Written on Sunday, November 16th, 2008 at 11:39pm by Christopher Smith | 8 Comments

Ron Paul and The Future of The GOP

In 2004, a spunky and underrated small state Governor captivated the base of the Democratic Party in the early stages of the Presidential Primary.  He appealed to the members of the party who were tired of Clintonian triangulation and efforts to move to the center and launched a viral, internet-based campaign that became a scaffold model for future candidates.

After the establishment wing of the party nominated John Kerry due to “electability“, Howard Dean was rewarded for his early campaign success with the job of Chairman of the Democratic National Committee.  Dean immediately began implementing a 50 state strategy for the party, focused on grassroots fundraising and brought about a return to traditional liberal ideology as the proud center of the party platform.

Now, as the GOP surveys the landscape after a devastating loss in the 2008 general election, they must take stock of who they are as a party.  Will they return to their roots as the party of small government, tax reform, and a prudent and cautious foreign policy?  That was the party of which I was a member.  Or will they continue their march towards being a regional party with a big government mindset and christianist values?  When you define your party platform, I think you have to define from the fringe and work your way back to the center.  For all intents and purposes, the Republican Party has two fringe factions at this point.

Essentially, who will they model themselves after, Ron Paul or Sarah Palin?  It is the choice of a generation for Republicans.

While Paul was marginalized by many members of his own party during the primary as some right wing whackjob, his platform was right out of the paleo-conservative constitutionalist playbook as written by Barry Goldwater.

Oddly enough, the actual right wing whackjob, Sarah Palin, was embraced by her party with nearly the same fervor with which they rejected Ron Paul.  Palin is a neo-con (a dumb one at that) and shares in the big govenment ideology of her party with a heavy focus on the churchin’ (wink).  Palin herself represents the logical follow-on to President Bush, with a heavy dose of high school bitchiness and condescending religion.  Her wing of the party is populated by the likes of Bobby Jindal, Mitch McConnell and Mike Huckabee.  While Ron Paul is a christian, he does not make it the centerpiece of his campaign identity or platform.

So, the GOP is at a crossroads.  The Democrats hold the Presidency, the House of Representatives, the Senate, the majority of Governorships and the GOP is stumbling about like Rush Limbaugh in a pharmacy.  The smart play would seem to lay the foundation of an opposition party which would be everything an Obama Administration and a Democratic Congress is not.

Can Ron Paul be a leader in the way that Howard Dean was after 2004?  Does the GOP sense a need to change course from their big government, christianist platform?  If not Paul, who can the GOP look to as a ;eader on policy and platform?  Mitt Romney?  Tim Pawlenty? Chalie (Definitely not gay) Crist?  Newt Gingrich?

Tagged with: , , ,

8 Comments

  1. C. Byrd says:
    November 17, 2008 at 9:43 am

    Honestly…I think to easily discount Palin as “stupid” or underestimate her abilities is wrong. Why do you think she is stupid? Because she blew a Katie Couric interview? If anything, she wasn’t seasoned enough politically to take on the msm.

    She has a lot of appeal with traditional Republicans…I also think Ron Paul could have that appeal as well if he recrafts his message.

    I think both parties share the “big government ideology.” See Obamaplans…

    It took the Dems 12 years to get over the Carter disaster…it may take Republicans at least 8 to get over the Bush disaster…the only difference is, Obama’s win wasn’t the landslide or mandate for change as Ronald Reagan’s in 1980…heck, I don’t think Obama is even going to have the number of electoral votes as Clinton in 1992…this means if Obama doesn’t have strong showing in his first term, the door is wide open for the Republicans in 2012.

  2. Chris Smith says:
    November 17, 2008 at 12:34 pm

    Are you serious? You think Palin just wasn’t seasoned in front of actual media? She has no considered opinions on issues that affect America, especially in the arena of foreign policy or macroeconomic policy. I’m sure she is plenty qualified to be a Governor of a state like Alaska, where the decisions and issues are populist and simpler in nature. She is a neo-pentecostal wingnut and lacks the depth, education or knowledge to be a serious ficure on the national political scene. Well, unless Bill Kristol, Karl Rove and the other party regulars head up to Alaska to give her another cram session on actual issues.

    She has appeal with a regional and cultural sect of the Republican party and I think her positions and general unserious persona leave her outside the mainstream in American politics. Aside from the fringe voters who find it more important to “identify” with a President as someone they could have a beer with.

    Since you agree that both Republicans and Democrats share a big government ideology, doesn’t it make more sense for the GOP to rally around a traditional small government conservative and form an opposition party that actually differs on substantive (non-wedge) issues from the Democrats?

  3. S.S. McSnarkamaphone says:
    November 17, 2008 at 2:49 pm

    A simpler way to frame it is this:

    They can stick with the conservative intellectuals–on both sides–or the conservative reactionary anti-intellectuals, again, on both sides. The former road leads to redemption, the latter to Democratic hegemony until the get their heads out of their asses. All the evidence suggests the the future belongs to the arugula-eaters, whomsoever they may be, and more, that America circa 2008, is definitely not a “center-right” country.

  4. S.S. McSnarkamaphone says:
    November 17, 2008 at 2:57 pm

    By the way, are Dems historically the party of imprudent and incautious foreign policy? Are they historically all for taxation? For “big” government (itself just a euphemism for “government that does/does not provide services”)? Really?

    I hear such descriptions of the Republicans, but I think that’s their frame, and not really objective.

  5. Chris Smith says:
    November 17, 2008 at 3:04 pm

    Democrats are not for imprudent and incautious foreign policy, that would be the current administration which was the comparison. The current Republican doctrine versus the traditional.

    Historically, Democrats were more interventionist than Republicans and in recent years, Republicans have taken over the interventionist mantra and upped the ante militarily.

    As to big government, I use the term as I am talking about how the GOP should be framing the debate.

  6. Prodigal-Son says:
    November 18, 2008 at 8:00 pm

    A couple thoughts:

    1) Palin is too stupid to be President OR Governor of Alaska. Byrd – when asked what papers she reads, she answered “all of them.” When asked about any policy other than abortion and oil, she is stumped. She was picked for her chromosomes, and a poor choice it was. America is better off if she fades away now that we are bored with her.

    That being said, Chris Smith – why infer that stupid people can run Alaska, but not a “real” state (my fingerquotes, not yours). Red states deserve good governance too. Isn’t Obama supposed to unify? The population of your state does not represent the complexity of its governance, or the ability it takes to lead.

    2) The joke used to be that the R’s built the military, and D’s used it. That worked with Reagan vs. Clinton. Not so much with Bush. I think both parties have met the limit of interventionism.

    3) We (Conservatives) have officially lost the “small government” debate. It turns out (as George Will pointed out) that desire for low taxes and lots of government services are endemic to human nature. To put it another way, people want lots of stuff and don’t want to pay for it. Reagan preached small government and low taxes, and wrecked the deficit. Bush 43 put the nail in that coffin. Conservaties want low taxes and small government, but are unable to provide it, because they are human. Republicans (of which I am one) need to realize that the American people don’t want small government, they want COMPETANT government. There is a fundamental problem in running to take over something that you think constantly fails and is never the solution. The American people want Social Security, Medicare, welfare, a Dept of Education, an emergency management system, a strong military and they don’t want to pay for it. If conservatives aren’t going to stand by their guns and actually cut these things (and abolish the Dept of Ed), then we can’t just let them drift along poorly, but cut taxes so we don’t pay for it.

    The current crop of new governors, who are actually doing this, should make the GOP the party of competant good government that we actually pay for, and have it solve policy problems with conservative solutions. Too much to ask?

  7. C. Byrd says:
    November 19, 2008 at 10:59 pm

    American people don’t want small government, they want COMPETANT government. There is a fundamental problem in running to take over something that you think constantly fails and is never the solution.

    Great observation…

    Again…I don’t think Palin is stupid…I think the choice was stupid and she clearly wasn’t ready for primetime…but the ball is in her court, she is going to garner a lot of attention over the next few years…it will be interesting to see if she can unstupid herself and properly prepare for a run in 2012.

    As Geek and others have pointed out, the Republicans have to refocus and really start pointing to the differences between them and the Dems beyond the wedge issues that permeate elections.

 

You need to log in to vote

The blog owner requires users to be logged in to be able to vote for this post.

Alternatively, if you do not have an account yet you can create one here.

Powered by Vote It Up