What is the Republican Party’s guiding principle?

[mystery-ak]

October 31, 2023
What is the Republican Party’s guiding principle?
By Jay Davidson

Here is a discussion of principle, understanding, and insights into the newest speaker of the House.  He is quoted as saying:

    Our people are losing their faith in government. ... I think we have to be mindful of that. We’re going to fight vigorously over our core principles because they’re at odds a lot of times now in this modern era. We have to sacrifice sometimes our preferences because that’s what’s necessary in a legislative body.

Rather than fighting vigorously for his core principles as a member of the government, the ruling elite, he should adhere vigorously to his core principles, which means he lives according to his principles but does not force others to live to his ideals.  The difference is stark, as I hope to prove.

We have yet to see the core principles of the current Republican party.  We would be so much better off if the Republicans told everyone what they were for and provided solutions, rather than what they are against.  Some of us wonder if they even know.

In what alternate universe does anyone have faith in any government?  At best, government sets a pathway for transaction and interaction, enforces written laws, protects the nation from foreign and domestic invaders, and itself adheres to the Constitution’s restrictions on government actions.  That’s the best that government can do.  It can stay out of the way.

more
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/10/what_is_the_republican_partys_guiding_principle.html

[Maj. Bill Martin]

An interesting question.

A decade ago, I'd have said it was a belief in the primary of the individual over the collective/government.  Now...I think a whole lot of Republicans are fine with the primary of government as long as the "right guy" is in charge.

[roamer_1]

'Republican' means nothing. Prove me wrong.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

'Republican' means nothing. Prove me wrong.

Among the two major political parties in the U.S., it is the one most likely to oppose leftism.

That may not be enough for you to support it, but that doesn't mean it has no meaning.

[roamer_1]

Among the two major political parties in the U.S., it is the one most likely to oppose leftism.

That may not be enough for you to support it, but that doesn't mean it has no meaning.

It really does not. It stands upon nothing.

[Fishrrman]

"What is the Republican Party’s guiding principle?"

Don't do anything that actually CHANGES anything.

[Smokin Joe]

"What is the Republican Party’s guiding principle?"

Don't do anything that actually CHANGES anything.

Their moral compa$$, of cour$e.

[Bigun]

"What is the Republican Party’s guiding principle?"

Don't do anything that actually CHANGES anything.

I'm sure you meant "Fight like hell to prevent any real change!" @Fishrrman

 

[GtHawk]

'Republican' means nothing. Prove me wrong.

Why that's just not true, for decades now 'republican' or 'GOP' if you prefer is synonymous with 'capitulation'.


ca·pit·u·la·tion
/kəˌpiCHəˈlāSH(ə)n/
noun
the action of surrendering or ceasing to resist an opponent or demand.

[Ghost Bear]

I'm sure you meant "Fight like hell to prevent any real change!" Fishrrman

I was going to say, "Above all, maintain the status quo!"  but what you said works just as well.

[Bigun]

I was going to say, "Above all, maintain the status quo!"  but what you said works just as well.

 

[The_Reader_David]

Principles?  Getting Republicans elected to public office is about the extent of it.

I'm afraid America actually has two fascist parties*, one of which (the Democrats) has a large, noisy socialist wing and a large, even noisier cultural Marxist wing, the other of which has a (too) small classical liberal wing (in the American context that's called Conservative, since conserving the American Founding, which was the quintessentially classical liberal event in world history, is a lot of what we want to conserve).  I stick with the Republican because I hate socialism and wokeness and am a classical liberal (i.e. American Conservative).

*Remember Mussolini's definition of fascism:  the union of state and corporate powers.  Democrats want that union with the state in the driver's seat, as the Twitter files prove.  All to many Republicans also want it, but with the corporations in the driver's seat.

[roamer_1]

Why that's just not true, for decades now 'republican' or 'GOP' if you prefer is synonymous with 'capitulation'.


ca·pit·u·la·tion
/kəˌpiCHəˈlāSH(ə)n/
noun
the action of surrendering or ceasing to resist an opponent or demand.

Think something more like 'collusion'. I am not willing to believe it to be passiveness, nor ignorance / incompetence.  Too often it is because they agree with the Democrats... or they would fight.

[Ghost Bear]

Think something more like 'collusion'. I am not willing to believe it to be passiveness, nor ignorance / incompetence.  Too often it is because they agree with the Democrats... or they would fight.

Or to put it another way, they are the "controlled opposition": someone for the rubes to vote for, thinking they will change things, while really they won't change a thing.

[roamer_1]

Or to put it another way, they are the "controlled opposition": someone for the rubes to vote for, thinking they will change things, while really they won't change a thing.

Almost exactly... they both want globalism so they have much in agreement... There is difference on who drives the bus, but the direction they're heading is without argument.

[DefiantMassRINO]

 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Almost exactly... they both want globalism so they have much in agreement... There is difference on who drives the bus, but the direction they're heading is without argument.

The way I look at it, the distinction between the two parties is relevant because it at least identifies which of the two parties conservative/libertarians should try to "take over".  It's not an accident that the relatively small number of "good" members of Congress are Republicans.  We can complain that neither of the parties is what we want, but that's not really a problem with the parties as parties, but rather with the voters who elect those people and send them to Washington.  I mean, how else other than voter ignorance/indifference/confusion do you explain Kentuckians electing both Andy Beshear and Rand Paul?

Anyway, starting a truly conservative third party doesn't magically create the kind of voters necessary to elect those true conservatives.  Just my opinion, but I think we spend way to much time bitching about the parties, and not enough pointing the finger of responsibility at the people truly responsible.

[Ghost Bear]

The way I look at it, the distinction between the two parties is relevant because it at least identifies which of the two parties conservative/libertarians should try to "take over".  It's not an accident that the relatively small number of "good" members of Congress are Republicans.  We can complain that neither of the parties is what we want, but that's not really a problem with the parties as parties, but rather with the voters who elect those people and send them to Washington.  I mean, how else other than voter ignorance/indifference/confusion do you explain Kentuckians electing both Andy Beshear and Rand Paul?

Anyway, starting a truly conservative third party doesn't magically create the kind of voters necessary to elect those true conservatives.  Just my opinion, but I think we spend way to much time bitching about the parties, and not enough pointing the finger of responsibility at the people truly responsible.

Conservatives have been trying to "take over" the Republican party for 60 years. They have had two successes: electing Reagan in 1980, and the Newt Gingrich-led congressional takeover of 1994. Otherwise this strategy has accomplished little.

I suggest that after 60 years of trying with little actual success, perhaps a new strategy should be tried.

Build a new party but from the ground up: organize in every state, have a stated platform, but instead of focusing on national elections focus first on local elections. By "local" I mean really local:  school board, election board, city council, county judgeships, etc. Get a few wins there, then begin running for state offices, and then federal offices (i.e., federal House seats) and eventually for the Senate and Presidency. Yes it is slow and won't turn things around immediately, but the country didn't get into the condition it is in overnight either.

By the way, this is the strategy that Steve Bannon has promoted, although he has not explicitly called it a third party so far as I know. I think his strategy will ultimately result in a third party, though.

[roamer_1]

The way I look at it, the distinction between the two parties is relevant because it at least identifies which of the two parties conservative/libertarians should try to "take over".  It's not an accident that the relatively small number of "good" members of Congress are Republicans.  We can complain that neither of the parties is what we want, but that's not really a problem with the parties as parties, but rather with the voters who elect those people and send them to Washington.  I mean, how else other than voter ignorance/indifference/confusion do you explain Kentuckians electing both Andy Beshear and Rand Paul?

Anyway, starting a truly conservative third party doesn't magically create the kind of voters necessary to elect those true conservatives.  Just my opinion, but I think we spend way to much time bitching about the parties, and not enough pointing the finger of responsibility at the people truly responsible.

I would have you pan back a little and look at the Democrats. Not very long ago at all there were classic liberals in the Democrat party. Now there are none. What is considered 'moderate' in the Democrat party (Clintons) is way left and way progressive.

I would submit the very same thing is happening to the Republicans now.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I would have you pan back a little and look at the Democrats. Not very long ago at all there were classic liberals in the Democrat party. Now there are none. What is considered 'moderate' in the Democrat party (Clintons) is way left and way progressive.

I would submit the very same thing is happening to the Republicans now.

And that's because there are more voters who lean left politically.

[sneakypete]

To try and not upset their masters in the DNC,thus never disturbing their participation in the Global Gravy Train?

Also,make sure Rude Orange Rich  Man is not elected so he can't upset any "apple carts".

[jmyrlefuller]

Selling out to NYC billionaires and calling anyone who disagrees with it jealous losers who wear insoles.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Selling out to NYC billionaires and calling anyone who disagrees with it jealous losers who wear insoles.

Lifts.   

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Conservatives have been trying to "take over" the Republican party for 60 years. They have had two successes: electing Reagan in 1980, and the Newt Gingrich-led congressional takeover of 1994. Otherwise this strategy has accomplished little.

I suggest that after 60 years of trying with little actual success, perhaps a new strategy should be tried.

I don't think Reagan and Gingrich are "little success".  I'd also point out that it was exclusive Republican-appointed justices who saved the Second Amendment, killed Roe, and killed government-sponsored affirmative action.  Those aren't little successes either.

Build a new party but from the ground up: organize in every state, have a stated platform, but instead of focusing on national elections focus first on local elections. By "local" I mean really local:  school board, election board, city council, county judgeships, etc. Get a few wins there, then begin running for state offices, and then federal offices (i.e., federal House seats) and eventually for the Senate and Presidency. Yes it is slow and won't turn things around immediately, but the country didn't get into the condition it is in overnight either.

Local issues often have little overlap with federal ones, so a coalition that works at the local level might not exist at the federal level.

By the way, this is the strategy that Steve Bannon has promoted, although he has not explicitly called it a third party so far as I know. I think his strategy will ultimately result in a third party, though.

The math just doesn't make sense to me.  If you have three parties, you need at least 1/3 of the total voters to align with you to win.  If you're going for only half of one of the two major parties, you only need 25% of total voters.  In other words, it's just easier to win by becoming the majority of the GOP than by starting a whole new party that competes against the other two.

[Ghost Bear]

I don't think Reagan and Gingrich are "little success".  I'd also point out that it was exclusive Republican-appointed justices who saved the Second Amendment, killed Roe, and killed government-sponsored affirmative action.  Those aren't little successes either.

Strawman argument. No where in my post did I say those successes were "little".  However, I will point out that what they accomplished while in office has since been frittered away. Also, Republican-appointed justices tend to be hit-or-miss: GHW Bush appointed Clarence Thomas, but he also appointed David Souter. For what it's worth, Donald Trump appointed three of the justices that overturned Roe v. Wade, and yet you don't support his re-election.

Local issues often have little overlap with federal ones, so a coalition that works at the local level might not exist at the federal level.

Another strawman. Nowhere did I suggest a "coalition". I suggested stating a platform and attracting people to it, and then proceeding to use that support to win elections at a local level. Local issues affect people much more than federal ones: for instance, the crime waves currently taking place in major cities are due to locally-elected District Attorneys refusing to prosecute criminals. Also, if you want to change how voters view issues, you need to change how they are educated. Education is largely controlled by locally-elected school boards. Sure, the Dept. of Education holds a lot of sway, but it is the school boards that hire the teachers and administrators, and choose the curriculum to be taught. Ultimately if you want to change how our children are educated, you need to control the school boards.

The math just doesn't make sense to me.  If you have three parties, you need at least 1/3 of the total voters to align with you to win.  If you're going for only half of one of the two major parties, you only need 25% of total voters.  In other words, it's just easier to win by becoming the majority of the GOP than by starting a whole new party that competes against the other two.

You are insisting on looking only at the Federal level, and in the short term. I am advocating for working at the local level, over the long term. Take over the grass-roots (locally) and the Federal will, eventually, fall in line. It might take 20 or even 50 years, but then that's how long it took for us to end up where we now are.