I was going to reply to this. But it’s way too long. So I’m reblogging for sanity’s sake:
It’s fair to ask if the con-lib alliance (even when it was allied under Reagan) really has influence in the GOP. And our history, such as it is, does not go back as far as most people think. I am not in the “let it burn” camp. But I do have sympathy for it as more than a false flag operation. Here’s why:
First of all, BOTH political parties used to be based on pretty much everything BUT ideology. They were coalitions of interests that used each other. And what ideological tilt that took the shape of was worked out in the cigar-filled room. For the GOP this is because it coalesced as essentially a single-issue party, anti-slavery. So it took true firebrands from the Northeast, combined them with business interest corporatists who saw slavery blocking their progress, and homestead farmers in free states who saw the plantations as an impediment as well. It’s always been an alliance of convenience. The Democrat’s history is more sordid, but essentially an alliance of interests that pretty much said, “We don’t want THEM.”
Ideology did not become the prime motivator of politics until the Progressive movement. And then it did so by taking over large swaths of BOTH parties. Hence it wasn’t a surprise to anyone that the leading family of Progressive Politics–the Roosevelts–could rise to the top of them both.
The money in the GOP has *always* remained in the fat cat ruling class statists that took over the party then. Even when the Goldwater revolt that became the Reagan Revolution drove them back for a season. They still had the money and political levers to jury rig the system in their favor. And they’ve used them ruthlessly since 1988.
And unlike many people here, the Establishment is QUITE willing to lose elections if it means their hands on the levers remain secure. Look at the number of times they’re literally gone to support the Left after their candidate gets primaried. That’s because ideologically, they’re men of the left, no different than Democrats, only hiding their cloaks so they can keep their places of influence. The Democrats are the only party that’s truly gotten more ideological, by purging its former conservative elements (Primarily the old Dixiecrats and the lower working class, that is, non-union).
Because the GOP primarily exists as a non-ideological construct still, with a large swath of power-brokers on the left of the American Political center, letting it burn–IF the Con/Lib alliance could be rebuilt in the process, would not be as destructive as ATH describes, IMHO. Really, all we’d be losing then is the access to money those brokers possess. But that money doesn’t go to us anyway. It’s actively employed AGAINST us.
So the real issue is, do you think the Reagan coalition, such as it was, can be re-established more easily within the GOP, or without. At this point, I think it’s even money. Which is why I say don’t support the party. Support candidates. And I refuse to self-identify with the GOP any longer. I’ll support Con/Lib candidates. By name. Not party. That is to say, if the GOP insists on shanking me, I reserve the right to shank it in return.
Originally posted on According To Hoyt:
Lately there has been a wave of talk about leaving the GOP behind, going third party. It’s seemingly everywhere (except this blog, where the people espousing it are people who always have – hold on to that point, it will be relevant later.)
I know I responded with a twitter rant of someone who got more snippy than I would have because he said it better than I could – not the snippy part, but the point of his rant – to someone who said that two days ago. I am sorry, no offense meant. It’s just that I think you – all of you – are barking up the wrong tree and failing to see both the progress and the problems with your chosen course.
Sure, some people I respect – Chris Muir, Bill Quick, sometimes Bill Whittle – advocate that. I’m going to say they haven’t looked at…
View original 2,714 more words