From my latest American Spectator column:
A perception that the GOP establishment routinely rigs primaries in favor of the well-financed and well-connected is widespread among grassroots conservatives. Disillusioned by the political equivalent of insider trading, some idealistic Republicans are tempted to walk away from active participation in GOP politics, which would leave the party infrastructure even more controlled by selfish cynics and professional operatives.
One man who doesn’t want to see that happen is Doug Hoffman, the “Ordinary American” candidate whose third-party campaign last year in New York’s 23rd District became a national crusade for conservatives fed up with Washington, including the Beltway GOP. “The legacy of my [2009] campaign is that many Americans who had never been involved before saw that they could get involved and make a difference,” Hoffman told me in a telephone interview last week, after announcing his candidacy for the Republican nomination in this year’s mid-term election.
Strange as it may seem, some Republicans still haven’t gotten the message. There are rumors in New York that the national GOP establishment is trying to recruit Will Barclay to run against Hoffman. Scion of a wealthy family, Barclay is a state assemblyman whose father was appointed ambassador to El Salvador by President Bush. The chief argument for the younger Barclay’s candidacy, as one Hoffman-supporting conservative told me last week, can be summarized in three words: “Money, money, money.”
Can such an argument prevail in a year when Republicans hope to capture the populist energy of the Tea Party movement? Although Democratic attack ads last year branded Hoffman a millionaire indifferent to working-class interests, he grew up desperately poor and his rags-to-riches success story was one of the major selling points of his underdog campaign. If the Republican establishment shoves Hoffman aside in favor of Barclay, it would do more than reinforce the Democrats’ traditional class-warfare message that the GOP is the “party of the rich.” It would also send a message to the party’s conservative rank-and-file that their loyalty to Republicans is strictly a one-way street, never to be respected in any instance where grassroots preferences conflict with the political ambitions of party insiders. . . .
Quote:”In the sixteen presidential elections since World War Two, the GOP has given its presidential nomination to conservative candidates a grand total of three times (once to Goldwater, twice to Reagan).
If you believe that the purpose of the RNC is supposed to be, or ever has been, to advance conservative principles, you’re just not living in the real world.”
The nominations of Reagan and Goldwater are proof that the RNC (or at least the Republican Party as a whole) can, under the right circumstances, be made to serve conservative principles. Such circumstances were provided with the Jimmy-Carter boondoggle, and have been provided to us again with Jimmy Carter v2.0. Whatever the original purpose of the RNC was or currently is, it is possible for it to be made to serve Conservative principles, just as the DNC has been made to serve Progressive principles rather than those of the original Democratic party (as much as it pains me to use that example, since I don’t much care for most of those principles either). If Reagan hadn’t (unnecessarily) picked Bush as his running mate to court “moderates”, and chosen a conservative instead, we might have had an additional 2 conservative picks in 92 and probably 96, and who knows what might have happened?
On a side note, Roxeanne (or anyone else)- how do you get it do to the back-shading when you quote from a previous post?
Quote:”In the sixteen presidential elections since World War Two, the GOP has given its presidential nomination to conservative candidates a grand total of three times (once to Goldwater, twice to Reagan).
If you believe that the purpose of the RNC is supposed to be, or ever has been, to advance conservative principles, you’re just not living in the real world.”
The nominations of Reagan and Goldwater are proof that the RNC (or at least the Republican Party as a whole) can, under the right circumstances, be made to serve conservative principles. Such circumstances were provided with the Jimmy-Carter boondoggle, and have been provided to us again with Jimmy Carter v2.0. Whatever the original purpose of the RNC was or currently is, it is possible for it to be made to serve Conservative principles, just as the DNC has been made to serve Progressive principles rather than those of the original Democratic party (as much as it pains me to use that example, since I don’t much care for most of those principles either). If Reagan hadn’t (unnecessarily) picked Bush as his running mate to court “moderates”, and chosen a conservative instead, we might have had an additional 2 conservative picks in 92 and probably 96, and who knows what might have happened?
On a side note, Roxeanne (or anyone else)- how do you get it do to the back-shading when you quote from a previous post?
Conservative rank and file,
The backshading Roxanne is using is probably how the blockquote tag (surround it with brackets, close it with a / like other HTML tags) shows stuff on this blog. Like this, as segue:
Fair cop. You’re right. With enough effort, the RNC can be forced to serve conservative principles. But don’t convince yourself that it’s predisposed to do so. It isn’t.
Interesting take.
There are lots of reasons why small-l libertarians don’t vote for big-L Libertarian candidates. I understand some of them. I’m not bitter or resentful about them, although I am pessimistic about the prospects of the situation being changed.
Conservative rank and file,
The backshading Roxanne is using is probably how the blockquote tag (surround it with brackets, close it with a / like other HTML tags) shows stuff on this blog. Like this, as segue:
Fair cop. You’re right. With enough effort, the RNC can be forced to serve conservative principles. But don’t convince yourself that it’s predisposed to do so. It isn’t.
Interesting take.
There are lots of reasons why small-l libertarians don’t vote for big-L Libertarian candidates. I understand some of them. I’m not bitter or resentful about them, although I am pessimistic about the prospects of the situation being changed.
Conservative rank and file,
The backshading Roxanne is using is probably how the blockquote tag (surround it with brackets, close it with a / like other HTML tags) shows stuff on this blog. Like this, as segue:
Fair cop. You’re right. With enough effort, the RNC can be forced to serve conservative principles. But don’t convince yourself that it’s predisposed to do so. It isn’t.
Interesting take.
There are lots of reasons why small-l libertarians don’t vote for big-L Libertarian candidates. I understand some of them. I’m not bitter or resentful about them, although I am pessimistic about the prospects of the situation being changed.
Mr. Knapp: Thanks for the blockquote tip, hopefully in the future it will allow me to project a false aura of competence!
I would never think that any organization controlled by a small powerful elite (RNC, DNC, government, large corporations, AARP, whatever) is *predisposed* to serve its intended constituency, but, still, they are *supposed* to. Our current state of affairs is probably the best chance we will ever have to get the RNC to do what they are supposed to be doing, although mostly they don’t entirely seem to be getting the message yet, still bowing to the Tea Partiers in word but business as usual in deed. Feel free to say “I told you so”!
The Big-L Libertarians I know personally, who have often harassed me with the old “If you agree with us, why don’t you vote for us?” argument, seem particularly testy of late, though they are happy for the Tea Party movement, they seem just a tad jealous that a Party, that isn’t even a Party, that has only existed for a year, manages to poll over 30% in a 3-way poll, when they can’t seem to break out of single digits after running on many of those same principles for decades! I can see where that would be frustrating. It would sure tick me off. However, if you’re not one of those, I understand, and promise to decline my invitation to go on Oprah!
Mr. Knapp: Thanks for the blockquote tip, hopefully in the future it will allow me to project a false aura of competence!
I would never think that any organization controlled by a small powerful elite (RNC, DNC, government, large corporations, AARP, whatever) is *predisposed* to serve its intended constituency, but, still, they are *supposed* to. Our current state of affairs is probably the best chance we will ever have to get the RNC to do what they are supposed to be doing, although mostly they don’t entirely seem to be getting the message yet, still bowing to the Tea Partiers in word but business as usual in deed. Feel free to say “I told you so”!
The Big-L Libertarians I know personally, who have often harassed me with the old “If you agree with us, why don’t you vote for us?” argument, seem particularly testy of late, though they are happy for the Tea Party movement, they seem just a tad jealous that a Party, that isn’t even a Party, that has only existed for a year, manages to poll over 30% in a 3-way poll, when they can’t seem to break out of single digits after running on many of those same principles for decades! I can see where that would be frustrating. It would sure tick me off. However, if you’re not one of those, I understand, and promise to decline my invitation to go on Oprah!
Mr. Knapp: Thanks for the blockquote tip, hopefully in the future it will allow me to project a false aura of competence!
I would never think that any organization controlled by a small powerful elite (RNC, DNC, government, large corporations, AARP, whatever) is *predisposed* to serve its intended constituency, but, still, they are *supposed* to. Our current state of affairs is probably the best chance we will ever have to get the RNC to do what they are supposed to be doing, although mostly they don’t entirely seem to be getting the message yet, still bowing to the Tea Partiers in word but business as usual in deed. Feel free to say “I told you so”!
The Big-L Libertarians I know personally, who have often harassed me with the old “If you agree with us, why don’t you vote for us?” argument, seem particularly testy of late, though they are happy for the Tea Party movement, they seem just a tad jealous that a Party, that isn’t even a Party, that has only existed for a year, manages to poll over 30% in a 3-way poll, when they can’t seem to break out of single digits after running on many of those same principles for decades! I can see where that would be frustrating. It would sure tick me off. However, if you’re not one of those, I understand, and promise to decline my invitation to go on Oprah!
Conservative Rank and File,
I do my best to remain … phlegmatic, let us say … about the Libertarian Party’s failure to achieve electoral dominance.
The relationship of the LP to the Tea Parties is a little more complicated than just jealousy in my opinion … but I’d rather not get wound up about that 😉
Regards,
Tom
Conservative Rank and File,
I do my best to remain … phlegmatic, let us say … about the Libertarian Party’s failure to achieve electoral dominance.
The relationship of the LP to the Tea Parties is a little more complicated than just jealousy in my opinion … but I’d rather not get wound up about that 😉
Regards,
Tom
Conservative Rank and File,
I do my best to remain … phlegmatic, let us say … about the Libertarian Party’s failure to achieve electoral dominance.
The relationship of the LP to the Tea Parties is a little more complicated than just jealousy in my opinion … but I’d rather not get wound up about that 😉
Regards,
Tom
Mr. Knapp:
phlegmatic, heh! I like that. 🙂
Maybe if some semi-libertarian candidates make it into office in the next round under another banner, Libertarians can be credited with an assist.
It can be kind of like “jobs created or saved” – we’ll call it “elections won or assisted”. (the saved jobs are unprovable, but they take credit for them anyway)
Mr. Knapp:
phlegmatic, heh! I like that. 🙂
Maybe if some semi-libertarian candidates make it into office in the next round under another banner, Libertarians can be credited with an assist.
It can be kind of like “jobs created or saved” – we’ll call it “elections won or assisted”. (the saved jobs are unprovable, but they take credit for them anyway)
Mr. Knapp:
phlegmatic, heh! I like that. 🙂
Maybe if some semi-libertarian candidates make it into office in the next round under another banner, Libertarians can be credited with an assist.
It can be kind of like “jobs created or saved” – we’ll call it “elections won or assisted”. (the saved jobs are unprovable, but they take credit for them anyway)
Conservative Rank and File,
Hell, “semi-libertarian candidates” make it into office all the time.
Barney Frank favors legalizing marijuana and ending the online gambling ban. George W. Bush favored minor tax cuts and lightening up on the anti-immigration insanity.
I might get excited if a mostly-libertarian candidate got elected to Congress, regardless of ticket. But I won’t hold my breath. Or whine about it.
Conservative Rank and File,
Hell, “semi-libertarian candidates” make it into office all the time.
Barney Frank favors legalizing marijuana and ending the online gambling ban. George W. Bush favored minor tax cuts and lightening up on the anti-immigration insanity.
I might get excited if a mostly-libertarian candidate got elected to Congress, regardless of ticket. But I won’t hold my breath. Or whine about it.
Conservative Rank and File,
Hell, “semi-libertarian candidates” make it into office all the time.
Barney Frank favors legalizing marijuana and ending the online gambling ban. George W. Bush favored minor tax cuts and lightening up on the anti-immigration insanity.
I might get excited if a mostly-libertarian candidate got elected to Congress, regardless of ticket. But I won’t hold my breath. Or whine about it.
Mr. Knapp:
Point taken – so let me then rephrase myself: There appears to be some hope that, in reaction to the current overbearingly statist regime, the winners of the pending election will be, on average, more libertarian than in any recent past elections. Possibly even significantly more libertarian, on average, although I won’t hold my breath on that one either.
Mr. Knapp:
Point taken – so let me then rephrase myself: There appears to be some hope that, in reaction to the current overbearingly statist regime, the winners of the pending election will be, on average, more libertarian than in any recent past elections. Possibly even significantly more libertarian, on average, although I won’t hold my breath on that one either.
Mr. Knapp:
Point taken – so let me then rephrase myself: There appears to be some hope that, in reaction to the current overbearingly statist regime, the winners of the pending election will be, on average, more libertarian than in any recent past elections. Possibly even significantly more libertarian, on average, although I won’t hold my breath on that one either.
Rank and File Conservative,
I expect that many of the winners in the pending election will be, on average, more conservative than in any recent past elections (since 1994, in fact).
“Conservative” and “libertarian” are, in my opinion, very different things.
Rank and File Conservative,
I expect that many of the winners in the pending election will be, on average, more conservative than in any recent past elections (since 1994, in fact).
“Conservative” and “libertarian” are, in my opinion, very different things.
Mr. Knapp:
I agree that Conservative and Libertarian are very different, and many times in conflict with each other, however it’s not impossible for someone to share a mix of those principles, as I suspect many of these candidates will. My thought is that, since the current regime is both anti-conservative and anti-libertarian in its actions, the reaction to that will produce both candidates more conservative than usual but also candidates more libertarian than usual, depending on their target market, but both running on the “I’m not like the current guy” platform. (Which, ironically, is the same platform the current guy got elected on, so maybe that doesn’t bode well.)
Mr. Knapp:
I agree that Conservative and Libertarian are very different, and many times in conflict with each other, however it’s not impossible for someone to share a mix of those principles, as I suspect many of these candidates will. My thought is that, since the current regime is both anti-conservative and anti-libertarian in its actions, the reaction to that will produce both candidates more conservative than usual but also candidates more libertarian than usual, depending on their target market, but both running on the “I’m not like the current guy” platform. (Which, ironically, is the same platform the current guy got elected on, so maybe that doesn’t bode well.)