I respect Dinesh D’Souza. However, on this issue I also disagree intensely.
The foundation of D’Souza’s reason for why he does not support a new political party, a MAGA or Patriot or (__fill in blank__) party, appears flawed. By saying a new party would only split the GOP, D’Souza is actually making the argument that creates Battered Conservative Syndrome; the DeceptiCon argument that protects the GOP wing. WATCH:
When the Tea Party rose to power and primaried a host of GOP politicians, it was the Republican party that attacked the conservative base and attempted to destroy the rebellion. McCain called us “hobbits” and McConnell called us “jihadists.” The threat from the Tea Party was felt amid the GOP. The GOP was *not* going to adjust.
Meanwhile Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama destroyed the center of their political party called the Blue Dog coalition, represented by Bart Stupak. The Blue Dogs were wiped out in 2010 because Democrats forced them into radical left-wing agenda items.
A new party, ie. ‘THE’ new party, would not be a carve out within the Republican club. A new party would be a coalition party of Democrats, Republicans and Independents. Need proof of the scale, look at the 2020 election for Trump. That’s the (fill__blank) party.
A new party would be a SECOND party to the UniParty occupants currently pushing more big government in Washington DC. The fact that we have decades worth of evidence (Patriot Act, Wall Street Lobbyists, K-St. etc.), and specifically the past ten years (omnibus spending bills, limitless debt ceiling, massive wasted stimulus, political bailouts, QE1/QE2, Obamacare, college tuition takeover etc.) shows that both Democrats and Republicans are two wings of the same big government bird.
The fear of “splitting the GOP” is the weaponized talking point of the GOP leadership who use that fear as a weapon to remain in power. Those who listen to that threat are suffering from battered conservative syndrome.
There is nothing conservative about expanding government, spending into oblivion, allowing open borders and simultaneously removing liberty and freedom. What exactly is being “conserved”? CTH has been making this argument for years.
This example from 2015 rings just as true today:
2015 – A few days ago I took the time to read Jonah Goldberg’s expressed concerns about the support for Donald Trump and the state of current conservative opinion.
Toward that end I have also noted additional GOP media present a similar argument, and I took the time to consider.
While we are of far lesser significance and influence, I hope you will consider this retort with the same level of consideration afforded toward your position.
The challenging aspect to your expressed opinion, and perhaps why there is a chasm between us, is you appear to stand in defense of a Washington DC conservatism that no longer exists.
I hope you will indulge these considerations and correct me where I’m wrong.
On December 23rd 2009 Harry Reid passed a version of Obamacare through forced vote at 1:30am. The Senators could not leave, and for the two weeks previous were kept in a prolonged legislative session barred returning to their home-state constituencies. It was, by all measures and reality, a vicious display of forced ideological manipulation of the upper chamber. I share this reminder only to set the stage for what was to follow.
Riddled with anxiety we watched the Machiavellian manipulations unfold, seemingly unable to stop the visible usurpation. Desperate for a tool to stop the construct we found Scott Brown and rallied to deliver $7 million in funding, and a “Kennedy Seat” victory on January 19th 2010.
Unfortunately, the trickery of Majority Leader Harry Reid would not be deterred. Upon legislative return he stripped a House Budgetary bill, and replaced it with the Democrat Senate version of Obamacare through a process of “reconciliation”. Thereby avoiding the 3/5ths vote rule (60) and instead using only a simple majority, 51 votes.
Angered, we rallied to the next election (November 2010) and handed the usurping Democrats the single largest electoral defeat in the prior 100 years. The House returned to Republican control, and one-half of the needed Senate seats reversed. Within the next two election cycles (’12 and ’14) we again removed the Democrats from control of the Senate.
Within each of those three elections we were told Repealing Obamacare would be job #1. It was not an optional part of our representative agreement to do otherwise.
From your own writing:
[…] If you want a really good sense of the damage Donald Trump is doing to conservatism, consider the fact that for the last five years no issue has united the Right more than opposition to Obamacare. Opposition to socialized medicine in general has been a core tenet of American conservatism from Day One. Yet, when Republicans were told that Donald Trump favors single-payer health care, support for single-payer health care jumped from 16 percent to 44 percent. (link)
With control of the House and Senate did Majority Leader Mitch McConnell or House Speaker John Boehner use the same level of severity expressed by Harry Reid to put a repeal bill on the desk of Obama for veto? Simply, NO.
Why not? According to you it’s the “core tenet of American conservatism”.
If for nothing but to accept and follow the will of the people. Despite the probability of an Obama veto, this was not a matter of option. While the method might have been “symbolic”, due to the almost guaranteed veto, it would have stood as a promise fulfilled.
Yet you speak of “core tenets” and question our “trust” of Donald Trump?
We are not blind to the maneuverings of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and President Tom Donohue. We are fully aware the repeal vote did not take place because the U.S. CoC demanded the retention of Obamacare.
Leader McConnell followed the legislative priority of Tom Donohue as opposed to the will of the people. This was again exemplified with the passage of TPPA, another Republican construct which insured the Trans-Pacific Trade Deal could pass the Senate with 51 votes instead of 3/5ths.
We are not blind to the reality that when McConnell chooses to change the required voting threshold he is apt to do so. Not coincidentally, the TPP trade deal is another legislative priority of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Yet you question the “trustworthiness” of Donald Trump’s conservatism?
Another bill, the Iran “agreement”, reportedly and conveniently not considered a “treaty”, again we are not blind. Nor are we blind to Republican Bob Corker’s amendment (Corker/Cardin Amendment) changing ratification to a 67-vote-threshold for denial, as opposed to a customary 67 vote threshold for passage. A profound difference.
Yet you question the “ideological conservative principle” of Donald Trump?
Perhaps your emphasis is on the wrong syllable. Perhaps you should be questioning the “ideological conservative principle” of Mitch McConnell, or Bob Corker; both of whom apparently working to deny the will of the electorate within the party they are supposed to represent. Of course, this would force you to face some uncomfortable realities. I digress.
Another example – How “conservative” is Lisa Murkowski?
A senator who can lose her Republican primary bid, yet run as a write-in candidate, and return to the Senate with full seniority and committee responsibilities?
Did Reince Preibus (then RNC Chair), or a republican member of leadership meet the returning Murkowski and demand a Pledge of Allegiance to the principles within the Republican party?
Yet you question the “allegiances” of Donald Trump?
Perhaps within your purity testing you need to forget minority leader Mitch McConnell working to re-elect Senator Thad Cochran, fundraising on his behalf in the spring/summer of 2014, even after Cochran lost the first Mississippi primary?
Perhaps you forget the NRSC spending money on racist attack ads? Perhaps you forget the GOP paying Democrats to vote in the second primary to defeat Republican Chris McDaniel. The “R” in NRSC is “Republican”.
Perhaps you forget. We do not.
Yet you question the “principle” of those who have had enough, and are willing to support candidate Donald Trump.
You describe yourself as filled with anxiety because such supporters do not pass some qualified “principle” test? Tell that to the majority of Republicans who supported Chris McDaniel and found their own party actively working against them.
Principle? You claim “character matters” as part of this consideration. Where is the “character” in the fact-based exhibitions outlined above?
Remember Virginia 2012, 2013? When the conservative principle-driven electorate changed the method of candidate selection to a convention and removed the party stranglehold on their “chosen candidates”. Remember that? We do.
What did McConnell, the RNC and the GOP do in response with Ken Cuccinelli, they actively spited him and removed funding from his campaign. To teach us a lesson? Well it worked, we learned that lesson.
Representative David Brat was part of that lesson learned and answer delivered. Donald Trump is part of that lesson learned and answer forthcoming – yet you speak of “character”.
You speak of being concerned about Donald Trump’s hinted tax proposals. Well, who cut the tax rates on lower margins by 50% thereby removing any tax liability from the bottom 20% wage earners? While simultaneously expanding the role of government dependency programs?
That would be the GOP (“Bush Tax Cuts”)
What? How dare you argue against tax cuts, you say. The “Bush Tax Cuts” removed tax liability from the bottom 20 to 40% of income earners completely. Leaving the entirety of tax burden on the upper 60% wage earners. Currently, thanks to those cuts, 49% of tax filers pay ZERO federal income tax.
But long term it’s much worse. The “Bush Tax Cuts” were, in essence, created to stop the post 9/11/01 recession – and they contained a “sunset provision” which ended ten years later specifically because the tax cuts were unsustainable.
The expiration of the lower margin tax cuts then became an argument in the election cycle of 2012. And as usual, the GOP, McConnell and Boehner were insufferably inept during this process.
The GOP (2002) removed tax liability from the lower income levels, and President Obama then (2009) lowered the income threshold for economic subsidy (welfare, food stamps, ebt, medicaid, etc) this was brutally predictable.
This lower revenue higher spending approach means – lower tax revenues and increased pressure on the top tax rates (wage earners) with the increased demand for tax spending created within the welfare programs. Republicans focus on the “spending” without ever admitting they, not the Democrats, lowered rates and set themselves up to be played with the increased need for social program spending, simultaneously.
Is this reality/outcome not ultimately a “tax the rich” program?
As a consequence what’s the difference between the Republicans and Democrats on taxes?
All of a sudden Republicans are arguing to “broaden the tax base”. Meaning, reverse the tax cuts they created on the lower income filers? This is a conservative position now? A need to “tax the poor”? Nice of the Republicans to insure the Democrats have an atomic sledgehammer to use against them.
This is a winning strategy? This is the “conservatism” you are defending because you are worried about Donald Trump’s principles, character or trustworthiness.
Here’s a list of those modern conservative “small(er) government” principles:
• Did the GOP secure the border with control of the White House and Congress? NO.
• Did the GOP balance the budget with control of the White House and Congress? NO.
• Who gave us the TSA? The GOP
• Who gave us the Patriot Act? The GOP
• Who expanded Medicare to include prescription drug coverage? The GOP
• Who created the precursor of “Common Core” in “Race To the Top”? The GOP
• Who played the race card in Mississippi to re-elect Thad Cochran? The GOP
• Who paid Democrats to vote in the Mississippi primary? The GOP
• Who refused to support Ken Cuccinnelli in Virginia? The GOP
• Who supported Charlie Crist? The GOP
• Who supported Arlen Spector? The GOP
• Who supported Bob Bennett? The GOP
• Who worked against Marco Rubio? The GOP
• Who worked against Rand Paul? The GOP
• Who worked against Ted Cruz? The GOP
• Who worked against Mike Lee? The GOP
• Who worked against Jim DeMint? The GOP
• Who worked against Ronald Reagan? The GOP
• Who said “I think we are going to crush [the Tea Party] everywhere.”? The GOP (McConnell)
• Who worked against Donald Trump? The GOP
And, you wonder why we’re frustrated, desperate for a person who can actually articulate some kind of push-back? Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are what the GOP give us?
SERIOUSLY?
Which leads to the next of your GOP talking points. Where you opine on Fox:
“Politics is a game where you don’t get everything you want”
Fair enough. But considering we of questionable judgment have simply been demanding common sense, ie. fiscal discipline, a BUDGET would be nice.
The last federal budget was passed in September of 2007, and EVERY FLIPPING INSUFFERABLE YEAR we have to go through the predictable fiasco of a Government Shutdown Standoff and/or a Debt Ceiling increase specifically because there is NO BUDGET!
That’s a strategy?
That’s the GOP strategy? Essentially: Lets plan for an annual battle against articulate Democrats and Presidential charm, using a creepy guy who cries and another old mumbling fool who dodders, knowing full well the MSM is on the side of the other guy to begin with?
THAT’S YOUR GOP STRATEGY? Don’t tell me it’s not, because if it wasn’t there’d be something else being done – there isn’t.
And don’t think we don’t know the 2009 “stimulus” became embedded in the baseline of the federal spending, and absent of an actual budget it just gets spent and added to the deficit each year, every year. Yet this is somehow smaller fiscal government?
….And you’re worried about what Donald Trump might do?
Seriously?
I’m with you in this, but as an external observer I think I understand the principal pain point: in order to complete the transition to a new party capable of winning a Presidential election, depending on how strongly the GOP fights back, one or two decades of Democrats being in complete control of literally everything are to be expected. Which means a total devastation.
In a way, you had to realistically reconsider your chances: the USA were already set to become a regional power anyway, in a perennial state of decay. Still, a lot could be done to effectively contrast this decline, albeit only in part.
Problem is, while some aspects of the Leftist regime would eventually lead to a reaction, with more and more people deciding to vote differently, favoring the new party, on the other hand the massive influx of immigrants and other measures put into place by Democrats will cause the entire electorate to swerve wildly to the left, therefore in order to win the new party will be positioned (albeit confusingly) way more to the left than most sensible people would deem acceptable. Gone will be most conservative values, while in many ways the new party will reflect a sort of Peronism, arguably with Argentina-level results.
You will get a revenge on the Republican Party, but I’m afraid you won’t get much else.
Been a registered Independent for years. But, like the sound of AFP.
I would like to loyalist Senators turn their backs in McConnell….literally lock him out of hearings, a full shunning.
While I think there are great arguments for both sides I think it is also true that to many, being in the camp of being called a republican is a step too far for them. A neutral 3rd party name for us where all persuasions can feel comfortable getting on board might be a good thing. As a registered R I hate being associated with the traitors and would love a good option.
steph, personally I like the MAGA party with the lion as the symbol.
Mitt Romney???? A conservative????? Are you joking? He’s a dyed in the wool PHONY. He has to keep changing his “home state” to stay in the game. You STINK at “the game” Mitch. GO HOME. Wherever that it. NO ONE NEEDS YOU. NO ONE!!!
I’m done with the Republican Party they are dead. I don’t know what the direction the patriots will but they will not bring Republican do nothing party along. They are weak and beggarly, an absolute disgrace. They haven’t stood by our President all these years I’m done. If I had the power they would all be gone yesterday.
Take*
We’ve tried to change the Republican Party.
We lost.
It is time to accept things as they are and move on.
Example – McConnell is all over conservative tv with ads for Georgia.
Not to support the 2 Republicans in the Georgia runoff.
Oh, no. Mitch wants you to send money. Which Mitch will then use to hurt us. Again.
Time to count our losses and move on.
The problem is not the party, it’s the people running for office. If a new party took hold and grew large enough to start winning elections then the same Trojan Horse clowns ruining the GOP would simply start running under the new party. We don’t need a new party, we need new candidates. Most of the time the only choices on the ballot are between bad and worse. That is not a party problem, it is a people problem. Smart and honest people are just not attracted to politics and you can’t fix that by just adding yet another third party to the half dozen already existing third parties.
Reading thru as many comments as reasonsbly possible, many people seem not to realize the ground effort it will take to effectively create a winning 3rd party.
Enthusiasm for the idea is one thing, but unless your willing to be part of the ground floor structure (collecting signatures to get ballot access, door knocking, making phone calls, putting up your own money to help at the local level, etc.), enthusiam won’t go very far.
As the saying goes, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, and if you haven’t done any of these things listed above before, why would you suddenly do it now?
There is merit to what you say and I don’t disagree in principle.
That said, for me personally, I have nothing to lose by going with a new 3rd party. I am tired of being told one thing only to have Republican elected officials do the opposite.
If Trump starts a MAGA party. I would join. But it would need to come from Trump himself.
With all due respect, if we don’t hold on to the Senate so the filibuster survives, this is all a moot point.
Third party attempts have been failures every time they are tried. If there is any hope, it is to change the establishment Republican party to a true conservative values party. Obviously extremely difficult, but not doomed to failure as another third party would be out of the gate.
Of course, that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong. (Hat tip to Dennis Miller).
If that were true we would still have two parties called Whigs and Tories. In the past when the two parties got out of hand a new party was formed. The Republicans were a 3rd party originally.
Barr Defends Not Making Hunter Biden Probe Public Before Election
Barr told The Wall Street Journal that a Department of Justice (DOJ) rule against publicly confirming probes that involve candidates for office is “not absolute” and that he could think of scenarios in which the government has “decisive evidence of a serious crime against a candidate.”
Absent such decisive evidence, though, Barr said, there’s “damn good reason for the rule,” which protects candidates and people in their orbits from the government.
Barr, in expressing no regrets, tacitly expressed for the first time that he knew Hunter Biden was under investigation by federal authorities before Nov. 3 but didn’t let the public know.
Graham and Biden have participated in so much corruption together they can’t trust each other. Remember the medal McCain and Graham got from the Ukrainians?
What was that for…?
America First Party and definitely retain the rampant lion as the logo. Seriously, why would anyone choose elephants and jack a55e5 as your party logo?
For well over 25 years I’ve referred to the GOP House and Senate as Democrat-lite.
With the election of Donald Trump in 2016, a new name was coined…the Uni-Party. I like to call the Republicans Uni-Party (lower half).
At the local level, I once told a good friend that a certain Republican running for office was a Socialist who didn’t know it.
I have never been affiliated with any political party. Thankfully in our State, there is no requirement to affiliate with a political party to vote.
Personally, I am 100% in favor of a new party composed of folks from all walks of life who are tired of the Uni-Party.
sign in..
All Trump has to do is say it and it will be done.
GOP? Instant 3rd Party.
New party or fix Republican Party? I think the answer is, fix your local situation. Get rid of the scum there and none will be available to rise to the top. Clean up the country one mayor, one town council member, one school board member at a time. This is how an army trains up to be invincible.
Correct answer. Third party is just a shiny object that sounds good to the uninitiated, but has a long track record of going nowhere. Bad politicians are not the result of the party they run under, it is the result of uninformed people voting for bad politicians. People act as if political parties magically filter politicians to guarantee ideological purity– they don’t! Only voters doing their homework can do that, except in cases where there is no good choice on the ballot (which is usually the real problem the majority of the time unfortunately– and third party does not fix that either).
Correct. I wonder how many of the commenters have ever become a precinct committeeman for their voting precinct or made the effort to attend local party committee meeting? The RINOs LOVE the fact that conservatives won’t participate “inside” the Party apparatus. Conservatives cede power to the RINOs by not participating. Over half of the Party’s precinct committeeman slots are vacant. And have been for the last ten years.
The whole Republican Party is corrupt. Remember that nearly all the high offices and assembly majorities in the four disputed states are held by Republicans. These Republicans gave Democrats, over more than a year, essential cooperation and support that put into place all the pieces of the plan that allowed Democrats to steal the election on Nov 4. Without that assistance, the election could not have been stolen.
And now after their corruption has been revealed, these Republicans are holding the line on preserving the theft against all challenges.
Donald Trump has many more enemies in the Republican Party than allies. Primary them all. Sweep them all out.
It is entirely possible that the left has infiltrated the Republican party as well as the Democrat party– which proves that party does not guarantee political purity. What we really need is real patriots running for office, not a new party.
Last weekend at the DC prayer ralley, some one brought up the new party idea. They killed his mike. The Tea Party was coopted. I agree with the ideas the Sundance proposal. But it will take savy and maybe a lot will need to happen off line.
I’m only a registered Republican because Donald Trump was on the ticket. We in the future are only going too follow A true conservative in the makings of a Donald Trump.
We need a new party. We have been republicans for a long time and have actively worked on many campaigns (since Reagan), run for local office, etc. We are done after seeing the treasonous, back-stabbing activities of the republicans. We just changed our party status in our state to “unaffiliated”. Would be great to have a new “America First” party. You can not clean up the republican party.
Anyone who thinks a new party is the answer needs to join the Libertarian party for a while and experience how futile such an effort is. There is nothing new about the quest for third parties, and they have been nothing but 3% background noise in every single election for decades. Both major parties stack the deck heavily against any third party, forcing them to put all their time and money into just getting enough signatures to even get on the ballot. Then you have the media who shuts out third parties from debates. There is a REASON radical leftists took over an existing party rather than trying to start their own. When you take over an existing party you are hijacking something that already exists and you get all the name recognition, infrastructure and robo-voters who vote for that party no matter what for free. It doesn’t matter what the Republican party currently represent or how they vote because your goal is to replace all those clowns with your own people. The primaries become more important than the general election because that is where you actually install your candidates. Don’t let your fury over the current cabal of useless limp d!ck GOP candidates force you down a dead end– primary them and drive them out! It’s the only proven way to win.
The LP has always been DOA as they are ideological extremists. I say this as a green diaper baby. Trump could do it and we have a history of 3rd parties rising up and becoming the new 2nd party when voters have had it. Trump could do it. The electorate is fed up
No. Respectfully disagree. New parties can only be successful in parliamentary systems, which permit multiple parties. In America, no third party has won a single electoral vote in my lifetime (think Libertarian, Green, Reform, Constitution). You take over the existing “conservative” party and primary out the pretend conservatives. Otherwise you will certainly split the existing conservative vote, and the left will laugh all the way to the bank.
LP got an electoral vote in the 70’s, but that said the Republicans were a 3rd party. Not in your lifetime does not mean impossible.
Really not much reason to stick with the GOP. Not when 4 or 5 cities can decide who is President by simply producing however many votes they need to override rural and suburban voters.
The vast majority of Trump supporters would follow Trump to a new party. It is time.
As an Australian I think it would be impertinent to become involved in discussing America’s political affairs, as much as we are old trusted allies with deeply entrenched affection for each other.
We share similar problem here, our party equivilent to the US Republicans are strangly called Liberals and they too have been gutted by tolerating LINOS as members. We too have the same problem and must find a new party or restructure.
AS I have encouraged here whenever possible I suggest MAGA Americans could benifit from the Swiss political system. Particularly there public’s power of referendum as it devolves power from politicians back to the people thus keeping the nations best interest in constant focus. It has served them well for a very long time
And, of course, the VA House decided on a convention once again for the selection of gubernatorial and delegate races. They’ll do anything to keep the will of the people from being done.
I say “so what”? I was listening to David Webb this morning and he said that we get to affect the political landscape of our country by electing our representatives. I wanted to ask him: “How do we KNOW we elect them? How do we know that every single election we participate in is not rigged to support those in power?” And if we don’t know that, how can we trust the system?
The swamp is so anxious to remove Trump, that they showed their hand. They made it blatant enough for ALL of us to see it. Republicans starting with (Democrat bitch) McConnell are not supporting the president and fighting it. I’m done with them.
Split away!
Tweets by TulsiGabbard
A member of the new party perhaps. Trump would do well to recruit her and overcome minor differences. Smart, Intelligent, Good Looking – a Patriot and aware of old/new Biden Politics – although Dem? She clearly ousted Kamala in debates – Politically Savvy and a Warrior. Why not consider her? She’s got my vote – from a Trump Aussie supporter!