155 years ago, the Whig Party was strong and vibrant. Enter Abe Lincoln. A former Whig, he helped form the Republican Party, giving the American electorate an outlet to channel its voting power to change the direction of the country, due in great part to the issue of slavery. His party's better alternative ultimately put an abrupt end to the once grand old Whig Party. Like many cycles in politics, in a matter of a few short years, it ceased to exist.
Could we be witnessing the end of the Republican Party's cycle? Is there a better alternative for conservatives?
The GOP survived Watergate when folks figured the faithful stood little chance. A moderate Gerald Ford saw to that, and interestingly, Democrat Tip O'Neill gave the GOP a "pass" when it came to proceeding with impeachment of President Richard Nixon.
Perhaps that would have been the end to the party; perhaps following through would have actually FULLY cleansed the Conservatives' collective soul, and it would have come back stronger than ever. We'll never know.
Fast-forward to today.
I'm 43 years old. I am a campaign manager for causes, and for politicians. Personally, though I lean conservative, I am not officially affiliated with either party. I am part of a generation full of "Indies" who when pressed to divulge his or her party affiliation, simply say "neither." As a campaign manager or activist on over 20 elected officials' campaigns, you'd think I would have bumped into more than a handful of young Republicans, forty and under. Nope.
There are supporters; but brothers and sisters, there are precious FEW party faithful. I go to GOP events with 400-500 "Hard R's" as we in the biz call them, and interestingly, I'm oftentimes the youngest human being in the room.
Lots of Old Spice and Aqua Velva (I've come to like it), lots of hair dye; lots of blue hair with red scarves; no "YRs" within earshot. It could be the swing band that keeps them away, but I don't think that's really the case.
Hmmmm...methinks the Republican Party's got some problems.
Aha, but wait! Let's add insult to injury: Enter Vice President Cheney to the equation. Stab. Heart. Now. The utter destruction of the Executive Branch's credibility isn't too damaging to the party, is it? Even though George Bush and Dick Cheney are their "own men," they've been playing partisan politics in hardball fashion in order to keep the power they've amassed in their monarchical style. The longer the war ravages on, the longer they can justify the way they "lead" from their branch of government. Secrecy has become modus operandi. We should NOT wonder why any more.
Rather, trusted conservatives are doing more than whispering to impeach the VP, and possibly the President. When this happens, will the collateral damage to the Republican Party be too much for it to survive?
So what do you think the future will hold for the Republican Party?
Will the Republican Party survive this administration's long list of missteps and arguably illegal misdeeds?
If so, what will be its saving grace?
If not, will there be a NEW conservative party to take the reins, or will Independent Conservatives be the flavor of choice?
Author John Coonen is a Partner in The Coffee Group, established in 1987 as a non-partisan campaign and cause marketing firm in Chicago, Illinois; Greensboro, North Carolina; and Boulder, Colorado.
Photo credit: Eric Totherow, iStockPhoto
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 40
How terrible it would be to have one Vice President and his "yes-man" President, utterly destroy Lincoln's party. Maybe that's the only way to bring it back the right way though.
Time to nix both the "Animal Parties" lol...
Rob, I started the "UnParty" if you'd like to join! www.UnParty.Gather.com
I think most folks these days are looking for LEADERSHIP, and in the party system, the notion of leadership is glorified, yet in reality it's Hooverville these days; there's a major vacuum when it comes to authentic leadership.
The People need to find a way to CUT OUT THE MIDDLEMAN and ENGAGE the People (you know, the boss in a Democracy?) to go direct to the government to vote on such things as:
- A fair "no-confidence" vote to enable the voters to toss bums out
- When an elected official vacates office mid-term, the PEOPLE, not the PARTY elect a replacement. Right now, the Political Party boss literally chooses the successor.
- President and Vice President are SEPARATE, not a twin-bill ticket. We the PEOPLE choose our back-up, NOT the current sitting President.
- The People vote in the Speaker of the House directly - 3rd in command for power.
We are not children or "subjects' to the monarchy. We are the bosses, and we need to start engaging and acting that way rather than giving away the power to political parties.
The one thing I have noticed is that these things are cycles. A party is up for a while, then it does something stupid or gets power mad and it slides down as the other party's favor rises. Each time I've seen this happen there are predictions of the imminent demise of the party that is currently out of favor.
Generally what happens happens in two phases. First the party in power begins screwing up and abusing their power. They get fat and complacent and sell out to the highest bidder. They fail first to keep their promises, then fail to do anything of note or even try. They forget that even if they put forward bills that fail, they have still done their job and the blame goes to those who obstructed. The second part of the equation is that the party out of power cleans up its act, gets some new faces in the lead, and abjures the positions and/or behavior that got it into trouble in the first place.
Slowly, over one or two election cycles, the pendulum swings the other way and the party that was once seen on its last legs is again in power a new and more committed group. And it begins all over again in the other direction.
That going to war was not just to become rich? Do me a favor...look at a map of the middle east. You have Afghanistan in the west of Iran. Countries surrounding Iran to the north are all becomming more democratic since the cold war is over. Then we have Iraq. Now if this would have worked. Afghanistan is a free democratic society, Iraq is a free democratic society Iran would have been surrounded. They would see how free (less radical) societies can thrive. But lets go further east. We have Jordan and Syria surounded by more modest Egypt and Saudi Arabia to the south and Turkey to the north. All countries where extremism is fairly low. Well I give you Saudi Arabia is not a popular tourist attraction but at least they dont cut each others heads off. Syria and Jorden would have to seriously look at their problems and also clean up because now cutting peoples heads off is no longer the best method of negotiating.
This could have worked...who knows it still might I sincerely hope so but I am just a right wing kook so can't be right.
In fact, according to the report, you are a borderline Republicrat, with Libertarian tendencies, and have deep-down angst that Ross Perot lost his election bid.
Hmmmm...this report never lies, so no matter what you say back, you can't get out of defending your arguments by uttering the words, "I am a right wing kook," nor "wing-nut, whack-job, rightilla-the-hun, bushsnacker, cheneyganger, gingrichian" or any similar term.
So, what's your question again?
Thanks for this thought provoking article.
We don't need no STINKIN' party to vote on Gather; why should we need one to VOTE for our leadership in the USA?
Know why? NOT because the PEOPLE need it; THEY DON'T NEED PARTIES. It's because the PARTISAN POLITICIANS need PARTIES for their own safety net. Their own "gang" of money-raising, same-talking and oftentimes, know-nothing partisans.
Independence starts with you. Partisanship is the first step AWAY from independence.
I've spent YEARS with them at events, strategy session, fundraising, so-called "grass-roots" efforts. Sad fact is, VERY FEW of the party faithful in the leadership roles could give a rat's tail whether we've gone door-to-door, and they ONLY want walkers to hit the "Hard Party Voters" meaning (Hard R's or Hard D's) they don't want us trying to ACTIVATE new voters - for fear of activating the enemy!
What a JOKE. PARTIES do NOT serve the People. They serve ONLY CERTAIN PEOPLE. The Constitution serves ALL PEOPLE.
It's time the People TRULY become "Independent," and vote with their own minds. Independence starts at home.
That is why the primary system must be abolished altogether. It puts the PARTY first, NOT the PEOPLE.
;)
Apparently, you are a wingnut after all. Me too, actually.
What makes you think we only have a two party system? OK so they are called Republicans or Democrats. But the way I see it there are each side has at least 2 parties. Extreme and moderates. Starting a whole party would take tremendous resources just to get the name out. The green party is rather well funded but how many seats do they have.
But multi party systems are not all they are cracked up to be. They have to join so they can make a majority and then how different are we from a 2 party system anyway? Leaders will emerge from within the party but I think its cyclical...sometimes you end up with a bunch of duds :)
Even though my article seems to support something along these lines, what I'm sensing is that if Republicans HAD another choice - would they abandon Old Betsy the Elephant for a better-run conservative organization?
If Newt Gingrich were young and full of fire TODAY as he was during Reagan's time, would he stick with the GOP or start a new party?
Here's a wild thought: If Thompson wasn't so terribly thrilled with the Republican leadership in place (not a stretch) would he take his hundred million-plus in funding and start a new conservative party to essentially DISTANCE himself from a "brand" that's clearly damaged goods?
The Repubs are not gone or will be. Too many have made zillions off of Dubya to forget and neglect the Grand Old Party of the Upper 10%. Don't want to kill the golden goose the lovely golden RNC eggs. If the Dems can seperate themselves from the wackos and the radical interests that are practically marginal in effect then they might draw the "centrists." That's how they maintained power in the House and Senate for 40 years: appeal to the middle with common sense. Like the Repubs they've allowed themselves to be quantified by their extremists.
Actually, I started a Gather Group called The UnParty - LOL - you might want to consider steppin' in? www.UnParty.Gather.com You can be in charge of the initiation rights - make up your own!
Randall, you said, "Everyone over looks the power of the fourth estate. The fourth estate will elect the next several cycle of office holders." Pardon my ignorance, what is the "fourth estate?"
Time to bring back the Bullmoose Party. Bully!
The only one's leading the parties, are the media actually. There is not ONE strong defender of the GOP, nor is there a strong defender of the Democrats. Both sides WAVERY on the middle of the fence, going with the "popularity" of "X". Reminds me of high school really. Kids trying to find themselves and identify with a certain area. When your in high school, you lean a little to this side, then like what that person says and lean a little towards that. Eventually you balance out and STICK to your GUNS and stop waffling all over the place.
Fresh blood, with YOUTH needs to lead our country. Someone who has a STRONG background in HISTORY, so we can STOP REPEATING ourselves!
I find it telling that moderate Republicans are leading that Parties nomination proccess. I think it will continue to be called the Republican Party, but a shift back toward the center will be the result of Bush and Cheney's shananagans.
Obviously after 9/11 we knew they were a threat. Mr. Bush simply chose to follow a path to invade Iraq after 9/11 because he had already decided to do it before then. It had nothing to do with terrorism though he tried his damnest to tie the two together. We may never know Mr. Bush's true motives for going into Iraq or for refusing to win the war when it was still winnable.
One of your blind spots is that you tend to lump people into ideologies and accept what you're told without question. People can legitimately support an honest war on terrorism, and still not support Mr. Bush or his ill-advised and worst executed war in Iraq. Even some of the most diehard conservative Republicans on this board and elsewhere are backing away and saying "I may be a Republican" or "I may be a conservative" but I'm not that kind of Republican or Conservative.
Remember, when you dig down to the philosophical bases Republican is really not a dirty word.
Scandals to date:
Scooter pardoning, Executive Priviledge abuses, Refusal to comply with Senate subpoenas and Congressional oversight. Misconstruing facts to lead the country into war. Awarding non-competitive contracts to Halliburton. Ignoring CIA Intelligence about the dire Iraq situation, Illegal torture tactics, illegally operating Guantanemo Bay (and the fuckwit GOP candidates openly condone these said practices), have I missed anything?
Thompson was a mole for Nixon during Watergate, he's also very ill.
Giuliani was incompetent during 9/11, he was a corrupt and terrible N.Y mayor prior to it and his actions afterwards were atrocious. He's a lying opportunist. The N.Y firefighters recently testified to this.
He married his cousin and lied TWICE when he divorced and CHEATED on one of his ex-wives.
He does not represent conservative views: pro-choice, pro-gun control.
Funny how he's the GOP Leading candidate. What an absolute joke.
McCain is a serial liar despite positioning himself as a 'straight-talker' and he's a flipflopper.
Romney is a career flip-flopper and he abused his dog on at least one occassion in the past, also he's a mormon
But of course they're appealing to the wealthy who are taxed significantly less and given less regulation.
And they appeal to the millions of ignorant pro-war racists, idiotic people who know nothing and christian bigots so the GOP will never die. But they're certainly not conservative anymore by any measure.
Sadly Christian Fundamentalists, obscenely greedy elites and idiots won't breed out unfortunately, so yes they'll still have a supporting base.
The only reason Parties will go away will be when some hot shot comes up with a viable way to cut out the middleman and go direct to the leaders themselves.
You see, Partisan leaders - who are NOT voted into office - stand BETWEEN the People and the Politician as a "go-between" of sorts. Their MARK-UP is quite heavy indeed, and we all pay heavily due to their influence on the marketplace.
Time to cut out the middlemen.
Since most of the politicians are lawyers they must be suffering (evident now) from a new form of AIDS otherwise known as Acute Integrity Deficiency Syndrome.
I am a Republican ... errr let me restate that, I was a Republican but do not want to be affiliated in any shape or form with this administration. It hurts too much to see what has happened to our country when we were on the cusp of a new period of renaissance (with us leading the way). The democrats are totally impotent errr inept and in need of some reality viagra. Sooo, third party does sound good but who and will they be corrupted by the power they hold?
I need a drink, this is really depressing.
In 1,000 years, 50 parties may have come and go. The hope is that our nation not only survives, but prospers; and other countries will follow our model (which we borrowed from others and renovated), and they too will prosper.
Look at Germany and Japan - to great examples of INDEPENDENT countries, following a Democracy.
So, my concern for PARTY success is not so much. I think the KEY will be for the PEOPLE to intentionally REDUCE the power of parties to enable the PEOPLES' individual and collective voice to be heard.