The Path to Victory: Grassroots Republicanism

Let’s start, with a premise:

Every Republican president candidate since 1964 has had their level of success or failure, respectively, tied directly to the degree of voter perception that they have or have not turned their back on conservatism.

Consider the history of the thing… and it all flows one way:

  • Nixon billed himself a conservative, and successfully, even though in most respects he was a California Moderate, and came down more or less where  John McCain was in the most recent election; to the left of George W Bush.  Yet, Nixon had an electoral landslide in both elections. (Admittedly, the Democrats he ran against were a laughable lot, which didn’t hurt him.)
  • Bush 41 figured if he bent over forward enough, the left would like him.   Remember he was doing what the Democrats asked him to do, re; the ’no new taxes’ pledge? How did they respond? By beating him over the head with the fact that he did what they asked. The voters did the same, seeing clearly that he had broken faith with the American people.
  • Bush 43 did the same thing on different matters. Both the father and the son are at best, centrists and far too willing to ‘reach across the aisle’. The result, of course, was quite predictable.
  • John McCain was in fact more of Bush policy, but not as Billed by the Democrats… far from a real conservative, McCain got too deep into go along to get along. His Gang of seven, or gang of 14 or whetever the number was, had less than conservative overtones to it.  His conservatism was properly brought into question thereby.  His hobnobbing with Laraza didn’t help that perception, either. Nor did McCain’s reaction to the Bailout,, which he should have bitterly… and loudly… opposed.

You’ll be hearing a lot about Nixon these next few weeks from mental midget Ron Howard.  Despite the picture Howard paints, Nixon wasn’t paranoid, people. It was that they were out to get him. Seriously. The conduct of the Democrats in every Republican presidency since Nixon, shows the same pattern as what he feared would happen to him.  History since that time shows Nixon’s fears were more than justified.

Nixon’s reaction to the threat was of course unacceptable.  Yet, so too was the reaction of these more recent examples.  Watergate, and the surrounding scandals,  was a goldmine for the left, because it pushed Republicans into a decades long situation of trying to ‘get along’ with Democrats. To ‘compromise’ with them. Each time Republicans have been so convinced, it’s been a bloody trainwreck for Republicans and for the nation as a whole.

As a result of that ‘compromise’, all of the rest.. in every case, had their posteriors handed them in a basket by Democrats who clearly saw the attempt at compromise, not as an opportunity for bipartisanship (which apparently they’re only interested in when they’re losing) but as a weakness. The history of the thing shows us quite clearly, that Republicans leaning left does not mean Democrats will be  hating them less.   Just as clearly, the lesson still hasn’t been learned. I see Kondrake in recent columns, still making noises that the Republicans have not leaned far enough left yet to be elected.

I submit that post-Nixon ‘moderates’ are the ones who put together this most recent electoral trainwreck.  Their typical ploy; move to the left as  far as they can,  attempt to get the Republicans to look like Democrats as much as possible, then blame the conservative voter when the trainwreck does what trainwrecks do.

It should surprise absolutely nobody liberal Democrats were quite eager to assist in pushing the Republican party to the left.  Perhaps you don’t recall, but McCain’s candidacy was helped by large numbers of Democrats who crossed over during the Republican primary season to push John McCain’s candidacy over the top.  These same voters, of course, crossed over yet again to vote for Barack Obama in the general election, always having intended to vote for whomever the Democrats offered.   And of course, these liberal Democrats are now joining the RINO contingent in blaming conservative Republicans for McCain’s loss.

It doesn’t require a great deal of thought, though, to look at this most recent non-election and draw up many parallels between it and the candidacy of Senator Bob Dole.  I think it no secret, that what really happened in that election was that the Republicans, particularly the leadership, were dragged into believing that denying their party strengths while wallowing in its liabilities was a path to victory.

Of course, once the Democrats got themselves into power, the priorities that they were supposedly elected on changed rather rapidly.  All of the campaign promises forgotten, the hundred day programs disregarded, the wishes of the American people ignored.

The left, you see, has a habit of bending the electorate to its will.  All through the 1992 election, we were told by Bill Clinton and his spokespeople, that it was ‘all about the economy, stupid’.  Yet once Bill Clinton got into office, those tax cuts that he had promised disappeared like a fishing shack in the middle of Katrina.  The Democrats, upon achieving power, told us that the election was all about abortion.  Apparently the economy didn’t matter quite so much anymore, once they saw a chance to move toward the core values of the far left. Clinton, for all of his faults, had an advantage on the Republicans in that he never forgot what his party’s core values were about. I suspect we’re going to see that in an Obama administration, as well. For all of the imagery trying to project Obama as a ‘moderate’, I think we’re going to find that Obama is just another corrupt far-leftie with delusions of Godhood. The Chicago connections that the press is only now starting to pay attention to lend themselves to that conclusion well, I fear.

I’m going to tell you something, here.  I’ve been watching political events for 35 years now.  And, longer.  Over that period of time the success or failure of Republican presidential candidates, and it must be said, congressional candidates, are directly linked to how conservative they are perceived by the electorate to be.  In the first example, of course is Ronald Reagan who without a doubt in my mind was the most successful.  It is also why John McCain trying to link himself to Reagan’s legacy, is so laughable.  Sorry, Nancy, you blew that one.  On the far side of that coin, is Gerald Ford, Bob Dole, and yes, John McCain.

Which brings us to the father and son team of Messrs. Bush.  Bush 41 managed to make it into the White House as Reagan’s VP candidate, essentially writing his coattails, but not as a conservative.  As I keep saying in these spaces, Bush 41 was no conservative; he was at best a centrist.  Indeed, he was brought onto the Reagan ticket to balance the perception that Reagan was an extreme conservative. most conservative voters, figured he wasn’t perfect, but he wasn’t bad, until such time as the Democrats talked them into compromising his taxes pledge, and then ended his presidency and gave us the Clintons.

Similarly, Bush 43 came in waving not the flag of conservatism, but the flag of compromise.  Given the choice of the radicalism of Al Gore, and the 50-50 chance that Bush might actually have a conservative viewpoint, the voters toke the 50-50 chance.

So along comes John McCain, who has a long history of coming down the left of either Bush or for that matter of Reagan, and the voters reaction is quite predictable.  Bye-bye McCain presidency.

And let’s, before we forget,  note the role of Sarah Palin in all of this. Palin was brought on as a conservative.  The intent was to balance McCain’s …. well, McCain’s liberalism.  Sorry, there’s no other word for it.  Now the liberals will tell you that the American voter found her brand of conservatism troublesome.  They will tell you that that’s why John McCain wasn’t elected. Of course it’s not true.  Look at the reactions that she got on the campaign trail.  She was drawing larger crowds than John McCain was.

You see, when real conservatives connect with the voters, they bring out what the liberals most fear; grassroots conservatism.  And they bring it out in numbers that give us electoral majorities such as what brought us to terms of Ronald Reagan and congressional power in 1994.

The history of the last 40 years shows us the path to victory.  We ignored it in this election, and we paid the price.   I submit to you that it is time for the Republican Party to reconnect with its grassroots conservative leanings, and to eliminate the leadership that has been trying for decades to disconnect us from that grassroots effort.  Those grassroots values.

I warn you; if the Republican Party tries to offer the electorate another warmed over liberal, falsely flying Republican Party colors, we stand no chance whatsoever at limiting Obama’s time in office to four years, no matter how corrupt he proves to be… (and with Blago, he’s already got a head start.).  Nor do we stand a chance at retaking Congress, no matter how crooked they end up exposing themselves to be.  (Rangel, Jefferson, etc)  It’s time for GOP leadership that understands this.

Now’s the time to get such leadership into place and working for us…  Someone, or better a group of someones, willing to lead Republicans to go back to the values of Conservatism… strong and uncompromising conservatism.. a leader willing to fight tooth and nail for those values… because if we can take the most recent cycle as any kind of indication, we don’t have much time.

Cross-posted from BitsBlog.

About the Author


RSS Feed for This Post2 Comment(s)

  1. susan murphy | Feb 12, 2009 at 8:37 am | Reply

    Another Steve Deace! The social conservatives seem to be a group of negative and unhappy people. The republican meetings tend to be on the order of a church service.As an old republican I think possibly the best way to handle the split in the republican party is for one of the groups to start a new party. Also many people want to divide the county into red and blue states, maybe we need to change the word state into county and each county could elect their governmental officials and they would not have a bearing upon other states or countries.

  2. Gene Ponder | Aug 27, 2009 at 5:50 pm | Reply

    A Concurrent Resolution Proposal for

    The Alabama Legislature 2010

    Gene Ponder, Candidate for Lt. Governor of Alabama 2010


    Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”; and

    Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the total and final scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and on more; and

    Whereas, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and

    Whereas, today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government and subject to federal coercion, intimidation and blackmail; and

    Whereas, many federal laws, all informal executive powers, and all judicially active court rulings are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

    Whereas, the Tenth Amendment assures that we, the people of the United States of America and each sovereign state in the Union of States, now have, and have always had, rights the federal government man not usurp; and

    Whereas, Article IV, section 4, United States Constitution, says in part, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”, Article I section 9 clauses 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 have been and continue to be violated, and the Ninth Amendment states that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”; and

    Whereas, a number of proposals from previous administrations and many now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States.


    Be it proposed by the Lt. Governor (Candidate) of the State of Alabama, the House of Representatives and the Senate, that:

    1. That the State of Alabama hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise expressly delegated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.
    2. That this proposed Resolution serves as notice and demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, all mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.
    3. That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of force by civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed.
    4. That the Secretary of State of the State of Alabama transmit copies of this proposed resolution to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate of each state’s legislature and each Member of Congress from the State of Alabama.

1 Trackback(s)

  1. From Harnessing Conservative Power Through Technology::ConservalinkedAmerica Wired With Conservative Values | May 11, 2009 at 10:55 am 

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.

    Log in