This week's debate takes on the topic of third-parties.
Don from Present Discontent and the Conservative Hideout 2.0, goes once again (after last week's opponent disappeared), and Scratcher of Makes My Brain Itch takes him on!
The debate is moderated by Steve from motorcitytimes.com.
Question:
Some people think, long term, that a true Conservative 3rd party is necessary, because the Republicans have proven only slightly better than Democrats when they were in power. The thinking goes, we are never going to change Washington, so why bother voting in the Republicans.
Other say that we need to refocus the Republicans because if we actually form a 3rd party, we are guaranteeing that the left will win election after election.
The question is what should the focus of Conservatives be going forward, a revitalized Republican party or a true Conservative party?
I've written extensively on this subject and of course, have a lot to add ... But I'll leave my opinion and punditry until after the debate is finished.
The second and final question will be asked tomorrow.
Blogger Debate #3 - Third Party?
The Republican Party as an entity has no interest in being refocused on smaller government and basic Constitutional principle. On the contrary, it is deeply invested in continuing along the path of larger government and consolidation of power. A reading of "A Moderate History of the GOP" by fellow blogger TheCL is both enlightening and heartbreaking. The Republican Party has a vested interest in expanding not only the government, but itself.
Even in my own Congressional district, I've come to see how the GOP prioritizes:
...the GOP was able to entice its choice candidate, former U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan, to take on the two-term incumbent.
I'm now coming to believe that the only solution may be a conservative third party. To be honest, I don't much care at this point what they call themselves. Be it the Libertarian Party, The Constitution Party, The TEA Party, or even the We've-Had-Enough-Of-Your-Collective-BS Party... Anything but the two we've been forced to pick between. They're exactly the same anyway. In the words of Will Rogers:
"The more you observe politics, the more you've got to admit that each party is worse than the other."
We need to send a message. We need to demand candidates, of whatever party other than the established two, that will vow to adhere to the Constitution and shrink the ever expanding federal government. No new "contracts" or "Mt. Vernon" nonsense. Each politician must read - and adhere to - the Constitution.
Make sure you go read his entire answer. It is, I believe, very good.
Blogger Debate Series Continued: The viability of a third political party.
These are honest sentiments to be sure, but are they practical? Can change be effected in this manner? Let’s look to history to see how third parties have faired in the past. Of course most of you are racing ahead of me and are already thinking of Perot and Teddy Roosevelt. But let’s look anyway, shall we?
[I] have laid out two strong examples of a third party killing the Republican candidate. So I think that the formation of a third party isn’t what we need to be considering. No the question we need to be asking ourselves isn’t, “Can a third party really help us get our country back?”
Even back in 1977, Reagan knew that the only way for the Conservative movement to succeed was for it to take back the GOP. Some say there is no difference between the two parties. I posit that there is. How many Republicans voted for Obamacare? How many Independent AND Democratic voters turned out for the GOP candidates recently in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts? If there were no difference between the parties, then why has Cap and Trade been stopped? Why has Card Check been stopped? How many Republicans voted for Obama’s wildly inflated budgets? During the recent ‘Healthcare Summit,’ did the Republicans sound like the Democrats and Obama? If there is no difference between the parties, why is it that Obama didn’t pass his overtake of the healthcare system last summer when he set that first deadline?
I’ll tell you why. The GOP has finally started waking up. There is an old adage that absolute power corrupts absolutely. After the “Contract with America” I will be the first to admit that the Republican Party lost its way. It got bloated and addicted to pork. George W. Bush’s spending was abhorrent for a Conservative. The people began to get angry, and I don’t mean the anger stoked by the far left Lame Stream Media over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am talking about the deficit spending that the GOP and Bush partook in.
But the Republican Party is slow to move and I know that infuriates a lot of folks on our side of the aisle. However, we need to remember that just because we might be able to launch third party. And let’s just say for the sake of argument that we actually take the White House in ’12, without changing the rules in D.C. we won’t have accomplished much. If the GOP can get sloppy and bloated and addicted to Big Government and back room deals and…well you get the picture, then so can a new third party.
Make sure you go read Don's entire response too. He provides a lot of good historical evidence, in making the case for supporting the Republican Party.
Oh man ... in his final response, Scratcher goes there!
Conservative Blogger Debate #3 - Third Party? My Response
While many conservatives seem to venerate Ronald Reagan, I have a different opinion - and it doesn't mesh with his own words quoted above. While Reagan, like most politicians, has said and done things I do agree with, in some ways he is as guilty of big government overreach and social engineering as the worst progressives.
Remember, it was President Reagan who hugely escalated the "War On Drugs" which has wasted more tax dollars and imprisoned more non-violent citizens than almost any policy in American history. Reagan brought us federal drug sentencing guidelines. It was Reagan who brought us the "Anti Drug Abuse Act", which established a death penalty for drug "kingpins". Reagan also gifted us with the "Federal Bail Reform Act", which allows some drug defendants to be held without bail. Where is small government in this?
I agree with Don that we have seen third party candidates "throw a monkey wrench" into elections, so to speak - remember I admitted I've never voted third party over this belief - I do NOT agree that the Republican Party (or many conservatives) are going to abandon this mindset. This belief that smaller government is a good thing until it comes time to control private behavior is entrenched, and it is what has scared off many moderates and independents.
If "true" conservatism is for smaller government and less federal intervention across the board, than not even Reagan was a "true" conservative.
Bonus points go to anyone who isn't afraid to speak their mind, regardless of consequence. I'm impressed!
It's true that there's no historical evidence that the Republican Party has ever stood for shrinking the government to its constitutionally-limited powers ... But like I said, I'll save my opinion until after the debate is finished.
I imagine Round 2 of the debate will be very interesting ...
For more info see:
[...] Debating the issue of a third party. Mind Numbed Robot is covering it, as are Motor City Times, The Classic Liberal, and the combatants are Don of Present Discontent, and Scratcher of Makes My Brain Itch, Check it [...]