“We were at absolute peace, and there was no nation in the world with whom a war cloud threatened, no nation in the world whom we had wronged, or from whom we had anything to fear.” -Teddy Roosevelt

History can be a stubborn fact for those who seek to ignore it and what better way than to pretend that the grand history of the GOP did not start in the 1850’s, that Lincoln was not the first Republican president, and that it was not a party of progress, than to just say that the roots of the party started with the past Reagan Revolution and maybe with Barry Goldwater. It would be good for those who seek to return the party to ideas that have nothing in common with Republicanism but who realize that they may not have as strong a platform to voice their desires otherwise and therefore any attempts to discredit the actual past history of the party is in their view necessary. Read more »

“To an impressive degree, Theodore Roosevelt succeeded…in making the government that was under his control the most effective instrument in advancing the interests of the people as a whole, the interests of the average men and women of the United States and of their children.” -The Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt by Lewis L. Gould

As we develop ourselves into a new reform movement for the GOP, we will run into questions and challenges on what is the party’s future course, how the party can keep peace while being a big tent and to confront skepticism on whether or not a centrist base separate from having an extreme ideology can be actually built. This is important as we have gone through the history of the party and why today’s modern conservatism is not republicanism. While the last few writings have been about why progress is not something that is beholden to the democratic party and why the development into what is the modern conservative movement has put a major handicap on the GOP’s ability to run common sense governance, this will be about whether a centrist based party can even be achieved and why the doubt about a reemergence of a firm and solid centrist Republicanism is wrong. The future of the social spectrum of the Republican Party will also be addressed not as has been before in what it should include but if the spectrum from socially liberal to socially conservative without party litmus tests is possible to keep the party open.

Some reformers have expressed doubt that a centrist based party can be built because, as they state it, the center is a myth and the party is just too far to the right leaving only a mere moderation of conservatism as an option for reform. The problem with the main argument, that centrism is a myth, lies in their premise of it having never existed which merely ignores past political history of a center actually existing in not just the Republican Party but also the Democratic Party and a period where it was deemed that extremism was finished. In fact for many years, either one or both of the parties were based in the center with a strong base there or due to their makeup leaned center-left or center-right, but were able to keep a diverse group of ideas within the party while at the same time avoiding purist ideology and extremism from taking hold and control of the party. The center, if one looks thoroughly at our political history, was no myth and therefore should not be easily dismissed as such with the Republican Party throughout history having a strong centrist base that either went center-left or leaned more center-right, but never in an extreme, at least until very recent late 20^th century politics took hold.

So where did many of these centrist republicans go off to? More than likely there was a split between those who left the party during the last few decades and became independent centrists, those who switched sides to join a party that while not being their prime choice at least had some sanity compared to an increasingly theocratic/anti-government (libertarian) republican party, and those who ended up staying with the GOP but who, due to the loss of liberals and moderates over the years, ended up losing their voice and their influence as well. Or they would be told to be good republicans and fall in line with whatever path the party took, something that we have done but that is ironically not being seen from the far-right. A future strategy therefore is to regain these voters who left the party and to re-empower the centrists that are still left. Note that some have the idea that we adhere to a position that is really only independent rather than republican, but this avoids the fact that the “independent” label has no ideological or principled boundaries and can be set to anywhere on the political spectrum be it the center, the left and right or the extremes of those two. An independent can be a communist or an anarchist on the other end.

We don’t seek the extremes; we seek a basic principled center in American politics. It is of my belief that not only is there a population that is centrist in which a base can be built upon for the Republican party, but that it can be a very strong source of strength for a future party that takes advantage of it. These moderate independents have been considered a sort of “swingers” bunch going from one side to another in an election, the fickle deciding factor and not to be trusted. This observation is one that has been made by overlooking or failing to see how a purist ideological political party setup over the last few decades has actually not only contributed to this but has also led to this “see-saw” behavior from the formerly grounded, now turned mush, center.

The see-saw effect can be seen when in today’s parties candidates have to run to the edge of the political spectrum in order to get the votes of their respective parties. In doing so the center and those who make it up are forced to leave their solid home in the center, and have to choose between two candidates and their past stringent ideological rhetoric. This is regardless of how after the primaries the candidates then try to appear more moderate than what their positions were originally about since many times their stances that they took were so pure in their ideology that they cannot easily go back on what they had said and therefore will continue to be major factors in the general elections. This in turn forces any principled centrist to become a mere wishy-washy moderate un-principled due to these hard ideological choices. The strong centrist base of years past has certainly degraded into such a sad state, with the only possibility of resurrecting a strong centrism by being able to break the hold of the parties, in our case the Republican Party, of the ideological extremes which merely propagates a weakened center.

In addition to these historical and academic views I have, in my personal life, encountered many self-labeled “conservatives” or “liberals” who in fact are closer to the center than sometimes even they were willing to admit at first. The liberals encountered over a long lunch would eventually come to the realization of the limits of using and constantly creating a bigger government and how that is not always the answer to problems. The conservative in which I have also had time to intellectually poke and prod realizes that there has to be some common sense basic regulations in order to keep the markets sustainable and oversight to ensure that the interests of the people through industry is the end goal. Both will still be center-left and center-right respectively in what they “lean” towards in terms of ideology, but they realize that while they may go along with populist ideological extremist propaganda on both sides, they know personally or realize when given a chance for intellectual honesty to expose their rational side, on how strict adherence to an ideology is not only a roadblock to progress, it can even be harmful to our nation and its people if they were ever fully followed.

Now granted, there are those who will put up a mental block abandoning common sense and reality, wholeheartedly forming the extreme bases of both parties today through extreme ideology. Those same people make up the active rank-and-file of the grass-roots Republican Party membership today. It is through the study of history but also of our present state of politics that we can see that those who are actual hard-core ideological extremists only make up a small percentage of the population. In fact this is why numerous political polls frequently divide the left into “liberal and very liberal” and the right into “conservative and very conservative” with those who are “very” usually not being anywhere as numerous as the less ideological choice. Again, this can be seen as another split of where the centrist base went off to, many people who would have made this base of either one or both parties may have also just bought into the idea that and individual is a “conservative” or a “liberal” and that’s that. Deeper analysis of this reveals that common-sense and pragmatic thinking still very much reigns and those who would have adopted those staunch labels are in fact centrist based in their thinking instead of being based on the extremes.

In talking about a reformed party where the center is the base and where it emanates out from the center towards the center-left and center-right there has been questions on exactly what is the center for many issues. As one would go down the list, many people have different positions on individual issues and it would seem unrealistic to try and be “in the center” of all of those. In fact, my personal views on social issues are generally a liberal leaning one. Some may be more towards gun rights than others, so how are we able to honestly say that we could reform the Republican Party to be centrist? In this paper I will put forth what I have not in the previous ones with the view that when I use the term centrism, it refers to an economics/governmental view of the word. It is on the issue of the role markets and government play, using the American political spectrum and its history rather than an international one (which would be too far out with ideologies such as communism and fascism creating too broad of a measurement), and its inner roles, to determine the approximate center.

It would form a center that believes in the necessary role of government in society and its role in providing basic and necessary regulations of industries while believing that the markets and industries are the key to prosperity and progress for the nation; a center that seeks to avoid adherence to the extreme ideologies of laissez-faire libertarian conservatism of the far-right and over bloated bureaucracy and inefficient statist mentality of the far-left. While there are questions on whether the center itself is an actual realm where there are those who inhibit it (radical centrist) or a line where people stand on one side or the other (center-right and center-left) does not matter as much as it is the center on the basic unifying issues of economics and government and a vision of a pragmatic and principled fusion of the two and avoidance of the ideological extremes of the far-left and far-right that would form the unifying message of the Republican party. History has shown that this not only was plausible but actually was a staple of the American political system many years ago and therefore puts to rest any argument that seeks to see the center as a myth. Considering more and more are breaking off from respective parties in their disgust of extreme politics, there is a potential base that requires a party that stands for it. The breaking off of the far-right be it the anti-government libertarian/states rights conservatism or the Religious Right would help greatly in allowing the party to go center as well and re-energize this long lost aspect of the American political scene.

Another question that must be dealt with is the future of the party’s stance on social issues. In the previous parts of this series I have put forth points on how the party in fact had a socially liberal lean in its first 100 years and a bit more up until the election of Ronald Reagan, encompassing a large majority of the party’s history. The point of how the party had nearly become a theocratic party and how this needed to be rectified in any party reform was also stated. But what does this exactly mean? Does it mean that the party platform must change from a strict adherence to socially conservative stands to a purely social liberal one? I do believe that republicans must bring back their proud tradition of social moderation or liberalism but I believe that it would be best if this was done not at a party level but at the individual representative level. One of the biggest issues that have been brought up in our organization has been about how litmus tests have been wreaking havoc on our party’s electability throughout the nation; litmus tests put upon the party by a Religious Right backed fundamentalist social conservatism. One the biggest agreements is the view that these social litmus tests must be dropped in order to allow a candidate to run with the ability to put forth the important economic/governmental party stands but being free to mold their social beliefs to that regions or local area’s view. This is because throughout the nation there are very different beliefs on the entire social spectrum and by drawing a litmus test that would only work in rural parts of the South is a losing formula for sure. But, there must be restrain from some who may want the party platform to adhere to social liberalism as well, as that is doing exactly what the opposite side has done and put in a social litmus test that may make it extraordinarily difficult to win certain areas that may be more moderate or just plain conservative on the social issues spectrum.

While I do believe that there needs to be republicans who can be, such as those socially moderate or liberal who supported the civil rights act in 1964 in contrast to the conservatives, in favor of social progress and be on the right side of history, I also do not believe that this means we become as the fundamentalist Religious Right and force a narrow social view upon the entire party membership. A drop of a stringent social litmus test which has only been around for the last few decades and not the majority of the party’s history is needed to bring back the party to success as well as allow the individual candidates to be able to adhere to their party’s local views on social issues and unite around the basic principle of a balanced market/governmental fusion.

Unfortunately this will rely heavily on whether or not the social conservatives are able to break away from the Religious Right. I use the word “fundamentalism” which correctly labels these people according to Analyzing Politics by Ellen Grigsby. Aspects of fundamentalism such as 1) Religious truth being authoritative; 2) religious truth is compelling and not to be disregarded or reduced to being a mere option; and 3) if fundamentalism is to guide a government policy, laws must codify the authoritative truths of the religion, not assume a posture of neutrality on the issues of politics. We can see how easily fundamentalist based social conservatism can be difficult to deal with politically. What especially stands out for me is the second one of their view of issues to not be disregarded or reduced to being a mere option, which is what would happen if litmus tests were destroyed in bringing back the original republican party. There are social conservatives out there who are not enemies of science and who are not fundamentalist in their views and who could work within a party that focuses on the important economics/governmental aspect of politics and leave the social issues politics up to the respective regions. But again, whether or not this can be achieved will rely heavily on those social conservatives who ally themselves with the socially moderate, liberal and socially libertarian in order to throw off the yoke of fundamentalism as best represented by the Religious Right. If this can be done, a huge step towards revitalizing the GOP as well as bringing it back to its roots through internal reform will be taken.

While previously it has been clearly stated where the party should go, in addition to that it is imperative to ensure clarity on the use of labels such as “progressive” and how they fit with those goals that were put forth. We must address the sometimes used label of progressive centrism, and how and what progressive ideals can come back to their rightful place in the party. This is necessary since not every aspect of progressivism of the early 20^th century is applicable to today’s world and how the label progressive has been used to represent the far-left wing of the democratic party. Basic progressive ideals from that era that are applicable such as; efficiency through government reform; elimination of governmental corruption; the push for good quality education to be as accessible to as many people as possible; basic regulation and oversight of large corporations and monopolies; social justice issues such as enacting laws to deal with hate-crimes; environmental conservationism best exemplified by the largest government-funded conservation-related projects in U.S. history that were undertaken by Teddy Roosevelt’s administration. Regardless of where one is one the social issues spectrum, these basic issues that made up a part of early 20^th century progressivism can be applied to today’s world and can help unify the party. These are not necessarily liberal as some may believe as for example the first one, efficiency, sometimes required shrinking an over bloated bureaucracy to ensure it runs at its best with the least amount of waste or unnecessary taxpayer financed positions that would serve no or little purpose, perfectly compatible with conservatism. Thus what I call a progressive centrism.

What needs to be decided is when these terms should be used as such words as progressive may not play well in some parts of the country. Political wonks such as I and others may understand but when it comes to public opinion one has to take into consideration perception and how labels can be misused or misunderstood. What also must be realized is that eventually we must take control of the single word Republican and not just rely on terms like progressive republican or centrist republican. One thing the hardliners have used well is derogatory terms such as Republican In Name Only (RINO) to show we are not really republican and sadly our side has at times embraced such labels.

Perception is a huge variable if we are to come back and regain our place in the party and even move the actual base of the party towards our side and it and a reformed image in people’s minds won’t come immediately or overnight. In the end while we may use terms such as progressive and centrism to correctly illustrate who we are, and maybe using some of them may help us in the short term to distinguish ourselves from the far-right extremists, we must show to the world that we are Republicans and that the extremists are not at all. To regain control of what it means to be Republican will be our greatest challenge, but if we arm ourselves with the knowledge of who we really were and where we want to go, which I hope has been the case with this series so far, then I believe that it can and will be done.

“The new president shared the prevalent conviction among Republicans…that they represented the constructive nationalism that had preserved the Union during the 1860’s… ‘It remained the Nationalist as against the particularist or States’-rights party,’ Roosevelt wrote in his autobiography. Republicans believed that the power of the government should be employed with vigor and purpose in order to spread the benefits of an expanding economy to all classes of society.”-The Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt by Lewis L. Gould

An anti-government, States ’ Rights Party the GOP was not for most of its history, at least until the fringe took it over. Secessionism, extreme states’ rights, and those who at times seem to rather have had the Articles of Confederation instead of the Constitution, have nothing in common with true Republicanism. Near anarchic economic libertarian conservatives fit this bill. The same with it being a theocratic party, although it was well on its way of becoming one in the last couple of decades, fortunately the implosion of the “moral crusader” movement both in and out of the party has done much to stop that dangerous path that it was on. The theocratic movement being so connected to the anti-government libertarian conservative, or easier said “conservatarians” and their failed economic policy of out of control big business and hands-off Laissez-faire which merely turned them into corporate lapdogs, has brought both down to an all time low and their far-right ideological lunacy among the people and within the party apparatus is beginning to be seen and the cracks are beginning to form.

Republicanism is capable of offering so much more than what the hardliners of the far-right have been pushing for the last few decades. The most common question asked of moderate and the very few liberal republicans is why they haven’t made the move to the Democratic Party since it is supposedly, due to its pro-government stance, closer to the original republicanism of old. I first of all remind them that one party rule without competition is a loss of democracy itself, and not something that should be seen as welcome. This is certainly not the most important reason, but nevertheless a point that has to be made. There maybe be many other reasons, but in my opinion the most important one lies in the false idea that progressivism’s only natural home is with the democrats, ironic when one looks at their party’s overall not so progressive past and more importantly their somewhat dubious present actions.

Progressivism as done by the democrats has become merely a throw more money and raise more taxes solution to issues and problems. Many times this is done without proper inquiry and oversight into how it is being spent or even if what it is being spent on is even necessary or beneficial to the taxpayers and the ones it is meant to help. Unfortunately, the American people currently have no alternative. They have no choice when it comes to who can run government because the only alternative to the democrats is a conservative republicanism with libertarian roots that only seeks to hobble government and use it to advance narrow-minded theocratic ideas. Using a loose and simple analogy just for illustrative purposes, so no literal take on this please, but if in my small town the fire department failed to be effective in being able to put out home fires and the people put up for election on what to do about it, they would have the choice of two local parties; one that believes in having a fire department to put out the fires, but whose ideas have obviously not succeeded or have come up short, and the other that believes in getting rid of the department and having the “lazy people” rely on their own garden hoses.

That is not real choice and this is what we have in today’s political world. While there may be some extremists and kooks who believe that the fire department should be disbanded or hobbled, most people by and large will reject this view and want an alternative way of running their services such as the fire department or in the case of what this illustrates and represents the government. They want a competing view that appreciates the idea of having an established and active government, but don’t like what the guys who currently run it are offering. They want a pro-active government other than what is offered today but have no other choice other than the subpar Democratic Party since the other team is an extreme conservative filled party. They want an alternative choice that has new ideas on how to solve issues with government involvement, either directly or indirectly. While money and therefore taxes is important in finding the solution, progressive republicans must remember that it is only one variable in fixing the problem and that we must avoid what happened to the “throw more money” democratic party. Whether the ideas are market oriented or government oriented, they all require a party that has a positive attitude toward government and are active either in running the program themselves, or in providing appropriate government oversight to how markets run them. They want another option because, well, relying only on the democrats to carry out pro-active government policies seem to not really bring about much progress.

The Democratic Party has strayed far off course from the original progressive ideas to fund pet projects that smack in the face of fiscal responsibility. Of course the conservative faction of republicans would merely do more of the same failed policies as their ideas or do, as is their hands-off conservative nature, nothing. Progressivism is inherently a centrist ideology encompassing the center-right and center-left, with maybe a bit of a leftward tilt. And regardless of what kind of health reform or how the stimulus ends up working, we the people need another brand of progressivism that can deliver or at least compete with the old decayed progressivism of the democrats by putting forth a viable progressive alternative with new ideas for the 21^st century and renewed fiscal responsibility.

The Republican Party’s belief in the free-market is rooted in the belief that it is the best way to achieve prosperity to all Americans and can bring social progress. Business and industry are part of that principle, but when the markets and industries become increasingly not in favor of the well being of Americans, then changes must be made to ensure that the markets and businesses once again work for as many people as possible. If this means regulations and oversight to keep the free-markets running properly then so be it, as long as they are not overdone so as to strangle industry and trade unnecessarily. Much as laws and rules keep society effectively functioning and our freedom stays intact, but a balance must be sought so as to not go overboard.

It goes without a doubt though that unsupervised, deregulated capitalism eventually leads to bubble/burst economies of unsustainable highs and crashing lows. While the corporate elite may be able to weather a major failure by selling off one of their mansions, the newly unemployed workers are the ones that are hurt the most by such an economic roller coaster. Banking and financial firms practices of high risk that would in effect create a “too big to fail scenario” must be regulated to ensure that we aren’t put into the same corner and forced to put the heavy burden of bailouts onto taxpayers and our children. This is not to say that the bailouts are something that we as progressive republicans would have rejected. We would support the bailouts in order to do an about face in keeping the car from driving the car into the tree, as Mr. Ratigan put it.

Once there at the point of economic collapse we would have no choice, unless as some of the far-right fringe would like, we just let the economy collapse into a deep depression. But getting into that corner is not where we would want to be, and had we had done it, strong terms would have been extracted from these institutions for saving them. From neither the conservative republicans nor the supposedly “progressive” Democratic Party came strong terms for bank bailouts. Of course, proper regulation of high risk practices would have kept us from getting into that corner in the first place, and the moderate, liberal, and pragmatic conservative republicans that make up the progressive republican bloc will ensure that hands off policies that allow for corporate and bank abuse of the people to not continue.

To go back and defend the basic principle of belief in the markets is in effect to refute today’s version of conservatism/libertarianism. We should not push business for business sake but push for business for the people’s sake. This is what our party’s belief in industry and markets was originally about, the belief that future prosperity relied on a healthy and strong American business sector and industry. If a business is benefiting the average people and helping to advance society through increasing prosperity and wellbeing then that is good. If not, then we have our responsibilities to act as true Republicans and take steps to regulate or even reform the business or industry in question. A shift would be required from the Republican Party to make sure that we are not the automatic loudspeakers of the corporations anymore.

This should not be seen as something difficult if we adhere to our original party principles, as the Republicans under Lincoln ended the slave-labor business and Teddy Roosevelt halted corporate excess. All the ideas must be looked at and tough choices must be made at times between what would be convenient and good short term over what is necessary long term for the nation’s health or security. We need to be prepared to stand for what is good against those who would rail against the wellbeing of our future and defend the short term goals and desires of industries that are sometimes not exactly keen on well being of the average American. If a business or industry will not stand for or care about the personal safety, national safety/security, or the general long term good of the people then it must be stood up to and not defended. But it should be made clear that true and original progressivism was also suspicious of unions and the power they can accumulate and wield, sometimes to a detrimental effect to all including those who join. While the union must be checked against, worker’s rights’ outside of the all powerful union must be pushed for with vigor. In fact, the template would be TR’s Square Deal between the workers and industry leaders-a push for fairness on both sides which means not being the lapdog of either side, but a respected partner and intermediary to solve issues to both sides.

Now the far-right has stood up to Unions very well but unfortunately they have not sought to mediate between labor and business fairly which would mean standing against the industry if need be and have abandoned the Square Deal approach of fair justice and scrutiny to both sides. The far-right conservatives have become the lapdogs of the corporations and industry. Conservative/libertarian republicans do not stand up to corporate, even if they are in the wrong. On issues such as climate change and pollution, they constantly side with the businesses pitting them against the basic principle of what Republicanism and its support for industry and business was about- advancing society whether it is in health, safety and overall prosperity for the nation. And by bailing out the banks without any strings attached, without terms to their using our taxpayer money, the conservative republicans have allowed some of the banks to abuse the bailout. Their basic ideology of hands off government would have led to a depression as well, if such an irrational course as laissez-faire was to be fully followed as the libertarians would have it. The extreme conditions this would bring upon many innocent Americans would lead to a subsequent need for a very heavy government assistance and involvement. So without even bringing up the neo-cons foreign policy, and the Religious Right’s moral hypocrisy, hard-line economic and government conservative/libertarian Republicans have led, because of their role in applying a failed hand’s off policy towards market regulations and oversight, the nation far closer to actual socialism than anything president Obama has done before. Progressive Republicanism in rejecting the far-right ideas would keep this scenario from becoming reality. In effect, Progressive Republicans are better at keeping the markets intact and viable and in staving off total socialism in comparison to the extreme conservative wing of the Republican Party.

We may have yet to see how effective is the stimulus on bringing back the economy, laden as much as it is with insignificant and wasteful individual pet projects. Whether it succeeds or fails or lands somewhere in the middle in terms of results, the basic idea of the massive spending to jumpstart the economy and bring about a stable economy was not wrong. Due to its heavy spending nature it is liberal, but it is something that is accepted as necessary by a wide range of economists, be they liberal moderate or even conservative.

The idea of the stimulus was not wrong, but horribly mismanaged and as stated before, merely used to get any local project funded. Progressive republicans cannot accept this waste and mismanagement of resources, but cannot take the path of failed across the board tax cuts for the wealthy that the corporate/hard-line conservative republicans would do. Again, the word “alternative” comes up as there needs to be a real choice to the supposedly progressive and pro-active government democrats whose tenure in office shows that there is without a doubt a place for an alternative progressive vision. We need an alternative to them, but that is not to be found with the hard-line conservative faction of the Republican Party of today, thus a reformed centrist or maybe better stated “progressive” based Republican Party is a better option.

“These extremists feed on fear, hate and terror. They have no program for America – no program for the Republican party. They have no solution for our problems of chronic unemployment, of education, of agriculture, or racial injustice or strife… On the contrary – they spread distrust. They engender suspicion. They encourage disunity…There is no place in this Republican party for such hawkers of hate, such purveyors of prejudice, such fabricators of fear…These people have nothing in common with Republicanism. The Republican party must repudiate these people.” -Nelson Rockefeller 1964 Republican convention

Missed opportunities abound and mistakes have been made in our recent past. The conservative movement was looking for a new home, as the libertarian/constitutional conservatives had been slowly deprived from their party during Franklin Roosevelt’s tenure in office and his heavy handed use of government. Libertarian conservatives predominantly from the western states as well as states’ rights’ Dixiecrats from the south, who vehemently believed against federal action to desegregate the south, an idea that fit nicely with conservatism and the general message of hands of libertarianism, would continue to feel pushed as the civil rights issues of the 1960’s continued to roil the Democratic party with intense division.

While liberalism was the predominant force in post World War 2 era and both parties having strong center to center left factions in charge, conservatives were left without a home. Throughout these years conservative sought to regain influence, and to do so one of the two major parties would become theirs. While they kept pushing in the Democratic Party, conservatives in the Republican Party began to have more sway as their ranks filled with disaffected former democrats. Subversive planning and execution by planting their own into places of GOP power to be constantly informed of ideas and decisions was just one of a multitude of examples of how the conservative movement was truly willing to do whatever it took to make their goals of a conservative dominated party come true. As the 1964 primary came with libertarian conservative Barry Goldwater beating out liberal Nelson Rockefeller, the evident change the Republican Party was beginning to witness was evident.

In some Goldwater support groups, images of Lincoln and Ike were taken down or covered up and one insider even commented on how it didn’t matter if Goldwater won the presidential election. What mattered were their overall efforts, symbolized by their candidates’ victory over the moderates and the liberals, to convert the Republican Party of Lincoln and of Teddy Roosevelt into their party of anti-government libertarians and segregationist social conservatives. Even if he lost, they knew, they would be well on their way to achieving just that. Liberals and moderates would end up trying to capitalize on Barry Goldwater’s crushing defeat, but their earlier mistakes in countering the conservative swelling of their party as well as their overall belief in party unity versus standing up for their ideals which would roil the party with internal strife would play pivotal roles in their eventual defeat and loss of their own party.

Read more »

The transpositioning of the parties in the 20^th century is sometimes seen as occurring mid-century but the actual realignments had their roots further back during the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt with some even going further with the major defeats of conservative democrats in the 1890’s and their mishandling of the economy. Whether or not the problem was fairly or unfairly attributed mainly to conservative democrats, as the anti-government conservative deregulation mentality that helped contribute to the Gilded Age corruption had some presence even on the republican side in this time, matters less than the overall rejection of the “hands off” approach and the defeat of the democratic party led most prominently by a conservative faction who oversaw the collapsing economy and in the following four years failed with their policies to bring the nation out of the depression or provide any sizeable relief. In effect, they decided that eventually the markets would fix themselves, a theory that has meant political disaster for whichever party that has supported such irresponsibility and lack of initiative. Read more »

“I have only one yardstick by which I test every major problem – and that yardstick is: Is it good for America?” – President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Centrist Republican

Republicanism has in many ways been the necessary push and power of American progress. In contrast to the Democratic party which was split on the idea of slavery and secession, it was the Republican party that came about to fight for the basic rights of an entire people along with the idea that America was to be a united country. Under the Republican banner, the country got through probably the most tumultuous times it has ever been through and emerged as a nation ready take the world stage. Throughout its first half-century, Republicanism more often than not embraced the ideals of social justice and progressive advancement such as women’s suffrage and regulatory oversight that would be needed with a fast growing industrial America.

An important aspect of Republican rule from its first president in Abraham Lincoln was the idea that the government, and especially the federal government, was an important tool to help protect and promote prosperity. If government needed growth to keep up with a nation changing at the societal and economic level, then proper growth was done. Lincoln presided over the National Banking Acts which created a national financial system and then saw to the creation of the Department of Agriculture. Later Republicanism success stories such as the Sherman Anti-trust Act were passed by a republican controlled congress and Republican President. In the 1900 election the Republican Party with President McKinley as its leader, who was regarded as generally an economic conservative, pushed for a party platform that would establish a Department of Commerce in order to keep the public informed on the behavior of corporations.

McKinley being a business republican nevertheless saw the threat to the free-market that bad corporations could do and set the stage for Teddy Roosevelt’s administration by setting up the United States Industrial Commission to investigate and recommend a course of action on these “trusts”. This same commission returned when TR had ascended to the presidency after McKinley’s assassination and helped recommend the course of action that would help lead Teddy down the road of trust-busting. This was just one example of how common sense Republicanism was present even in the industry conservative faction, a faction that compared to today’s extreme conservatism would have been considered moderate.

Most of us were introduced to Teddy Roosevelt and his presidency via schoolbooks depicting cartoon images of him with some sort of trust-busting message and usually dressed in a park ranger’s uniform. For the two messages of needed regulation and conservation to stand out so clear in the lexicon of Teddy and in the overall history of presidents demonstrates the incredible impact that both the man and his vision had in shaping the nation for a new century. His view was that the GOP represented the unifying nationalism that had kept the nation from breaking apart in the Civil War against the wishes of the secessionists and of being the party that had led the nation from this disaster to become an industrial power. It therefore only seemed logical that such a party naturally believed in Federalism where the balance of power was needed between local, state and federal governments but that made clear where the final power lay with the point made clear by Lincoln and the Union victory in the civil war. This was not a state’s right’s party and he believed that it was only natural for Republicans to keep the principles of their party intact by having the government employed with vigor and purpose to ensure that the benefits of the industrial economy that was quickly growing be available to all of society. Teddy and many Republicans of this time believed that their Democratic opponents stood for negation and governmental weakness as the ineptitude and failure of conservative Democrat Grover Cleveland during his second presidency to fix the economy. Even many in the pro-business faction of the Republican Party believed in some needed regulations or protectionism in contrast to the laissez-faire democrats, although they being more conservative were not quite as progressive as Teddy Roosevelt and likeminded Republicans.

TR believed that it was necessary to regulate corporations so as to keep the fundamental belief of a working free-market society. He did not seek to punish any company that reached monopoly status, as it was seen that if a company had been so successful then it should have the right to reach the top of success. But he realized that many of these corporations had been employing tactics and measures to ensure that no other startup business that had the potential to challenge their supremacy could be able to do so. It was these trusts that he believed were in the wrong and threatened the free-market itself and therefore hurt the average consumer.

His pursuit of fairness in dealings regarding labor and industry and competition and necessary regulation against any entity considered to be powerful enough to pose a threat to fair competition in the markets was the basis of both his brokered deals and general support from union and business as well as sometimes breaking up a corporation and/or union that was considered to have become too dangerous. This ability to see the necessity of industry and workers rights but also knowing when either one could become a monster would form an important aspect of his domestic policies.

Teddy Roosevelt’s Square Deal, which famously settled the Coal Miner’s Strike of 1902, would set the precedent that the federal government and the president should never remain detached during any type of crisis be it war, natural disaster, or any domestic economic crisis. Instead of sending troops to settle the situation he had both sides come to the bargaining table and push away both extremes and settle for a fair or as he put it “square” deal. This view of fair but sometimes tough treatment to both union and industry would be seen time and time again throughout his presidency.

He was also a great leader of the progressive movement, which believed that government should evolve to meet the needs of a changing nation and world. It also believed strongly in using the sciences including social sciences to be able to find ways to make government run much more efficiently with less corruption and respond to the demands of the people, to help develop new ideas and techniques to help educate the public in the sciences and education in general, and sought to make social justice such as industrial worker conditions and environmental/conservation matters important to deal with. Hence Teddy Roosevelt was in every regard one of the leaders in this new view of government as well as the Republican Party which overall welcomed the new progressive movement at both the state and local levels.

Republicans such as Hazen S. Pingree, mayor of Detroit who fought political corruption in local government and like TR, fought to put competition snuffing monopolies in their place. This was all in addition to creating public works for the unemployed, building schools, parks, and public baths. The elections of Seth Low in New York and other Republicans who joined nonprofit groups to fight the politically corrupt Democratic party control machine in the form of Tammany Hall also was a symbol of a strong progressive Republican Party wing. This was a faction that rightfully considered itself, with the active pursuit of reform and justice and of the belief that government through the federalist system could be used as a force of good, the direct heirs of Lincoln Republicanism.

The belief that Americans were the stewards of the natural environment and that the federal government as the elected representative and unified arm of the people should lead the way in creating nature reserves and parks would also be a prominent signature of progressive republicanism in the administration of Teddy Roosevelt. What is important to note however that while the progressive republicans were the leading faction of the GOP that the conservative wing of this time period, while becoming increasingly cozy with major industry at times, was nowhere near the lunacy of the far-right today in any issue. In fact the only conservative republican candidate who was to challenge TR for the GOP nomination in 1904 was himself the president of the National Civic Federation, a moderately progressive organization which was formed by business and labor leaders to help settle disputes between workers and industry and was commonly filled with both conservative and progressive republicans.

The split in the party in the 1912 election did much to hurt the GOP as the party of practical or pragmatic progressivism as the fight between Taft and TR turned into a party split. Taft was in fact dislike by progressives due to his industry supporting rhetoric and industry itself as a result of trust-busting that was continued over from the TR administration. Taft considered himself a progressive but due to miscalculations and general tactlessness would wind up alienating all sides, especially the progressives. This split would pull away from the party many moderate to liberal republicans who had made up an integral and mostly leading faction of the party under the term progressive and would thus enable the industry oriented conservatives to gain and keep control of the party apparatus for the next 20 years, although there was still many remaining moderate and liberal republicans from the TR progressive era that would still make themselves an important part of the GOP and who would end up retaking the party after the later conservative defeats.

“Our differences are policies; our agreements, principles.” -President William McKinley

In a party that seems to endlessly be looking for a new figurehead to able to “lead the party out of the political wilderness”, GOP members must force themselves to tear away from the idol worship of Ronald Reagan as the seemingly only Republican president to have served and turn the pages and read further into past history at the many figures who made up the party from its conception. Abraham Lincoln who is frequently in the top 5 of the greatest American presidents if not considered by many to be the greatest American president for having the ideological vision of the nation as one and of freeing the slaves, creating the groundwork for an industrial America and being the first major leader of the new Republican Party, is probably a good person to look over in political retrospect. His ability to stand for principles and weave together real world pragmatics and his anti-slavery ideals to bring them about is therefore a natural cornerstone of what the party of today should strive to be like. The emphasis on Lincoln in the first part was necessary to remind those on the far-right who have woefully forgotten or abandoned the original principles of the party and how past Republican history set precedents on how these principles were to be stood for.

It is important to point out that the history of the Republican Party since its conception in Ripon, Wisconsin is full of ups and downs. It has had times of massive victories and defeats, of corruption and of righteousness, the proverbial triumphs and tragedies that are not limited to our party or party members alone. The GOP in the time period right after the civil war pushed hard for and passed the 13th amendment which outlawed slavery and in the case of woman’s suffrage was absolutely instrumental in fighting for the rights of women in society. In 1896, the Republican Party was the first major party to favor women’s suffrage and when the 19th Amendment finally was added to the Constitution, 26 of 36 state legislatures that had voted to ratify it were under Republican control. With the first woman elected to Congress being a Republican from Montana in 1917, it can be said that the party was very much a forward thinking and innovative one standing for the very principles that this nation was founded upon.

The period right after Lincoln’s assassination and into the 20th century was marked by a massive move towards industrialization and urbanization, a time period of prosperity marking the creation of the modern industrial economy along with national transportation and communication networks. Corruption and self-serving special interests is something that becomes evident in both parties over time and is not something that can be pinned down onto one party alone and it took members of both parties to stem the tide of corruption that identified those times. The administration of Grant during Reconstruction, state governments, and the appropriately labeled Gilded Age correctly showed how corruption became evident anywhere regardless of political identification. In those years, government was being horribly mismanaged, and corrupt party machinery like Tammany Hall with Democratic machine Boss Tweed was making infamy. This set the stage for an anti-government mentality to take hold that believed federal or state intervention in the economy inevitably led to the favoritism, bribery, kickbacks, inefficiency, waste, corruption and that it was simply better to keep government out rather than try face and fight these problems. That such a standard in both parties was set would set the stage for the dramatic showdowns and triumphs of Republicans who saw the mismanagement as something to be fought against within their own party as well as to then carry forth their beliefs in the Republican line of thought that government at least has an important role in being part of the solution to the problems facing the nation even if it is not to become the sole answer.

Neither party was free from the wrongdoings of the time as the Whiskey Ring scandal infamously demonstrated for the Republicans while Boss Tweed along with countless others demonstrated for the Democrats. Both parties were very much in the “big business” mentality and corruption was not totally free from either one as political machines and their special interests many times ran the show to a degree that even today’s special interest meddling cannot quite live up to. The conservative libertarian belief system of laissez-faire that was popular in the latter half of the 19th century was, unlike today, to be found in both major political parties as the Gilded Age was in full swing.

Issues such as the spoils systems was tackled by a factionalized Republican Party, one that had split among those who encouraged the cronyism of the system where the cabinet positions in government went to those who helped out the victor the most, against those who believed that job positions must and should have been based on merit. It is true that Republican had been split on this issue but in the end the merit system republicans won out and finally with the strong push by congressional republicans and Republican president Chester A. Arthur, the Pendleton Civil Service reform act was put into writing in a strong effort to rid the nation of the crookedness and fraud within government that made up part of the Gilded Age. Many reform minded republicans also saw how the explosion of industry after the civil war was presenting complex and sometimes troublesome scenarios. The nation’s GDP was growing and the country was coming back from the dark days of the Civil War and the industrial prowess it commanded was well on its way to achieving levels of other industrialized nations. With this new progression in technology and innovation along with societal progress since Lincoln’s tenure came problems that had not been seen before. Some of the most notable problems that this era brought forth included most notably the mass robber-baron attitudes of the wealthy along with their monopolizing corporations.

Reform Republicans and those with similar stands in the Democratic party stood side-by-side and fought the cronyism and corruption that seeped into parties and governments after the Civil War along with Grant’s badly run administration and actually led the way to lay the groundwork for future efforts to curb the corporate and elite excess that were being made at the expense of the hard working American. Many Republicans fighting the corruption within their own party also rejected the obviously failed hard-line laissez-faire conservative ideology within both political parties and whose goals to bring the party back towards centrist policy thinking that would protect the very principles that this party and nation was found on. Principles that called for an active and flexible government with new ideas to protect them from those that do not care about the average American and what the party originally stood for.

These beliefs and the collapse in effective governance of the conservative Democrats would eventually lead to the era of one of the most influential figures of American history. This was a man who would come to realize the changing and growing complexities that society was experiencing and would move to make the government act accordingly to this change. This was a figure whose beliefs that the Republican Party was and should continue to be a force of good common sense centrist governing clashed with others in his party who wished to bring it further to the right and away from the tenets that Republicanism in its creation and its best implementations to that point espoused as a tool for America. Teddy Roosevelt; a president who like Lincoln saw how an active and robust government could be used as a force of good in for society but who also saw how government is incapable of being the end all for any and all problems that come up and that a distinction must be made between the government being a tool to create opportunity and that of a bottomless hole where problems are not fixed but only patched up with taxpayer dollars.

“Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation.” – Abraham Lincoln

In trying to find out who we should be as Republicans we must first look back in history to see what the party stood for. Many in the party, hard-line conservatives for the most part, are calling for a return to the roots of the Republican Party. Fair enough. I think that is precisely what we should do. And to do this, the facts that can be bothersome to some must be brought to the forefront of this internal debate. The roots of the party of course, must be from the very beginning of its conception.

The Republican Party was formed in the late 1850’s in large part as a response to the Democrats whose general views supported the expansion of slavery into the new territories, of which the new party was vehemently opposed to. The party was from the beginning a progressive party, using a rather different use of the word than today’s political connotation of far-left statist governance, and it was by no means a party of a singular strict ideology. It was a party that sought to modernize the country, not to keep the status quo especially if this was not working for Americans. It sought to modernize the country by supporting higher education, free homesteads to farmers (a rather non-conservative thing to do), free soil policies against slavery, banking, railroads, industry and cities.

This was a party that not only was aiming for the rural vote via homesteads, but also one that had a heavy lean towards urban America. This is again something that is obviously not apparent with today’s conservative controlled Republican Party. It was a party that believed industry and free markets were superior to slave driven ones and would not only be a moral replacement to a slave driven industry, it would benefit the rest of the nation as well. Taking into account these founding ideas must also include Abraham Lincoln himself who was a man of principle as well as pragmatism in being the first iconic leader of the Republican Party. Lincoln from his early years warned against the slave holding southerners continuing power growth of the government.

The Act has a… covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate it. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world – enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites – causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty – criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest.

- October 16, 1854, “Peoria Speech” Abraham Lincoln

It is important to acknowledge both his idealism as well as pragmatism when it came to slavery. Some in today’s community have been seeking to draw a Lincoln that although gave the Emancipation Proclamation, did so only because of expediency and because it would be a useful tool and as a result basically seeking to diminish his role as a major leader of civil rights in America and one who stood for a party that strongly stood for civil rights. His above speech made years before he even became president and many others before and during his presidency show that he was indeed a man of principles in belief of slavery being a gruesome affront to Americanism.

This does not contradict at all with his statement years later about slavery when he stated that he would try to keep the Union intact by outlawing slavery or not. He realized that even in the north, slavery existed and while he believed it to be an abomination it was not something that could be done in a sloppy fashion without prudent forethought. Social changes need to take into account society’s current stance on the issue itself. His delivery of the Emancipation Proclamation was perfectly timed to accomplish many things, one of which was to capitalize on the major Union victory of Gettysburg and the renewed sense that the war could be won. The president sensed the opportunity to get the ball rolling towards getting the public to support the war in trying to reunite the Union as well as using it as an opportunity to start leading the nation towards freedom and justice for all.

All of this is necessary so as to show how principles and pragmatic thinking can be intelligently intertwined to create a powerful voice of reason and justice. With Lincoln and his “pragmatic idealism” being at the beginning of the Republican Party’s creation, we can now have a template of governance on how the party basic thinking should be and how it once was as well as how it can return to its actual roots that we have slowly abandoned over the years and that we centrists as the “true” republicans must realize and stand up for. The party was a party that stood against slavery because it easily recognized the obvious evil of human enslavement, but also easily recognized the potential of industry to transform the nation towards progress and to end the inefficient slave driven agriculture of the south. This would have the potential therefore, to not only do a great good for a people suffering injustice but also to possibly lead America down a path of modernization and prosperity never before seen before. It would lead to a prosperity that would be aimed towards all Americans and not merely for a small percentage to profit from, as the slave-owners profited at the expense of an entire people.

With Lincoln at the beginning and at the helm of the GOP for those important years, he along with the other Republicans set the stage at the beginning for the party to push for progress, prosperity and justice and to do so with the needed flexibility and realism to accomplish this numerous times with various Republican congressmen and presidents to come.