« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Why a Third Party May Supplant the GOP

By: Brad Jackson (Diary)  |  March 4th, 2013 at 10:09 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by Francis Cianfrocca to discuss the January consumer spending numbers, how the Republican establishment has hurt the party and why a third party may rise to supplant the GOP.

We’re brought to you by Stephen Clouse and Associates and The Heritage Foundation’s Morning Bell. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at bjackson[at]coffeeandmarkets.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Taxes squeeze households, factories to add to growth
As Country Club Republicans Link Up With The Democratic Ruling Class, Millions Of Voters Are Orphaned
The Ruling Party and the Country Party, Part 2
Republicans and Their Faulty Moral Arithmetic

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter
Follow Francis on Twitter

Subscribe to The Transom

The hosts and guests of Coffee and Markets speak only for ourselves, not any clients or employers.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • oldredtop

    Why? because the two parties we have now are Democrat and Democrat-lite (formerly Republican). It is clear from the committee moves made by Boehner at the end of last year, that the current leadership of the Republican will not “listen” to conservatives until they have no power. Sorry, but I’m ready to flush them all…

  • General_Confusion

    It’s interesting times, our “leadership” has said they would start a GOP civil war* if the conservatives do not fall in line and go Dem-lite.

    From my vantage point it looks like we may be witnessing the formation of a modern day WHIG party as our “leadership” rushs to embrace the Democrats priorities under the false assumption that liberalism is the only way forward to win elections.

    What the fail out of our “leaderships” new “pragmatism” will be I don’t know but to declare war on your current voter base while trying to outflank the Democrats by going to the left cannot end well.

    * In Closed-Door Meeting, Cantor Warned of ‘Civil War’
    http://www.nationalreview.com/…

  • rightlane1111

    Hi there Cheesy. Well, you and I have had our differences…so I ask you about the word principle. Does it matter to you? Are we the people that stand by it…or walk in lock step to Mien Obama? Apparently most of the Republicans think so. The Republican Governors are selling out their seniors for Medicaid and Federal Dollars.

    Our government was formed on principles. We are declining into immorality. There is no where else to go…this was the last stop. Want to see what happens when you sell out principles…..look across the Pond. See the latest on Spain in Finance today?

    The people in this country are center right. Yes…I believe that..no matter what “Tingle” Mathews says. We listen to liars during campaign times only to see them disavow their pledges and vote against the people that elected them. So…in effect, we are supporting liars.

    If our Conservatives were to learn the correct way to communicate to many of the people they failed to reach (thanks to the MSM) and our lack of knowledge concerning how people communicate (younger people under 60)…we could have won this election.

    What is wrong with social Conservatism? Why was the incident in Benghazi where the people could have been saved acceptable. For all practical purposes…Americans were murdered…yet…we, meaning people who do not condone abortion, have to fund people that are too lazy to slap a patch on their butt?

  • exitsfunnel

    This was a great segment which covered a lot of interesting, if disparate, stuff that I’ve thought a great deal about myself. I’ve had too much coffee to try to put together coherent paragraphs so I’m just going to throw some of my thoughts in bullet points.

    (1) I was a teenager when Reagan was president and more than any other figure he shaped my politics. I was a Republican for twenty years because of him. (I now describe my politics as a libertarian and am registered as a Libertarian though I still often vote for Republicans). In retrospect though I do think that he was mostly responsible for the shift away from an emphasis on lower spending and towards an emphasis on low taxes as the cornerstone of fiscal conservatism and that this has really damaged the brand and been a big contributor to what has become, in my opinion, an insoluble debt situation.

    (2) I don’t believe that a true third party is going to happen but I do believe that we are on the cusp of some kind of major shift in the two party coalitions. Trying to start a national party from scratch is just too logistically daunting. It’s much more practical to reuse the existing infrastructure; sort of like the difference between trying to start an airline from nothing and shepherding one out of chapter 11 bankruptcy. I don’t claim to know how it will all shake out.

    (3) I think that Ben was maybe a little too dismissive of the gay marriage issue. He treated it like just one of the several points of conflict but I think that it is more important than that. I think that it’s that gay marriage (and views around gays generally) that will be what finally forces things to explode. Within a decade I don’t believe that it will be possible for one of the two major parties to be opposed to gay marriage. When something can’t go on forever, it doesn’t.

    (4) Towards the end Ben made the argument that Hispanics leaned towards social conservatism. This is an oft repeated piece of conventional wisdom but I don’t think that it’s true. On abortion there is a strange disconnect. Though hispanics as a population are more religious than the electorate as a whole and often personally opposed to abortion, this view doesn’t translate to their politics; as a population they are more in favor of legal abortion than is the population in general. The same is true of gay marriage, though in this case I don’t think that there is the same disconnect between personal and political views. Contrary to the stereotype hispanics (or at least hispanics of Mexican origin, which account for about 65% of hispanics in the US) are just much more tolerant of gays.

    I don’t deny Ben’s assertion that unfortunately the community also favors social spending programs but I nonetheless think that the way win their votes is to convince them towards individual liberty and the value of hard work and the possibility of upward mobility. That’s the strategy I use in any event. The phrase ‘American Dream’ is much maligned these days, but it still does resonate with a lot of immigrants that I talk to.

  • ehopejr

    I understand both sides of the argument of why & why not a “third party”. The reality however seems to be a movement, aside from a party happening. People are realizing more an more the radicalness of the Dems and the empty suits of the GOP. Change is therefore inevitable; organization, finances & messaging will be necessary of course but it will be a true “I’m a normal man/woman w/ a heart to normalize government to reflect our normality”. When this vein is tapped, both parties will be relics.

  • rennyangel4

    I am not in favor of a third party of cons. because it will split the vote on the right and give the Dems. a forever ticket to win. But, esp. in the cites like NYC and Phila. where the GOP has just abandoned urban voters, we could use real cons. party lines (NY State has a Cons. Party) in order to break up the Dem. monopolies and the terrible fraud and cheating during major elections.

  • rennyangel4

    The Rep. elites are fomenting a “civil war” to purge the tea parties, which they are too dumb and short-sighted to see would be the support and foot soldiers in elections for Reps. that unions are to Dems. The elites complain the tea parties have primaried too many unelectables, but the record of bad candidates is surely not all the tea parties’ fault. The Rep. est. has too often run candidates that even Reps. won’t vote for.

  • exitsfunnel

    The problem in my opinion with this argument, is that the policy disagreements are legitimate. Just to take one of several prominent examples, the levels of our defense spending isn’t fiscally conservative and the size of our military isn’t compatible with the principle of limited government. So, it’s easy to say that everyone should just get along but at the end of the day the party has to settle on policy.

  • AceInTX

    you miss the point…we can have disagreements between the different factions but if we had real leadership that could frame an argument, develop an agenda and articulate a message we could all focus on issues that unite us and divide the Democrats.

    But instead we have a leadership who insists on focusing on wedge issues that favor the Democrats while insisting on each faction giving in on principles that each faction holds dear.

    It is idiocy of the highest order and at this point, I don’t see what difference it would make if there is a third party that forms…or we continue as we have with an unresponsive leadership.

    Either way, we lose!

  • cheesycon

    well, fiscal conservatism doesn’t seem to exist does it? We have squishes in GOP leadership. So why lament the loss of something that was a mirage anyway. I care more about abortion than I do about a budget.

  • cheesycon

    hi rightlane1111 – I want to call you ma’am out of respect based on your icon but dunno if that is presumptuous :)

    principle does matter to me, and that is why I am on record as supporting social conservative values and conservative leaders like Scott Walker who actually are able to persuade voters about conservatism, fiscal and social, and still win (11% of Obama voters in 2012 also voted to keep Walker in teh recall, think about that!)

    but there is no point in principle if you don’t actually USE it to achieve CHANGE. In principle isn’t enough we have to start making the case for PRACTICE.

    A 3rd party would mean the death of social conservatism because already there is a huge bias in the GOP – especially here at RedState, to assume the only conservatism that matters is fiscal.

    If we social cons walk away then we have no more national platform and infrastructure. We become like Ron Paul types or libertarians, or like Ralph Nader.

    It is because of principle that I refuse to cede the definition of conservatism to the fiscons because they would rather we socialcons shut up and stop making trouble. You know what, I am willing to lose elections on principle – I think we need to put forth socialcon candidates for every primary and fight to get them nominated, even if the fiscons like Rove and Norquist say and warn that those candidates will lose the general.

    Because it is the time of the primary that we can try our best to PERSUADE and we can pull the debate to the right again.

    so yes, my belief that we should not have a 3rd party is all about principle – and it is nt because I am afraid to lose. It is because i want us to win what matters.