The short answer? Probably no one.

It seems that way at times. Republicans tend to consider moderates and their liberal Republican cousins, traitors. Democrats profess their love of moderates usually years after they were in office.

The history of moderate Republicans is one that is not well known. It tends to be forgotten because in the battle between conservatives and moderates the winner (in this case, the conservatives) wrote the history. When they are remembered, it isn’t very fondly. While Ross Douthat is too classy to call Northeastern Republicans both past and present “RINOs” he basically has said that many times in blog posts and op-eds. He does so again today in a post about the current health care bill. This is his take on the current Senate bill and what kind of Republicans would like this bill:

The Senate legislation is the kind of bill that the early-1970s Richard Nixon might have backed, or the early-1990s John Chafee (who crafted a Republican alternative to Clintoncare), or (self-evidently) the Mitt Romney of 2005.

But keep in mind that the kind of “moderate Republicanism” (or “Rockefeller Republicanism,” to use a better term of art) that bound all of those figures together was often closer to a liberal Republicanism — a pro-business version of the prevailing liberal paradigm, that is, rather than a intellectually-distinct alternative. On domestic policy, Richard Nixon generally resembled a more cynical version of Lyndon Johnson, not a Ronald Reagan avant la lettre. (Is anyone nostalgic for the days when the Republican Party was “moderate” enough to favor wage and price controls? I hope not.) Likewise, John Chafee’s views on most domestic issues (like those of his son, and successor) bore roughly the same relationship to an ideologically-consistent conservatism that Zell Miller’s views on, say, defense policy bore to the liberal mainstream when Miller was a Democratic Senator from Georgia. And while conservative health-care wonks did have some input on Mitt Romney’s health care efforts, calling Obamacare a centrist-Republican proposal because it resembles a compromise forged in the nation’s most liberal state is still a little like claiming that the Bush tax cuts of 2001 were a centrist-Democratic effort because Ben Nelson voted for them.

Nelson Rockefeller might well have liked the current health care bill. So would Jacob Javits, Lowell Weicker and a whole generation of politicians for whom the point of being a Republican was to head in the same direction as the Democratics, but more slowly, with more attention to the concerns of corporate America, and with a greater zeal for balancing the nation’s books. But while I have all kinds of problems with what the contemporary Republican Party has become, and where it might be going, I can’t say I’m sorry that Rockefeller Republicanism no longer plays a major role in shaping the G.O.P.’s agenda. In the end, the country is better off with an opposition party that offers Americans a real choice — whether on health care or any other issue — rather than being content to supply a “moderate” and business-friendly echo.

I will agree that the Republicanism that Douthat disdains was responding to the then-dominant liberal paradigm. But responding to that era when liberalism was the main thrust in America doesn’t make one just simple echo. Their views are lost to history, but I’ve read books by some of those liberal Republicans that Douthat disses, and they stake out their positions. They had convictions and strong beliefs that were once part of the Republican party. Read Jacob Javits’ Order of Battle and you see a man that gives strong compelling reasons for why he was a Republican. One might read one of the many biographies written by Geoffrey Kabaservice on moderate Republicans to see that these moderates were not spineless.

Frankly, Douthat’s disgust for moderates in the GOP both past and present make no sense to me. Douthat has long argued that the GOP needs to adopt a more robust agenda. In the book he co-authors with Reihan Salam, he maps out a plan that would use the government to help the working class and the poor. It’s a worthwhile read. Douthat laments that Republicans have not yet taken this new agenda to heart and in looking at the current crop of Republicans, he is correct- they have no interest in his ideas. Of course, there is a certain sector of the party that might be interested, moderate Republicans. Mind you, the moderates he spurns came up with ideas in response to what the Democrats were proposing. They had an interest in dealing with poverty or trying to help the working class. They were interested in making sure that Americans had access to health care.

The problem is, Douthat expects that the current crop of Republicans will somehow come up with bold, new ideas that will rejuvenate the party. Well, Ross can keep waiting, cause it ain’t going to happen. It’s not that there aren’t conservatives in the GOP that are coming up with good ideas, but there aren’t enough of them to make a difference. Even if a conservative Republican comes up with an idea, like Bob Bennett of Utah and health care, he is attacked by outsiders for consorting with Democrats. How many conservatives have come up with a decent health bill?

I understand Douthat’s game. To maintain some gravitas in the conservative realm, he has to learn to take down moderates. But that means taking down the one group that has the passion and the willingness to carry the water for his ideas.

But maybe the thing that bothers me most is that while he shares his disgust of moderates over here, Douthat raves about the Conservative Party accross the pond. The rejuvenated Conservatives got that way because they started listening to their moderates. They decided to branch beyond the base instead of looking down on them.

The moderates of today can’t be the moderates of yesteryear. Moderates in the GOP from the 40s until the 70s were dealing with aftermath of the New Deal. Liberalism is no longer dominant, so moderates of today have to learn to respond to the current situation.

But the leaders of that time, the Javitses, Chaffees and Brookes, should not be looked down upon. They worked for the poor in urban areas, supported legislation that cleaned up our water and air, and helped African Americans gain their civil rights. These are achivements that should never be forgotten.

I don’t expect Douthat to ever be nice to moderates like me. After all, he has a reputation to maintain. But he also should not expect that the GOP will ever rise to dominance. Unless the Republican party listen and accepts the moderates in its midst, Douthat’s words will be like speaking to the wind.

I won’t be tagged a “moderate” Republican. What’s moderate? Lukewarm coffee, a half-finished job, and the flavorless eggs they serve at the hospital. I’ll pass.

And if I’m moderate, then who is extreme? So, far the people supposedly to the “right” of me think the President was born in Kenya, science is propaganda, Jesus is telling them what to do, Fascists and Communists are the same thing, and Newt Gingrich is a closet-liberal. Calling them “extreme” implies that they are just farther along on a political spectrum. They are not more conservative than me. They are not on the political spectrum. They are just less interested in events that occur in the real world.

Am I a moderate? In my fifth grade social studies class I took Reagan’s side in our cute little mock Presidential debate and nearly lead the class in a riot. As an aside, I’m really sorry, Mrs. Vanover. I got carried away. That winter morning in 1989 I had tears in my eyes as Reagan left the White House and boarded a helicopter bound for private life. I woke up my roommates and ran cheering out the door early on November 7, 1994 when I discovered the scale of our victory.

Like millions of other committed conservatives I believe passionately that the story of America is the story of ordinary people finding the freedom to pursue their own way of living. Like generations of conservatives before me I believe that the best government is small both in scope and ambition, but I understand that government has a critical role to play in supporting a civilization. My statement of beliefs is not a list of things I “oppose.” My politics is based on a belief in prosperity, progress, freedom, and the dignity of all people.

When Reagan used the Nutjob Gambit to manipulate an oddball fringe and gain just enough momentum to defeat Carter, part of his legacy to us was the problem of what to do with them. Nothing in the history of his era suggests he ever imagined the power these people, who he treated like convenient idiots, would acquire within the Party. No one imagined they could ever wag the dog. Now look at where we are.

Twenty years later, we are still imagining that reasonable people can stand quietly on their dignity and these ranting lunatics will somehow just exhaust themselves. It’s not working. There are no mature adults in the back rooms who will rein them in. Not anymore, anyway. It’s up to us.

There is nothing conservative about disrupting a Congressman’s town hall meeting to rant like an idiot. There is nothing conservative about displaying such disrespect for the President as to shout him down during the State of the Union Address (honestly, what would Reagan have said about that!?). There is nothing conservative about trying to convert your personal religious convictions into laws enforced on all of us. There is nothing conservative about revolution. There is nothing conservative about Fascism. Anyone who considers himself a radical conservative doesn’t know what “conservative” means.

Let’s be absolutely clear, the choice facing the Party is not whether to elect “real” conservatives or “fake” conservatives. The choice we face is whether we have the courage, integrity, and maturity to embrace the adult responsibilities of citizenship. Are we responsible grown-ups worthy of the awesome legacy we’ve been granted, or are we contestants in some reality show?

Don’t accept the label “moderate.” If you’d called Teddy Roosevelt a moderate you’d risk a sharp stick in the eye. Let’s drop the gloves and stand for what we believe in.

Rod Paige, an African-American and George W. Bush’s first Secretary of Education, has an interesting response to the often-posed question, how can a Black man be a Republican? He reminds listeners that it was Democrats who turned dogs and fire hoses on Civil Rights protesters in Mississippi when he was growing up. The Democratic Party in the South was the core of the resistance to the Civil Rights movement. It was only with the support of a sizable majority of GOP Congressmen that President Johnson was able to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Read more »

Since just after the American Revolution, when political parties had really unimaginative names like Federalist and anti-Federalist, America has had a two-party system which consisted of conservatives on one side and liberals on the other. Rather than monolithic bodies, theses Parties have consisted largely of coalitions who share similar views on a single issue: the role of the central government in the daily lives of the individual and their communities.

In recent years, the Democratic Party has encompassed the coalitions on the center-left side of the political spectrum. It’s consisted of everyone from the centrist Blue Dog Democrats to the far left MoveOn.org-ers. Republicans have been the home of the center-right. The Center-Right coalition has been made up of a number of notable Republicans, from Colin Powell to George HW Bush to Pat Buchanan and Ann Coulter.

The two Party Coalitions have provided a balance to each other, always there to provide a counterpoint to the excesses of the other. A similar phenomenon has existed within each Party, as well. The more moderate coalitions have always been there to save the Party from the excesses of the more extreme ones. Usually when the nation has turned its collective nose up at the ideas of one faction, other factions step in to fill that void. The balances of power between the parties and within the parties have been essential in multiple ways:

• Ensuring that the parties are able to effectively govern when in power. Legislation which has been forced through multiple hands and viewpoints, is surely going to reflect the needs and desires of a broader range of Americans.
• Ensuring enough flexibility that candidates can potentially be elected in any region. While a far right wing Republican may not have a chance to win an election in New York City, moderates like Rudy Giuliani or Michael Bloomberg (who has since left the party) can be elected overwhelmingly. Conversely, Nancy Pelosi probably wouldn’t win in rural Pennsylvania, but she’s been reelected numerous times from San Francisco.

Over the past decade, a disturbing shift has happened. After two major losses in a row, the Republican Party, rather than take a more moderate shift, is doubling down on the more extremely conservative direction of the last decade. As was discussed on this blog last week, there is a movement afoot to create a litmus test by which one can be considered a Republican. They think a Republican Party with a more ideologically pure direction will be a stronger party.

This, not to put too fine a point on it, is dumb. What these Republicans are advocating is like nothing that has ever existed outside the fringe of American politics. They are advocating a party that resembles the Libertarians or the Green Party, or the type of narrowly defined Parties that exist in most other democracies. They want a Canadian, or Mexican, or European-style political system.

Purity and litmus tests are nothing short of unilateral disarmament for the Republican Party. Rather than being a Center-Right Coalition, we will be a Right-Wing Party. We will be ceding the wide-open middle ground to the Democrats.

Indeed, there are factions within the Democratic Party who are demanding boycotts against elected officials who haven’t followed the more extreme left agenda. But, they’re a fraction of the voices I’ve heard on the right who want to purge the GOP of its impure members.

If Republicans are ever to return to power, we must first end all this ridiculous talks about ideological purity and litmus tests and begin the work of healing the rifts between the various factions of the GOP.

It’s not a surprise that South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham is getting heat for not being a doctrinare conservative. What is surprising is how some on the far right are basically using hearsay to try to destroy the Senator. Read more »

Ross Douthat is probably one of the best young conservative thinkers out there. Along with Reihan Salam, he has written a book about how the GOP could become a governing party again. I read his old blog when he was at the Atlantic and continue to read his column for the New York Times. I enjoy his writings…mostly. Read more »

For the last three decades the Republican Party has given up on cities. Some say it’s due to racism. Others because the GOP is trying to engage in divisive politics. Others say they just don’t care. I say it’s none of these. I think there is one very basic reason:

Urban voters just don’t like what we’re selling.

Think about it for a moment: Rugged individualism is great when there are miles between you and your next door neighbor. It’s essential that you pull yourself up by your bootstraps when there’s no one else around to help you. By dint of geography alone you are forced to act as an individual first.

But, what about people who live in cities or suburbs, mere feet, or even inches from your closest next door neighbor? Proximity demands that you cooperate with the family who lives next door or the guy who lives above or below you. If his house is on fire, yours could be next. Do you lament the fact that he didn’t buy his own fire extinguisher, or do you run next door with yours to help him put it out?

The anger and fear of “socialism” and “empathy” in response to the Health care debate and the Sonia Sotomayor nominations have pushed us even farther out of the hearts and minds of the urban and suburban American. Recent poll numbers have shown that only 20% of Americans self-identify as Republicans. The number is even smaller when you look specifically at urban voters, particularly younger ones. We have to adopt a strategy that speaks to urban Americans and do it soon or we risk losing an entire generation of voters.
21st Century Urban Republicanism could look a little like this:

Communities Instead of Government or Big Business -

Free enterprise is the engine of democracy. We need to propose policies that encourage urban Americans to participate in the free market.  We should support tax incentives, loans and grants to entrepreneurial individuals and groups who want to start businesses in their own communities. Why encourage a Best Buy or a Wal-Mart to set up shop in a neighborhood so the citizens can become employees, when we can encourage people to set up their own shops in a neighborhood and become the employers?

Communities can drive the free market health care system. We should push to remove interstate competition between insurance companies and allow communities to setup health insurance purchasing groups which will have the same power as a big business. We’ll drive health care costs down when companies are fighting to win lucrative contracts to provide health insurance for a 20,000 citizen community health care group that isn’t tied to their jobs and won’t force them out when they become ill or because of a “pre-existing condition.”

Choice is Better Than Monopoly-

As I mentioned above,we have to forcefully recognize that control of our lives cannot lie in the hands of government or of big business, but in the hands of the individuals and the communities in which they live. Americans are tired of having the most important decision we can make be what kind of cereal to buy. From cable companies which have the sole source contract for a municipality, to health insurance companies who control 98% of a market, to software manufacturers who have a control on 90% of a market, our choices of who we are able to do business with is rapidly diminishing. There’s no reason that there should be companies that are “too big to fail.”

Government must work to bring choice, and competition back to the market place. It’s essential that government use its regulatory powers to break up monopolies, or companies these companies that so dominate the marketplace, that the continued operation of our nature relies on their continued existence. This system of supporting our nation on the back of big business not only removes the choice of the individual American, it’s very dangerous to viability (as we saw last September). We are putting all of our eggs into one precariously woven basket. To put it in financial terms, it’s crucial that we diversify our assets and our potential liabilities. The only way to do that is to get rid of these gigantic businesses we have come to rely so heavily on and put the power back into the hands of citizens and communities.

This new freedom of choice can apply to schools as well. Schools such as the Harlem Village Academies in New York and successful magnet schools are proof that choice in education works. Republicans must move beyond vouchers and ensure schools like these receive the full support of the government.

This new direction has several very valuable aspects:

1. It creates an almost unprecedented connection in the history of this country between the government, individuals and their communities,
2. They’re conducive to traditional Republican values, and
3. Importantly, none of them need to be limited to the urban population. Rural communities could link up and form their own health insurance purchase organizations. Small, locally owned businesses are what made this country the breadbasket of the world in the past and they can do so again.

We can give urban voters a reason to stop voting against us, if we give them a reason to vote for us.

Mark Thompson has a very good post on conservatism and the Republican party and his views that they are not one and the same. Read more »

It is about time for our movement to drop this acronym that I believe has not been any help at all in our goals. In fact, over the last few decades in which our movement has been a period of retreat and just trying to hold onto our rightful place in the GOP by threads, I would argue that the RINO label has only hurt us more. Supposedly its first inception and usage was back in 1994 by a conservative republican in California who labeled former LA mayor Richard Riordan and former congressman Michael Huffington RINO. Since then the acronym RINO or “Republican In Name Only” has been used frequently by groups dedicated to keeping the party conservative at all costs; used by groups such as the “Club for Growth” who seek to take out any centrist republican, or even conservatives who certainly are not centrist but are not quite as freakishly conservative as they are. Of course this name-calling by the conservatives within our party certainly isn’t the first. Years before, instead of RINO it was “me-too” republicanism, under the belief that these republicans were just trying to act like the Democrats such as supporting many New Deal programs. At first glance and with little insight it may have seemed so. Of course like any of the labels that the conservatives throw at us, the moderates and liberals, both are woefully ignoring what is reality. Read more »

In one of previous papers I had written about the state of the Republican Party and how it had become taken over by the southern establishment. In talking about establishments many of us political junkies will recall how the mid-century takeover by conservatives frequently contained the label “eastern establishment” in order to refer to where the most party influence on ideas and party doctrine originates from. In those years, the Republican comprised of the northeast, the midwest, and the western states and regions with the northeastern regions usually encompassing a centrist moderate to center-left liberal view of economics and government along with a socially liberal view especially for that time such as civil rights for black Americans and women’s rights in the early 1900’s. The midwest was usually a good mix of economically/governmentally liberal to moderate and even some right of center common sense pragmatic conservatism abounded along with the usual republican view of social issues being rather liberal. The west was traditionally seen as a place for traditionally conservative, economically conservative but socially moderate to liberal or just libertarian. The numbers presented usually meant that the centrist moderates and the center-left liberals of the party held reigns on the party apparatus and the conservatives held only a minority wing of it.

As years went by and the libertarian conservatives from the west such as Barry Goldwater began to see a major opportunity by trying to win over the disaffected southern democrats of the southern states and add their ranks to the republican party, the change that happened to the party that we now know today as a fiercely conservative party took hold. By selling out the basic ideals of civil justice towards african-americans for the sake of the white southern voter who wanted nothing more than to keep the federal government out of their business, a business of segregation, the more traditional conservatives such as Goldwater began the process of selling the soul of the GOP for a vote based on anti-republican principles. As time went by and the southern conservative began to switch from the Democratic Party to the republicans and increased their level of influence, the idea of an “eastern establishment” which had until then formed the base of support for the Republican Party had become a target for the modern conservative movement. Read more »

It was San Angelo, Texas and I was stationed at Goodfellow Air Force Base. A favorite hangout was the New Dixie Club — a great place to drink, to dance and to just be a people watcher.

One evening I stepped into the restroom. Immediately upon entering someone grabbed me and threw me against the wall and started pounding, all the while screaming “I hate f**king Air Force people!”

“But I’m Army” say I, and with that I heard “Then you are OK” and out they walked.

That person didn’t know me. They didn’t care whether I was good, bad or even lying. I was just a target of opportunity.

TALKING OUR WAY INTO A NEW CIVIL WAR

Within the Republican party there are new targets of opportunity: each other.

Thomas Sowell (TownHall): “As if it is not enough that they have been decimated by the Democrats in the past couple of elections, the Republican survivors are now turning their guns on each other.”

Sowell was quick to identify the perps of this new war, “At the heart of these internal battles have been attacks on Rush Limbaugh by Republicans who imagine themselves to be so much more sophisticated because they are so much more in step with the political fashions of the time.”

Moderates are the attackers? Non-conservatives are inflamming the base by first selling out the party and now defaming its few remaining defenders?

Hello?! I didn’t start anything that night in San Angelo, and I don’t remember being part of any mob now in 2009 launching attacks on rightwingers. And since I’m conservative in both mind and spirit then I surely am not part of any attack there either.

On August 17th there was this headline on the ‘DownWithTyranny’ blog: Texas Republican Civil War Officially Kicks Off. Obviously favoring Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson’s run for governor against Texas’ incumbent, Gov. Rick Perry is described as a “… far right extremist and secessionist …”

Bailey is described as a Reagan big tent conservative, but she let loose with a full volley. The target has been engaged. Perhaps the war has begun. Perhaps it will be a real war.

Texas Republicans have many issues facing them, but words like civil war and secession seem to be what has them all fired up — with 48% both supporting and opposing Texas becoming its own independent nation (Salon).

In Georgia, back in April, state Senate Resolution 632 passed by a 43-1 vote; the resolution threatened to to secede from and even disband the United States citing Jeffersonian principles.

The strange thing is that most of the ’states right, Jeffersonian principles, and civil war’ debate seems to be between Republicans, either for or against.

Now talk is cheap, but resolutions and continuous use of “brother against brother” language (GOP12) is dangerous; worthy of great thought and consideration as being more than a passing fad.

As Americans we need to think before we speak. The next attack on Fort Sumter, whether political or actual physical act, will not be so easy to end as Civil War v1.0.

Be careful of what you wish for. I’ve walked the battlefields of Fredericksburg, Manassas and Gettysburg. There are monuments everywhere to the valiant, the sometimes vain, and mostly to those that died for plans and strategies that someone else devised.

Best regards,
Bill4DogCatcher.com

Sources:

TownHall, Thomas Sowell, ‘The Republican Civil War’, http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/03/17/the_republican_civil_war

Down With Tyranny Blog, ‘Texas Republican Civil War Officially Kicks Off’, http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2009/08/texas-republican-civil-war-officially.html

Salon, ‘Half of Texas Republicans favor secession’, http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/04/23/texas_secession/

Atlanta Journal-Constitution, ‘Georgia Senate endorses radical idea’, http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2009/04/16/bookmaned_0416.html and you can read the original “ADOPTED” version here: http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2009_10/pdf/sr632.pdf

GOP12.com, “This is a civil war, brother against brother”, http://www.gop12.com/2009/08/this-is-civil-war-brother-against.html

The following is a post by a writer that called “Lobotero.”

In my early years of political activism I was a radical and then as I got older I became a Republican, but a liberal republican….that soon went the way of the dinosaur as the GOP was hijacked by the extreme right wing and there was nothing about the GOP that appealed to me…after the hijacking of the party I became basically…a social democrat…for lack of a better title….but I always hoped that the GOP would reverse its course…so far I have been disappointed.

We hear all about the conservative Blue Dog Dems, but I wanted to know if there were such a beast as a liberal Repub. If so, what would they believe in? What would be their stance on certain issues?

After doing a little research, I hit the Google button and here is what I found:

1. Step 1Trust in a women’s right to choose. Roe vs. Wade was a landmark decision that gave a woman the right to choose her own destiny. This country’s basic tenets are freedom and liberty. The Liberal Republican understands this and supports, defends and trusts in this right to choose.
2. Step 2Believe in evolution. Evolution while controversial in some areas of the Republican party, is not the hot button topic in liberal wing of the Republican party. Liberal Republicans accept the scientific evidence in this case.
3. Step 3Maintain equality for all, including gays and lesbians. Again, this country is based on liberty and freedom for all. A liberal republican believes in excluding no one based on his or her sexual orientation.
4. Step 4Support stem cell research. Stem cell research has the possibility to save and extend millions of lives throughout the world. A liberal Republican believes in allowing science to determine its own course regardless of their personal beliefs on issues.
5. Step 5Protect the environment. With weather patterns becoming more and more erratic, the liberal Republican understands the importance of the environment to the survival of future generations. Environmental threats and concerns are to be one of the main topics in elections for the next generation or more.
6. Step 6Keep an open mind. Liberal Republicans understand that they may not have all the answers and that some questions are still unanswered. Too many politicians think that an issue is black and white. A liberal Republican realizes the nuances and grey areas that come with some issues.

Now with those characteristics can you think of any liberal Repubs in Congress? I cannot think of one right now, but I will say that Meghan McCain comes pretty close to being a liberal Republican.

If you cannot think of any liberal Repubs and want to be one for a future run for office here are a few instructions:

1. Step 1The first step to becoming a Liberal Republican is to take a hard stance on traditional Republican base beliefs such as strong National Security policies.
2. Step 2To be a Liberal Republican you must also believe in a smaller federal government and lower taxes.
3. Step 3Subscribe to the belief that religion is important to society and be driven by moralistic values and expect fairness and responsibility in all things.
4. Step 4Next, embrace social views that are generally associated with liberalism or the democratic party. Socially liberal views include, but not limited to; supporting gay marriage, pro choice when it comes to abortion and the support of social programs for the less fortunate.
5. Step 5Following these steps should make you a Liberal Republican.

There you are all you need to know about becoming a Liberal Republican. Personally, I think that the GOP would be better off if there were some actual liberals in their midst.

The only one that I have a problem with is no. 3 -why?-I believe that religion is important to the individual not necessarily to society as a whole and to pick a person to represent you just because of his religion is lunacy. But the part about having a moralistic outlook toward society is a necessity, in my opinion, but being religious does not make it so.

I am a capitalist, but not in the sense that it is defined nowadays…..I guess that is what a geolibertarian is about….I wait for the GOP to regain its wide appeal…but it does not look that will happen any time soon.

“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.

By Richard Ivory

Editor’s Note: The following was originally posted at Hip Hop Republican.com on July 29, 2009.

Recently, at a packed house during the National Association for Colored People (NAACP) Convention held in New York City, New York, Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Michael Steele spoke about a joint- venture with the RNC & the NAACP. The hope is to find common ground in addressing some of the major problems facing both Blacks and Urban America.

Michael Steele began his speech with a litany of sobering statistics on the fate of Blacks in America. As he ended the speech he noted that instead of reading a recent study he was actually quoting John F. Kennedy from the 1960’s, sharply underscoring the fact that while there may be an African-American President, there is still much that has not been done for African-Americans.

The NAACP working with the RNC will indeed be a unique change of course given the often testy relationship between the two institutions. It is not without precedent given that many of the NAACP’s first defenders and early founders were registered Republicans. The future relationship between these two groups will be an interesting one to watch. Will it fade out as soon as Steele leaves his chairmanship? Will other RNC Chairmen participate in future events? Can the two groups work together on an urban agenda that encourages self empowerment? Read more »

No promises, but we are going to try a question of the week at the Progressive Republican to get people talking and to also use our new forum page.

Part of the reason this blog was founded was to foster a Progressive Republican movement. That leads to an obvious question: just what is a progressive Republican?

Blogger Jim McGrody wrote up a document back in January that could be viewed as a platform for moderate/progressive Republicans. Based on the upcoming midterm elections next year, he asked what is a 2010 Republican. Below is the platform he devised: Read more »