Third party? No. Conservatives need to stay in the marriage
by Roger Hines
Columnist
December 09, 2012 12:00 AM | 1833 views | 6 6 comments | 11 11 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Ponder the eventuality of our nation having three or more equally viable political parties. Of course America already has parties other than Democrats and Republicans, but they are not viable competitors to the two major ones.

Libertarians are increasing in number and influence, but political realities still drive most of them to the Republican tent. The Green Party is so markedly a single-issue party that it probably will never be viable. The Constitution Party, as good a group of patriots as one could find, is still marginal as well.

Would multiple parties be a positive development? Would they make for better government? Would political discourse become even more venomous?

Granted, moving to a third party or multiple parties is preferable to talking about secession just yet, but is a third party the answer for Republicans who are feeling disenfranchised, namely social and fiscal conservatives?

My first response to the question, or just the thought, is “Good Grief!” Why all the despair? Was Obama’s victory a landslide? Who still controls the U.S. House of Representatives? Which party holds the governorship of 25 states that hold 53 per cent of the nation’s population and also happen to have Republican-dominated legislatures? Who in the world, besides the 20 or so viewers of MSNBC, thinks the Tea Party is dead? Most importantly, which party has a bench full of attractive candidates-in-waiting for 2016? Who would deny that one of them, the energetic, female Hispanic governor of New Mexico, Susana Martinez, would give Hillary Clinton a run for her money?

Calls for a third party are terribly premature. That’s not to say the time will never come. Right now, however, winning close to half the vote in a presidential election is no reason to start separating from each other.

We do have a nation to think about. We also know, or should know, what politics and government are like in nations with multiple parties. It’s not pleasant: contested elections every election cycle, coalition governments that don’t govern too well, and constant, extreme partisanship among the general populace.

I’m just guessing, but what the conservative advocates of an alternative party to the GOP most likely foresee is a future party that is already coalescing, one that already exists, but without a name or a formal structure: the Tea Party, social and religious conservatives, constitutionalists, some independents, some Catholics, some Libertarians, and even the few remaining conservative Democrats.

Understandably, third-party advocates are not exactly happy with the GOP leaders who are obsessing over the GOP’s need to “re-brand.” In spite of many reasons for optimism, numerous nationally known Republicans are talking and sounding like Chicken Little. Listening to them, you would think that Americans just voted overwhelming to outlaw free enterprise, confiscate all guns, and abolish the Defense Department. (I know, many Obama supporters favor all three of those actions.) These GOP leaders are frightened by Hispanics, women, and independents; therefore, they argue, GOP policies must become Democrat Lite. In other words, lighten up on illegal immigration, bone up on pop culture, and shut up on gay marriage.

Even “The Architect,” Karl Rove, is now sounding more like a wrecking ball. Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana has accused Republicans of being stupid. For what? For taking the wrong positions. U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) has come close to saying the same thing. In a recent Wall Street Journal article, Ken Mehlman, former Republican National Committee Chairman (no less) argued that, in light of the November election, Republicans must embrace gay marriage. Asserting that “demography is destiny,” and that “allowing marriage for same-sex couples would cultivate community stability and foster family values,” Mehlman joined those who say, in essence, that Republicans must become Democrats in order to win the White House. So much for core political beliefs.

In light of such caving or near-caving on the part of the highly visible GOP faces, thoughts of divorce on the part of rank and file Republicans are to be expected. But there is one chief reason why “movement” conservatives should remain faithful: They are currently the GOP’s chief constituency, and GOP bigwigs know it. As Lincoln put it, “I hope to have God on my side, but I must have Kentucky.”

National GOP leaders know that they must have the conservatives. They know they cannot dump evangelicals, especially since 20 percent of Hispanics are evangelicals.

So what must “movement” conservatives do? Stay in the marriage. Refuse to throw away their leverage. Remember the heady joy of early Tea Party days. Insist that Republican leaders overcome their silly fears and stick to their professed beliefs.

With fresh wind in their sails, Republicans can then resume their mission of perpetuating liberty, not government, and they will win back those who stayed home in November.

Roger Hines of Kennesaw is a retired high school teacher and former state legislator.

Comments
(6)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
Connie Mack Jr
|
December 09, 2012
How about no parties Roger? How about individuals running without party labels? Sounds Radical to us but GW [ie George Washington]said factions and political parties would destroy the Nation and the basic Human Rights to Individuals by the Corporate State. [ie Fascism] No doubt you support corporate fusionism into both major parties since both are the same and one still becomes a slave to the political system..
B D Lane
|
December 11, 2012
That's a nice idea, I guess, but John Adams and Thomas Jefferson put an end to that thinking fairly quickly. If you label a candidate or not, they have to represent a point of view, which naturally leads to party affiliation.

Having said this, I don't always vote for Republicans in local elections. There are--and have always been--many fine Democrats out in the world to whom I will give consideration even though we don't agree on the finer points. However, I do have core principles. I am a fiscal conservative above all other things, and I care a great deal about foreign policy and national defense.

Therefore, if you had a candidate standing in front of me with no party label who said he/she believes in a giant social safety net, little American leadership in global affairs, and a reduced military footprint, I would vote against that candidate. It would not matter if that candidate said he/she was from the purple princess party with the pink polka dotted tent where everyone loves one another forever. Conversely, if a guy has an R behind his name, and I don't think his policy approach is great for my district or my country, I will vote against him....

However, I agree with the writer of the article. Republicans need to get over themselves a little bit. They are still plenty strong in Washington. Enough with the hand wringing! Sure, leadership from all sides will need to compromise, but Republicans also need to position themselves for future elections as a real alternative to the Democrats' policies. Otherwise voters like me will simply drop out of the system completely. That's hardly a good result.

Kevin Foley
|
December 09, 2012
Sorry Roger, it was an Electoral College landslide, 332-206. Obama won by bigger margins in the popular vote and Electoral College than George W. Bush, who claimed for himself a "mandate," saying he'd earned "political capital" he intended to spend and your team cheered him on.

What's good for the goose and all that.

Meantime, Americans rejected the far right conservative agenda you advocate. You guys worked overtime alienating everyone from gays to young women to Hisanics and Latinos with the constant drumbeat of intolerance and social enigneering. Now you say, stay the course? Seriously?

Those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

Foley's Follies
|
December 10, 2012
@Kevin Foley

Kevin, Kevin, there you go again, completely misrepresenting the facts. Obama's win was based on one simple fact, the low information voters (and that is my term, Kevin, you used it after you saw me use it) were promised more and bigger free hand outs from Santa Claus Obama. It is hard to run against Santa Claus. Subtract the voter fraud and illegal alien vote, and Obama not only does not have a mandate, he did not get enough votes to win.
No third party!
|
December 09, 2012
The only way the Republicans are going to win again is to have a "big tent". There is no reason why we cannot all get along. It is ridiculous to think that you can lessen the number of people you appeal to, and expect to waltz right into the White House. Does anyone out there still have a grain of Common Sense left?
Four Parties
|
December 10, 2012
@No third party!

Obama won for one reason, he promised the most most free money to the most people. It is hard to beat Santa Claus.
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides