What’s the Republican Party for? 19

We’re not just wondering what the Republican Party stands for. We’re also wondering why it exists at all.

An entirely different conservative party is badly needed to oppose the evil Left. (It would be splendid if a conservative party came to power that would exclude religion from its political thinking, but to wish for that – we fully realize – is to be far too unrealistic.)

John Hinderaker at Powerline writes:

It is almost unbelievable how badly Congressional Republicans have botched their opposition to President Obama’s illegal executive amnesty and the funding of the Department of Homeland Security. The House, under John Boehner’s direction, did the right thing: it passed a bill that fully funded DHS, but barred spending to implement the amnesty that has now been declared illegal by a federal court. The action then moved to the Senate, where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell tried repeatedly to bring the House measure to the floor for a vote. Four times, the Democrats filibustered the DHS funding bill.

As a result of the Democrats’ filibuster, DHS was in danger of running out of money. That put Republicans in a strong position. All they had to do was … nothing. If they didn’t blink, pressure on the Democrats to fund DHS would prove irresistible. It’s not for nothing the voters gave the GOP a majority, right?

Instead, Mitch McConnell backed off. He gave in to Harry Reid’s demands, even though Reid was surely bluffing, and the Senate passed a “clean” DHS funding bill that did nothing to block the illegal amnesty. That put the House in an untenable position. With the clock ticking down to the last hours before DHS ran out of money, it was now Republicans–not Democrats–who were standing in the way of funding the Department.

Having been sold out by the Senate, House Republicans bowed to the inevitable. John Boehner tried to pass a three-week funding extension, but didn’t have the votes. At the last possible moment, the House fell back to a seven-day extension, with Democrats providing the needed margin of support. The seven-day extension can have no possible purpose other than to give Republicans an opportunity to beat an orderly retreat.

If the Republicans wanted to arm their enemies, they couldn’t have done a better job. This is the New York Times triumphant account:

Republicans vowing to govern effectively as a congressional majority failed a fundamental test Friday, when House leaders managed to narrowly pass only a seven-day funding extension to avert a partial shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security just hours before money was to run out.

That’s a news story, not an opinion column. But it’s hard to blame the Democrats for exulting. They were in a corner; they had no cards to play; the voters have ejected them from the majority in both chambers; their objective was to keep alive a patently illegal program that had already been declared so by a federal judge. And the Republicans still couldn’t manage to pull out a victory.

Politics is like anything else: if you want to succeed, you have to be good at it. As best I can tell, Washington Republicans aren’t.

We need new leadership, and we need it now.

Posted under Christianity, Conservatism, Religion general, United States by Jillian Becker on Sunday, March 1, 2015

Tagged with , , ,

This post has 19 comments.

Permalink
  • Don L

    What’s the Republican Party for? The Republican Party!

    What’s the Democratic Party for? The Democratic Party, stupid!

    What’s the Un-Party for? The De-Careering of DC so elected officials will secure our unalienble rights; like they’re supposed to, friend.

  • Frank

    I disagree with one point – “It would be splendid if a conservative party came to power that would exclude religion from its political thinking, but to wish for that – we fully realize – is to be far too unrealistic.”

    If you think it is unrealistic then you have already lost the battle. The number of Americans who do not identify with any religion so has grown in recent years; indeed, about one-fifth of the public overall – and a third of adults under age 30 – are religiously unaffiliated as of 2012. And those numbers are increasing rapidly. Now add to that number the educated religious voters who understand that religion, any religion and government is a dangerous mix. The problem is the GOP is now controlled by religious dinosaurs who want to turn America into a Christian theocracy. And they still believe that pandering to the religious voters is enough to win elections. If the GOP wants to become relevant again it must throw out the theocrats.

    I completely agree with the closing sentiment from the article.
    “Politics is like anything else: if you want to succeed, you have to be good at it. As best I can tell, Washington Republicans aren’t. We need new leadership, and we need it now.”

    • We stand pleasantly corrected.

      • What would the new conservative party that excludes religion from its political thinking be called?

        • Frank

          How about the Barry Goldwater GOP?

          • I doubt if many people under 30 have heard of Barry Goldwater.

            But a variant of “GOP” might be a good idea. The Better Good Old Party?

            • Frank

              I like it!

          • REALBEING

            How about “The Objectivist Party?”

        • A.Alexander

          May be the party of common sense? The term conservative can be the obstacle of their activity, while the “conservative” may cover any hard right activity?

    • Unfortunately, while a growing number of people under 30 are indeed atheists, most of them are also liberals. Finding actual conservative atheists is difficult and trust me, I’ve tried desperately to find them in any respectable numbers and I don’t think they exist. You either have the hard core religious pseudo-conservatives or you have the hard core liberal non-theists. It seems unlikely that there will be a meeting of the minds any time soon.

      • Don L

        Regretably, I have to agree with you.

        This ‘growing number’ who are birds leaving the religious rookeries are not doing so as a result of thinking but as a result of conditioning. They have merely been inculcated with the notion that religion cannot attain the equalities, fairness and rights that the emotional appeals and arguments foisted by the progressive/solcialist movement promises. They have already been convinced free market capitalism is the evil behind human misery.

        The leftists and new theism rejectionists (don’t know that they are atheists qua atheists) seek governance according to SHOULD: be eqaul opportunity, be fair-share taxation (?), be social justice, be income equality, be equality of all 71 genders (huh?), be the right to a job-healthcare-a great living without having to work for it, et ceteras. The point is, as Cephus points out, emotional drive beats out thought and rationality so they are not conservative candidates. [What law can be passed that would make a woman and man equal? Notwithstanding the other 69 genders leftists claim exist]

        What if, however, the Repubs did rid themselves of the theist influence? First for reasons already stated, those leaving religion are not leaving to be conseravtives. Would the GOP be any better? Hell no! For different moticves and by different tactics, the GOP is still a criminal socialist organization really not that much different than the Dems. They both employ patronage and cronyism as the means of seeking and retaining power. Neither party is interested in securing unalienable rights. They are solely interested in reelection. Ambition and avarice. A lifetime in office and the ability to “hands on” the Republics wealth…Career it is.

        The goal ought to be no parties! The notion of anything other than a private citizen serving in elected office for a short term and returnig to private life was incongruous and abhorrent to our Founders. Indeed, after Washington, until Lincoln, no president ever ran for a second term. Until 1900 and the progressive movement began, few elected officials ever ran for more than a term. Today, Incumbancy in the Senate runs at 90%+ and 85%+ in the House. Ambition and avarice at work in the name of the public good.

        We need an Un-Party to de-Career DC!

        (the incumbancy data from Mark Levin’s “The Liberty Amendments”. He is a theist and a mainstream economics adherrent. Irrational on both topics but his premise & purpose and methodology are right on. It is a worthwhile read.

        • REALBEING

          “This ‘growing number’ who are birds leaving the religious rookeries are not doing so as a result of thinking but as a result of conditioning.”
          Great thoughts, Don!

          I submit that this “conditioning” is a result of a lack of training these youngsters in the fine art of Personal Responsibility to a much greater level than what they are presently receiving.

          What sort of “roll-model” have these young folks ever had? Their Liberal and religious parents, who are a result of the same lack of training? The present president, cabinet, and his “czars?”

          How about an education “roll-model” who teaches them about the newest Liberal “GOD,” called “Social Justice” at every level in our schools?

          Some roll-model who teaches that the police and the military are criminals, big business, entrepreneurs, and rich people are greedy and are ruining our country?

          Someone who teaches that you should “work the Socialist system to your benefit” by letting governmental social policies, much like Affirmative Action take away normal experiences meant for you?

          Someone who teaches that Altruism, Social Justice, and ranting and complaining about not getting every single thing you want, for “free” will get you, the planet, and everyone on it to a place of peace, love and all that other bullshit?

          Tell me again, folks…….WHY do we find our country and our way of life “painted” into a corner?

          • Don L

            Absolutely correct.

            100 years of ideologically-progressive, politically-liberal, government-funded, union-managed compulsory schooling. History teachers that don’t teach history — it’s revisionary propaganda. Economics teachers that don’t teach economics — it’s central planning for government benefit. Hard science professors and researchers that are made dependent on government funding — yessir, global warming just as you say Mr Senator.

            Incredibly, taught not to think but to feel, they are unable to see that all the corruption of studies and sciences, of the mind, brings about more and more of that which they seek to correct. Of course, the professional ruling-class knows this…it’s their plan: “More money for education!!!”.

        • I think it really just shows that people can be rational in some parts of their lives and wholly irrational in others. I know a lot of this young brand of atheist and a lot of them are very knowledgeable about religion, they can argue logically and rationally when it comes to religion, but once you walk away from religious topics, they are every bit as irrational and hyper-emotional as the most religious fundamentalist you’e ever seen. A lot of it, I think, comes from their age and background, most of them are fresh-faced out of college and where is the bastion of hyper-liberalism? American universities. It’s no wonder they turn out that way, they just don’t know any better and they have no real world experience to teach them that liberalism is a dead end.

          I agree that a non-religious Republican party wouldn’t be any better because the modern-day Republicans aren’t conservative, they’re neo-cons, which is an entirely different thing. They still spend like drunken sailors, they still want to control the people and tell them what they can do and what they can’t, Republicans are closer to liberals than they are to conservatives any day of the week.

          I don’t think it’s worthwhile to get rid of parties though because humans are social critters and we will, like it or not, simply reform the parties again in the natural course of time. It’s like demanding anarchy. All you’ll do is break up current governments, only to have them re-form later. Humans naturally group together with others of a similar mindset. It’s what we do. There’s really no way to change that. We’re always going to have parties, I just wish there was a party for people like us. Right now, there isn’t.

          • Don L

            Hi Cephus,

            A week or so ago, on this site, a video of the homosexual & socialist British actor Stephen Fry was posted wherein he presented an extremely entertaining lambasting of god. In his presentation he also stated he was against god but not gods; such as the Greeks had. He favored the Greek gods notion because those gods accepted all ‘appetites’ [homosexuality] that the single god(s) don’t.

            Fry rejected a god because of the respective religions’ rejecting homosexuality…NOT because all god(s)/ religion beliefs and dogma are irrational: selflessness, collectivism, sacrifice, et ceteras. You cannot accept socialism and also say you reject religion through rationality. After all, they are basically one and the same. The new god deniers aren’t atheists whereas they still adhere to the irrational religious goals. They merely reject that religion can accomplish those goals. As Fry implies/infers, you can’t be for income equality or social justice if you reject genetic defects’ sexual behavior. An atheist also rejects the motives, premises and goals of religion/god(s). An atheist cannot also be a lefty/democrat/socialist/progressive/communist/
            fascist…or Republican except by there being no other alternative. One can’t be both rational here and irrational there…Only irrational on both religion and socialism. Fry, for example, sounds rational…he isn’t.

            It is my opinion that before the American republic can be restored to any semblance of the Founding, the Founding Principles, inclusive of Jeffersonian free market capitalism, today embodied in the Austrian School of Economics, MUST be illuminated. Since Ron Paul’s first run at the presidency, End the FED has grown exponentially. It, as you are apparently aware, driven by Libertarians. It is a shame they may drag Austrian Econ down by the association. Candidly, however, the most I have against them is their attitude toward IRAN. They assume Iran to be rational and therefore containable like the USSR. I firmly belief this to be wrong. They cannot see the terminal risk if they are wrong in their assumption.

            OK, as Jillian and I agree, the anarcho libertarians go to far. Even the icon Ludwig von Mises saw the necessity of minimal/limited government to secure rights. His booklet “Bureaucracy” explains why government programs fail because of bureaus. He also shows why they are still necessary and how they ought be managed and tasked.

            Sorry, I’m pooping out so I’m gunna cut short any discussion of party —

            To the extent real economics becomes taught, including the revelation of why socialism fails and can never achieve its high sounding goals, then the population is on the same page…differences like left and right disappear. The arguments will be about watchdogging government (not what we should do for it or it for us), at the local levels (as envisioned by the Founders) and career politics will be over. The UN-Party now for no Party later! If you think it, you can achieve it!

      • Aaah!

      • liz

        There does seem to have been a growing number of people (a lot of them younger) joining the libertarian camp, a lot of whom are probably atheists.
        They aren’t all necessarily conservative but at least they are for freedom from government tyranny. The Libertarian party has its flaws but in comparison to the Democrat and Republican parties, it looks like a vast improvement to me.

        • I don’t see the Libertarians as being an improvement at all. In fact, I find them one of the most irrational parties out there. You might find some of them who are fiscally conservative, but they tend to be off the deep end on other issues IMO.

          • liz

            I don’t agree with them on a few things that I know of, but I don’t know a lot about them. What are some specific things you’re referring to?