most Americans buy fiscal discipline (well, as long as they get their mortgage and baby deductions). But they are definitely not buying the Republican base issues, the fervid anti gay,immigrant and climate change sentiments. The road back is pretty clear but Palin's fiery social and anti environment rhetoric are what is standing in the way of the Blue Dogs switching to the Republican party to make a majority.

[fdcol63]

People bash "parties" and "partisanship", but large national organizations like these are the only way to aggregate, assimilate, and articulate the interests, values, and goals of large diverse polities. In the absence of political parties that represent large blocs of the electorate, you wind up with more numerous and less representative (and less influential) special interest and single issue groups.

Some might see this as a plus until they remember that countries with multiple party systems and proportional representation electoral systems typically have weak and ineffective coalition governments (can anyone say 'Italy'? LOL)

I think the US has benefitted greatly from the relative stability afforded by a strong 2-party system and our single-winner electoral system. A 3rd party would just divide the vote 3 ways, making it almost impossible for any single winner to enjoy a simple majority. Without this simple majority, the country would not believe that this candidate or party had a "popular mandate" to achieve any desired or needed national policies or actions.

Many have the fantasy of a strong 3rd party composed of the "silent majority" in the middle, but I don't think such a 3rd party would be viable in the long-term. Most people in the "middle" are usually politically apathetic and inactive, fat and happy, content to sit on the sidelines and let others (the party extremists) run the show.

It's only when these extremists pull too hard to one side or the other, and when the political pendulum gets moved too far to the Left or Right, that the "silent majority" becomes concerned enough to become active and engaged in the political process. They then pull hard to re-center the political pendulum, and once that happens, they then revert to their normal apathy and inaction.

I think the Founders understood this dynamic, and ingeniously put in place a strong 2-party system that, despite periodic periods of turmoil, basically shares power over the long-term and maintains relative peace and stability without the violent upheavals we've seen elsewhere in the world.

[Dan Riehl]

"I think the Founders understood this dynamic, and ingeniously put in place a strong 2-party system"

The FOunders didn't put a two party system in place. It has nothing to do with the Constitution. I'm not a third party advocate. And for someone above, the notion that social conservatism drove people away is ridiiculous, even if the rhetoric ould come down some in that sense. It was spending and a Big Government mentality no better than that of the Dems that finally lost the most people. And it still registared in the high forties in the last election for POTUS.

[ExRat]

Tim Maguire makes a great point in his 2:29 PM post. For example, for decades it has been a mystery to me why African-Americans vote in such huge majorities for the Dems. If they were thinking about what they were doing, they would split between parties a lot more, and might even pretty much reflect the white vote split.

Putting aside the fact that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted largely due to Republican support in Congress, by being so dependably Dem voters the African-Americans are marginalizing their own power at the ballot box. As it is, they get mostly lip service from the Dems (or if the Dems get worried maybe a little more "reverse discrimination") and the Repubs write them off. If they let it be known that their votes were in play, both parties would be kissing up in a big way. With different ideologies, to be sure, but being uncommitted would be a force multiplier for them. Who knows, they might even get charter schools in DC!

[Charlie Domino]

A third party is desperately needed. For everyone who says "it won't work," look at the Contract with America. You think Newt dreamed that up in the shower one morning? He saw Perot polling at 33%, and still get 19% after sabotaging his own campaign. Most of that came from conservatives. He knew that something had to be done.

A true conservative party will once again put the the choice on the Republican Party to listen to the electorate. To evolve...or die like the dinosaurs. Who will be the asteroid that forces change? Palin? Newt? A start-up like the American Conservative Party? (Disclosure: I'm the Secretary.) A combination of all the above?

Density Duck, is it ok to say that people aren't stupid, but they _are_ acting like absued spouses? "We can change him! I know my hubby (GOP) is good. I just have to try harder!" Conservatives just keep going back to the GOP, no matter how many times they get slapped around.

It's time for a divorce from that two-timing jerk. Let him hang out with that hussy, Big Government, all he wants.

[peter jackson]

The two major parties are simply out of ideas, so both have devolved into identity camps, offering identity politics. It's mindless really.

[Assistant Village Idiot]

Just to take the other side from some posters here, who are sure that it is social conservatism that is ruining our chances. I have yet to see convincing evidence of that. I hear quite clearly that many Republicans "feel" that to be so, but I trust their feelings no more than I do liberals' feelings. They count only one side of the balance sheet, the voters they believe we lose (and they don't produce much data on that). They don't even look at the other side of votes gained.

Hey, maybe they're right. But so far it's just been cocksure declarations without any reasoning or data behind it. It's hard not to come to the conclusion that they themselves dislike the social conservatives, which colors their view. Like it or not, the social conservatives have been the most reliable votes over the years, including this year, when a lot of libertarian leaners stayed home because they thought McCain was essentially the same as Obama. Thanks a lot, guys. You clearly are the great strategists the rest of us want to get behind.

[Subsistence Village Idiot]

Yes AVI, I, an idiot of a lesser village see the truth of your assessment of those who denounce our social conservative bretheren and sisteren. Country club and Rockefeller Republicans looked down their noses at Barry Goldwater and, later, Ronald Reagan. As for libertarians, Reagan's 1980 landslide was gained despite the best-ever vote count for an openly libertarian candidate for President.

Only after Ronald Reagan's presidency entered the history books did the GOP's self-labeled moderates begin to sing his praises. You're correct, Dr. AVI, moderate and libertarian Republicans are that party's fair-weather friends and never reliable in the clutch.

I'm amused by all the chatter about forming a splinter party. Who among those who are talking up that idea have any idea of what is required to put an independent candidate on the ballot in their state? Or to gain and keep ballot status for a minor party? Or ever worked at the grassroots level for any non-incumbent party? I do, I know, and I have. Talk from those "great strategists" is cheap. The blogosphere is so full of talk that blogs will almost pay folks to haul it away.

After having done several tours of duty as a minor party's clipboard-armed foot soldier gathering ballot-access signatures, manning public information tables, going door-to-door to register voters, and working my way to non-com then warrant officer analogue, well, I know what a fantasy the whole third-party trip is. When feminists in the 1980s were disgruntled with their pet party, the Democrats, and talked of starting a feminist splinter party, I was all for that for I knew it would be their journey to political oblivion. When Ross Perot appeared in 1992, I knew he was a bubble that would soon burst for he overwhelmingly attracted the sort of people whose refrain is a plaintive "stop the bickering" who don't care how a strong-arm political boss makes it stop. Sheep can't build a political movement.

Now here we are in another decade and once again there's chatter from the far beyond of the far back benchers about splintering off and following a third party, one that, conveniently, someone else will somehow form and present to the malcontents, ready made. Uh huh, and did I already mention that talk is cheap?

Here's a secret of political organizing I'll share with the malcontents: you don't need a party official's permission to be a party activist. The T.E.A. party organizers get it. The typical squishy GOP malcontents looking for an excuse to jump ship don't.