Welcome the new Conservative Party
 

Strategic analysts have been calling this one for about 3 years, and the day has finally arrived: the right has officially fractured. With the Sarah Palin endorsement of Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman over Republican state Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava (R), the first truly high profile leader on he right has signaled not just a willingness to admit that the Republican party is somehow too progressive, but to actively back a third, even more far-right party.

I'm sure everyone (or at least a few of you) have been following the bizarre race to fill the seat of recently appointed Secretary of the Army John McHugh in the NY House. It's been a bizarre case of "far right, but not far right enough" which has been considered by many as a signal of the coming problems for the Republicans in the 2010 election cycle, but when Rick Santorum, Fred Thompsan, and insane super-neocon Dick Armey decided to break ranks with the Republicans to support, and now Sarah Palin, it's pretty clear the fracture is already upon us. What's interesting are the battle-lines which are starting to be drawn. Newt Gingrich, for example, is bucking against this trend and essentially calling for party unity (I guess he's not that stupid), but it seems too late.

I think we should watch carefully over the next few weeks to see if other big-name Republicans like Pawlenty, Huckabee, and Romney chime in on this growing problem.

Meanwhile, the Democrat running, Bill Owens, actually stands a decent shot if the Conservative and Republican split right-wing votes as much as it might seem. Wouldn't it be interesting to see what is usually a Republican district go to a Democrat as a direct result of Republican infighting?

Well, I would hope that the 2-party system gets changed if this happens more and more. I would like to see it better implemented to match the views of the citizens, well at least in the house of representatives.

There should be fiscally conservative libertarians, socially liberal greens, and a bunch of other groups that don't have a seat right now in the government.

Maybe we should vote for the party first, and then vote for the person once we know how many seats each party has won.

What's amusing (to me) is that this seems to be in reaction to the current administration being "too liberal", when the truth is that it's very moderate. When do we get to see the Democratic Party fracture so that I can support more liberal candidates?

When we change our voting structure to something that adheres to the Condorcet Method.

This would be the single easiest thing to do imo. As it is now I don't see the 2 party system going anywhere.

So we would always get middle of the road politicians with no real beliefs trying to change the nation? I think Obama is finding out that trying to get some things done with bipartisan support isn't easy, and he is using Republican ideas (cap&trade vs quotas and private ins. vs public ins). And how many people would even put a number by a candidate they don't like?

On another note, I figured out what this group should be called. The Neo-cons were supposed to be 'compassionate conservatives', but the tea party people are blatantly 'uncompassionate conservatives'.

Obama's middle of the road. Better middle of the road than falling off the far, far right like Bush.

This and This.
What frightens me more than the current choice between a fundie spendthrift right and an anti-gun spendthrift left is an unchallengeable hegemony should the Democrats not splinter as well. The disparity between the promise that Obama represents and what he's able to actually deliver is a ray of hope in this respect.

IMO, the two-party system has served as well for 225 years and only needs minor tinkering, not a complete overhaul.

The Republicans problem is that they wish to remain ideologically pure....even if it is a death wish since the country is so ideologically diverse.

The NY election reference in the OP is only the most recent example, but it goes back to the 06 and 08 elections when Democrats won 50+ House seats, mostly in red distrcts, by recruiting and running moderates, while the Republican ideological test required that they run the most conservative. Most of those 50+ "Blue Dog" Democrats are fiscal moderates, bordering on fiscal conservatives.

As a result, the Democratic party has become a big tent party, which presents opportunities as well as challenges....and it means those on the far left will have to chose to be either more accommodating and flexible or risk losing that majority status.

What the Democrats have in their favor is that as long as this is the face of the Republican party....

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...over.small.jpg

...Republicans will never attract the swing centrist voters. Limbaugh, Beck, Palin are great for the base, but a losing face for a party that wants to govern.

---------- Post added at 07:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:56 PM ----------

Rather than splinter, in 06, for example (after electing moderate Democratic Senators in AR, CO, NH, PA, VA, WY - most are either fiscal moderates and/or pro-gun or anti-choice - not your "typical" liberals) the Democratic caucus in the Senate chose a Majority Leader who is pro-gun and anti-choice. He would not have been my choice.. but there is that flexibility that is required.

I can't imagine a scenario where a pro-choice, anti-gun Senator could become a leader of the Republican party....Limbaugh, et al would not allow it.

All I know is if the Republican Party doesn't pull it's head out of it's ass I'll be voting Obama in 2012.

I'm not sure what the GOP can do about the Limbaughs and Becks of the world.....those people are not members of the party and have the freedom to say whatever they'd like on their radio shows.

wow, and not talk of Ron Paul. i dont care his age, but this man has had consistent views for a very long time. No real lobbyists coming to see him. He is actually for the people as well as less government.

what other candidate will do that?

Sarah? really?

Paul has his own problems

Paul is also very different from most Republicans. If he was for Cap & Trade and better environmental regulations, I would have liked him more. The country would be better off with Ron Paul instead of other prominent anti-tax Republicans.

Will, the Conservative Party isn't new. It's been around in NY for a looooooooong time. There used to be a Liberal Party, too, but they sort of fell apart after falling below a vote threshold and now the former head of the party is (I think) in jail for some sort of corruption (I wonder why they haven't caught the Conservative guy yet, either). Basically, the two minor parties were vehicles for patronage, but they also gave a valuable outlet for people who lost D or R primaries (mainly D) but thought they could win general elections (and sometimes did - John Lindsay won his second term as mayor running as a Liberal). The use of the minor party for doctrinal purity is not standard, and although it's not new, the NY-23 race is significant because it signals a rebellion in the right-wing grass roots. (That prob wouldn't happen in the Dem party in NY because it is already pretty far left, and the main further left party is the Working Families Party, which is basically ACORN's political arm.)

The conservative party in New York, at least in my lifetime, has not received strong support from major players in the Republican party like it is now. The party isn't new—that wasn't what I was suggesting—but this recent surge in both support and publicity means something entirely new in recent history. We're watching a political party fracture.

Think of the ten most powerful Republicans in the US. Got em? Half of them are supporting this Conservative party candidate.

typically, the Conservative Party used to endorse the Republican candidate in exchange for some patronage or other goodies. Not that there was much patronage to give out, at least not in NYC (because outside Staten Island the Republican Party is a hollow shell of a joke). There were exceptions, like Giuliani, who ran as a Republican and Liberal (believe it or not). Occasionally they would have principled objections and refuse to go along, but this is politics so principles don't come up too often.\

I find it interesting that the Republican base is pissed off at the party for having abandoned what they think are its principles. I don't fit neatly into either party, so I find this fascinating as spectator sport.

Sarah Palin will break the Republican Party, and Beck and Limbaugh are her heralds. Wanna save your party, GOP? Get as far away as possible from the lunatic fringe, and get back to practicing a rational brand of conservatism. The moderate conservatives will follow--hell, even disgruntled moderate liberals--and the lunatic fringe will eat each other alive in their cesspool of bile.

Hopefully this will happen to the Democratic Party, too.

need to fix that for you. Paul doesn't have problems, it's the people who can't wrap their dumbed down and indoctrinated brain pans around the the original constitutional limits of government.

Ron Paul's out of his depth when it comes to the role of government in the 21st century. He'd have made a fascinating anti-Federalist in the late 17th century, but today he's living in a quasi-free-market fantasy world that's completely disconnected from reality. I'd like nothing more than to take a trip with him to the social democracies of Europe to see what civilization can be when you understand that mixed is the only system that stands a chance in hell of working well.

Still, I'd much rather have the Libertarians to contend with than the Conservative party. Libertarians I can get along with after we agree to disagree, Conservatives (meaning uber far-right neocons, radical fundamentalist religious zealots, unabashed corporatists and brain dead anti-leftists). I'd take the Ron Paul conservatives any day if given a choice. What I'm hoping is that this tear provides an opportunity for moderate conservatives to finally find a voice and take conservatism back to where it was under Ike.

well, i'm kinda hoping for a split because it'd make it easier to separate the neo-fascists from the more traditional conservatives.
and because it would doom the american right in the process to a long long period of irrelevance.
but i also kinda agree with mm---a split of the democrats that might give the progressives an actual voice wouldn't be bad.
but i think parliamentary systems more democratic than the american in any event, and expect that a multiplication of the parties would lead to a procedural problem would lead to some basic rule changes which of course would cause the militia people to talk about revolt more.

If and only if the Republicans really split, like in a way that they won't just get back into the unhealthy relationship again in a few years, then and only then would I support the idea of splitting the Democrats from a progressive or liberal party.

the first thing i'd like you to show me is where the constitution defines its limited powers given to the government to conform to the changing of the times by the majority mindset and why haven't we followed it.......

in other words, what you want to see is 'conservatism' be quashed outright so we can all be more progressively centrist and there would be no more ideological battles......because you know whats best for people?

Depending on who you ask, the General Welfare clause (a.k.a. the bane of Libertarians) can be interpreted legally to allow things like, say, federal healthcare, without having the pass an amendment. I'm sorry the anti-Federalists couldn't wrestle that out of the Constitution, but it's there. New Deal with it.
No, I'd like the religious right disbanded and the corporatist neocons shipped to Gitmo, though. You would, too, whether you want to admit it or not.

I like deficit hawks. I like the people that actually and honestly do want to get spending under control so that we don't have massive debt. I even like the people that want stronger state power. I may not always agree with them, but at least they're making coherent arguments that don't have anything to do with directives from mythological figures or selling the country off piece by piece to the highest bidder.

Do you think Eisenhower was a better president than George W. Bush? How about George H. W. Bush? How about (and really think about this) Ronald Reagan? Comon, admit it.

"No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words "no" and "not" employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights." — Edmund A. Opitz

But the framers obviously set up the general welfare clause as a trojan horse to gullibly trick the founders of this country to let them do whatever they deem necessary and proper for the general welfare of the united states.

your 'new deal democrats' seriously shredded the constitution and you know it, but i'm glad we're all happy with the oligarchy we've become where your rights are fluidly interpreted depending upon how much of a threat the government declares you to be.

Oh, very nice, quoting Edmund A. Opitz (an originalist) to support your originalist argument. Should I quote FDR to balance it out or shall we get to the actual meat of the issue?

Steward Machine Co. v. Davis is legitimate legal precedent. It doesn't matter if you disagree with it, it's how the Constitution is to be interpreted until the SCOTUS says otherwise. It's not a new deal argument, it's how the country works. If you're not happy, become a lawyer, then a judge, then a federal judge, then get on the Supreme court. Until then, talk to Stone, Cardozo, Brandeis, Hughes, and Roberts. You can whine about the Constitution until you're blue in the face, but the fact remains that when this was put to the test in front of the highest court in the land, it was determined that there was legitimate need. And guess what? They were right. The New Deal has been an incredible force for good in our country, not some slide into fascism.

guess what will, I could say the same thing about slaughterhouse, dred scott, plessy v ferguson, or cruikshank. even kelo. were those also legitimate decisions? The SCOTUS is not infallible and we as americans made a huge mistake in not holding those justices and the politicians that supported them accountable.

when we strayed from originalist intent and the straight text of the constitution, we handed our lives over to the elitists. that's fact, plain and simple. Our country is damned now because of it.

I'm not typically one to suggest someone move, but saying our country is damned seems to indicate a pretty strong opinion that it is beyond hope. I trust you're already planning on moving to some other free market utopia since you have no faith in your own country, right? As concerned as I may get at times, I've certainly never thought, let alone been tempted to type, that our country is damned. Yet progressives are the ones accused of not being patriotic enough. :orly:

The SCOTUS is fallible, indeed, but I've never understood the way some people worship a 200+ year old document written at the very beginning of the industrial revolution, and expect that it applies perfectly to modern life. Then again, I don't understand a lot of documents that people worship, many of which are much older.

Whether or not the founders intended it in the way we read it now, the fact is the constitution does give government the power to look over the general welfare of its citizens. As a strict constructionist who apparently thinks the founders were prescient, I'd think you'd recognize that they could have just as easily been more specific and written things like "government does not have the right to provide health care or health insurance." Except, they didn't.

It's not like this is a new idea anyway. Teddy Roosevelt argued for nationalized health insurance almost 100 years ago. Either our country has always been on course to being "damned" (in which case, I'd argue the founding fathers did a pretty crappy job if the country was set off track so early on (and even earlier by your standards, see: Marbury v. Madison), and therefore do not deserve the worship you give them and their document(s)), or the country is working more or less as it should.

They were all the law until they were overturned, but you're ignoring what I said at the end: The New Deal has been an incredible force for good in our country, not some slide into fascism. The SCOTUS has made mistakes in the past, but so far we've seen an unbelievable reduction in things like elderly illness and poverty. Things may not be perfect, but can you imagine the US without programs like Social Security and Medicare? Our country would be damned without them, to use your hyperbolic language.

there is no free place to really move to. I fully expect to end up dead because of our escalating doom. and for the record, i've never accused someone of being unpatriotic unless it's been someone who intentionally disdains the constitution.

I'm sure that I don't have to tell you the why's and wherefores of the creation of the constitution, right? with that in mind, why on earth would people disregard history and allow the same abuses to come in to play that prompted our war for independence in the first place?

the ends justifying the means is something alot of 'progressives' on here criticized during the republican years, but why isn't it that way during the democrat years? does ideology truly win out over factual straight reading text?

---------- Post added at 11:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:39 AM ----------

yes will, I can imagine our country without those social programs. I can easily envision a nation more prosperous and less in debt. why is that hard to imagine? That 'new deal' threw away parts of the constitution....basically it took parts of your liberty for security, but i forget that you think benjamin franklin is just another dead white haired guy who lived in another time. or am i wrong on that?

With the number of times you've brought up the prospect of participating in armed revolt against our government (which is fucking scary, by the way, not gonna lie), I'd say that counts as intentional disdain for the constitution.

And I'm sure I don't need to tell you that the founding fathers were not a monolithic group, and just as some of them would be outraged by the more progressive policies we face today, others would likely be quite pleased.

There's a big fucking difference between torturing people and providing for their general welf-- oops, I mean health care ;)

I added more to my post btw, if you care to respond... not that it matters much.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future securitydeclaration of independence.
limited powers in the constitution assigned to federal government.
second amendment, security of a free state.

I see no disdain for the constitution in reminding or enforcing an overbearing government of its limited powers.

as I am not displeased with some of those progressive policies. Any policy that reduces the role of government in private lives and increases freedom and liberty is a perfectly acceptable progressive policy. Those founders would have thought the same, by their writings.

If you're going to use the general welfare clause as a catch all for allowing the federal government to enact any and every social program man could think of, you're right. It wouldn't matter.

You know what, no. No, this thread isn't about the free market fallacy or the Constitution. This thread is about the Republican vs. Conservative party race in New York and the wider implications for the right. I was stupid to get caught up in this again, but this conversation should be had without threadjacking.

quite right.

/end threadjack

We need a party that is:

Fiscally Responsible: investing wisely in the people and not just pet projects that limit who gets the money, rebuild the bridges and infrastructure creating jobs, which increases a tax base, not dictate health care and then tax to pay for it. You need to rebuild the tax base before you do anything else. Otherwise it will be impossible to ever have growth in this country again.

Socially Liberal: Who cares who sleeps with whom or what sex you love. How much money have we totally wasted on the drug war? How much money do we spend fighting Abortion, drugs and so on? It's a freaking waste of money and pollutes our court systems. Yet, we also need to make sure opportunities are there for ALL American citizens. We should make sure colleges are affordable, schools are well financed, anyone and everyone wanting to advance in school should never have finances stand in their way. If not, if you can't find ways to allow anyone who is wanting to, to attend without worrying about the money first, then no more public financing for your college (this doesn't mean if you can't get the grades you can keep attending, just there should be no reason for someone to have $50,000 (not including the interest) in loans to pay for that education and never be able to pay for it because they can't find a job that can pay for it).

Committed to helping the people and finding ways to better the nation without having to create new taxes and mandating things like lightbulbs that are toxic wastedumps if you break it. Cutting aid to other nations, investing money to those that are willing and able to find inexpensive alternative fuels that work. Raising import tariffs to match what other countries have done to us. Give incentives to companies to rebuild a manufacturing base, a technology base here in the states. Tax those companies the lost wages when they ship jobs overseas. And make law that if you do business in the US, but refuse to manufacture here... then your company is taxed and must meet US payroll, safety, worker's right standards and laws. IF not, then your imports are not allowed in this country.

Committed to freedom, liberty, the ideals the founding fathers had.

When we get a party like that, when we have candidates truly believing and using the above to guide them... they will win elections by landslide... what's going on in 23 is just a power struggle. The 2 party system is crumbling because leaders in both parties have gone to the extremes and the true centerists are being shunned and cajoled into supporting what their party dictates not what the people want.

Dksuddeth:1, WillRavel:0

hehe. j/k..

ok done with threadjack.

I do agree with Pan6467.

Though just that we have to keep that "crappy old paper" the Constitution in mind.

It is to limit government and a new party that has that as its basic foundation, I would vote for.

we can still be progressive, conservative with that paper. instead of gutting it and thinking it is from a different time.

we could say that about any program that is out there too. NEW DEAL, CENTRAL BANKS,HEALTHCARE. all the lot.

there is always many ways to fix this for the better. not just accept what we have been taught all our lives and accepting it.

so to say the New deal was good, you could also say, that it gave too much power to the government. They were in charge of the economy and large industrial companies. This in turn could lead to a dictatorship among the government and the liberties of individuals would be taken away.

and look where it took us. we no longer produce anything. so the New deal may have been good back then, but now?

giving govt power, for "false securities" is where alot of people fall though.

Personally I see no difference in Liberal Democrats and "middle of the road" Republicans. Some comment that if they are to stand a chance they need to become more left, or all get along on capitol hill. I don't want that at all. I want them ALL out. There are a few, very few people, who are responsible and untainted but for the most part, their 40yr careers of not caring about the people are over.

I want somebody new up there, and if the "FAR" right wing people can do it, then so be it.

As Glenn Beck says, "they can all LEAVE" and that's real change

All of this is interesting, but I'm wondering: If the two-party system fractures, will there ever be any real left representation in America?

Let's face it, the Democratic Party is more centre than it is left-centre. And it's no left.

That right parties consider it too far left and left parties consider it too far right is indicative of its centredness.

It's hard to say.

It all depends on whether the government in its current state already adequately represents the political anatomy of the nation. However, considering how centre and right the government has been and for so long, I doubt this is the case. I doubt the American people today are as conservative as their governmental history. I think there are probably many American left-thinking people that are grossly underrepresented if not unrepresented completely.

With that in mind, it's almost silly to me to think that the Republicans are going through a crisis where some think the party isn't right enough.