Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Establishment Republicans Could Destroy the Country
Remember the good ol’ days when we had different kinds of Republicans, some deeply conservative, others pretty moderate, and others who were barely Republican at all? But we managed to tolerate each other. We were known as a party that was friendly with the Democrats; the parties were all like lawyers, who would fight to the death in court and then argue over who would buy lunch afterward.
Those days are long gone and are unlikely to return, certainly not in my lifetime. And that change is a significant opportunity for the Republican party to take a close look at itself and ask just what kind of party it wants to be.
The problem that faces Republicans is that they are reluctant, for a myriad of reasons, to move into the 21st century. Their own self-interests are mired in the traditional mores of doing business, making them resistant, if not downright hostile, to making the changes that Republicans need to make if they are to survive.
And they could not only destroy the party but the country, too, as a result of their reticence.
So, what are the biggest roadblocks? The first glitch in the approach of the Republicans is that they’re stuck in what they’ve always done, and that covers a lot of factors: most of them see making changes as inconvenient, time-consuming, and annoying. The next glitch is the Republicans’ mentality about what it means to be a Republican: being seen as cooperative has become more important than sticking to one’s values and beliefs. Then there are all the people who want to call them evil, nasty, selfish, greedy, and any other derisive label that will hurt their feelings. Or those who are actually supporting the Left/Democrat agenda but do that behind the scenes, making up excuses for their conflicted allegiances. And finally, they have used President Trump as their scapegoat to avoid taking responsibility for their lack of action and decisions.
There was a time that a diversity of opinions to operate as Republicans was celebrated; the more, the merrier. But they no longer have the luxury of being “diverse” or rancorous within the party. That time is long past. Ironically, if Republicans want a model to follow for solidarity and victory, they don’t have to look far. As much as we criticize the Leftists for being in lockstep with their leadership, they get a lot of things done.
Which is more than Republicans can say.
So am I suggesting we should be acting more like Democrats? Not exactly. What I am saying is that we can no longer be petty about issues and decision-making. Republicans need to decide what is really important (and that doesn’t necessarily mean each person winning his next election). So what does it mean?
It means reaching agreement within the party on the critical issues.
It means not indulging in insignificant arguments.
It means putting up with the viciousness of the Left.
It means taking unconventional action against injustice and tyranny by the Left.
It means being able to face one’s self in the mirror and know that you ultimately may not be doing what is best for your personal election chances, but that you are doing the very best you can do for the country.
No more excuses.
Published in Politics
And Reagan communicated in a very persuasive, even captivating, style. Who do we have like that today? Hm.
I think this would equally include duplicitous Republicans.
PS: Is “sleazoid” a medical diagnosis or a political diagnosis? Or both.
Again, is “sleazoid” a medical diagnosis or a political diagnosis?
It’s too much to expect, but I wish he had kept his fighting instincts and learned to throw insults around the way Bill Buckley did. When some guest condescendingly told Buckley, “Frankly, Mr. Buckley I just can’t understand your argument”, Buckley replied, “Lack of understanding seems to be the predominant characteristic of your epistemological process.”
We like to say “establishment” but the truth is that it is the Bush family who destroyed the Reagan successes and got a lock on the party. Trump succeeded in breaking them because he didn’t behave and they didn’t know how to respond.
Yes…
Well, there’s boxing, karate, and wrestling. Everyone has a preferred style. You go with the fighter you have.
The Bush family was the worst thing to happen to the Republican Party since John Wilkes Booth.
That’s the dilemma of the party. The Republicans seem to have the knack of drawing these chameleons who have no connection to Conservatism. I want Mehmet Oz to win in Pennsylvania for no other reason than to keep the Senate. However, I’m not sure that he has a principled bone in his body.
I didn’t believe that at first, but by early 2002, I knew it.
There’s some truth to that but I still hearken back to the hours after the Towers fell. I have to give GW some credit; he did display some leadership. However, he seemed to throw it all away with his Iraq blunders.
The S&L scandal set a bad precedent of government using tax payers to bail out people that made bad choices.
Which was worst? So many to choose from…. I think Bush43 did the most damage to America.
Possibly, but I believe that Al Gore would have done a lot more damage…
Punch back twice as hard. A lot like Trump!
I recall reading how Eisenhower dealt with illegal immigrants on the southern border by first transferring all the border guards to the northern border and then deporting the illegals. Now that was a principled conservative as opposed to Chamber of Commerce light weights. IMO.
But you have to admit that “Operation Wetback” is a rather politically incorrect name for that deportation…
He is far from the worst president, but the Bushes are very good at starting wars and very bad at winning them.
Oh yeah, I wish I could give that one 10 likes…
Can one recover from it or is it terminal?
Naw, it’s usually a lifetime affliction; found mostly within the Democratic Party. However, isolated cases have also been found in the GOP.
For the diseased one, or the observer?
I’m surprised that you consider it isolated. The bulk of the GOP is NT diseased or an NT carrier.
There goes the red wave: ‘Throwing in the towel with Blake Masters already?’ Major Republican super PAC bails on Trump’s Senate pick in Arizona (msn.com)
I guess The Turtle doesn’t really want to be majority leader.
Hard to believe they’re bailing on a candidate before Labor Day. Are they saving their money for 2024 or, maybe, 2026? No guts for the fight; that sums up the GOP.
The Turtle will be content to play out his time in the Senate. He and Elaine have all the money they need. They’ll vacation each year with Paul and Nancy.
IMNSHO the only way the GOP could get a majority is by electing people to the Senate who would dump The Turtle in a cocaine heartbeat. He would rather see the GOP and the country go to Hell or the Demo-rats than give up the reins. That is why my response to requests from repubs for money is “E. S. & D”.
We have to be clear about one thing. Most states and the nation are too big to be run by politicians because their key political actors are not accountable to voters but to those who finance them. Washington and State bureaucrats are not accountable to anybody. What we just saw with Trump being replaced was bureaucratic fear that they would be replaced. We can still have a giant country in which the economy and the companies are too big and extended to be accountable to local, state or the national governments. What keeps companies accountable are their customers, but if they have sufficient political power to reduce competitors that does not work. The notion that governments have to control them simply lacks insight. That can work in tiny countries where governments are capable of being made accountable to voters. Those small countries may be the only ones to survive the next 50 years. We have to keep clear in mind why the US succeeded and created the modern economy and why that is dyeing. Moreover, we have to ask ourselves the question, can giant top down economies survive and be prosperous? If you think they can, then ask why did they not exist in the past? Moreover, not only did they not create giant competitive economies, they died and basically from the same process, the process we see unfolding in the US. Concentration of power, then as they are replaced by their kids and appointees, they die. So to avoid that they’ll have to concentrate power and it will die even sooner. Maybe I’m crazy, pessimistic, delusional, but if so where in history is the exception.?
The power that Congress asserts is not Constitutional. If we reduced their scope and power, then K Street and what would would be drained away.
The R’s have been the party of A’s and I’s since as long as I can remember. they’re great at doing nothing…
I’ll vote for the Republican for President who’s got the right mix of Eisenhower, Reagan, and Trump. A leader who will get the right things done, the right way, right now.
Same goes for any (R) running for dog catcher and upward.