13

The Republican Party's Civil War: Will Freedom Win?

Posted by khalling 4 years, 4 months ago to Politics
50 comments | Share | Flag

I noticed the author and editor of this book, Dr. Ed Hudgins from the Atlas Society, has recently landed in the Gulch. Since two of the authors of this book are fellow gulchers I thought you may want to check this out. Please consider reviewing. Other authors in this collection of essays are: David Mayor, David Kelley, Walter Donway and William Thomas. from wdonway (in a post from a year ago): "The Republican Party's Civil War" asks: What were the underpinnings of the party in political philosophy, what are they today, and what must they become if the party is to stand for the rights to live, liberty, and happiness? They are important questions for those who realize that in America, at every election, there are only two parties. "Is the success of "The Republican's Party's Civil War"--which puts in no uncertain terms the choices that America faces--and exposes the futility of the businessmen who pour money into the party and suppose they have done all the can--and refutes the all-too-justified perception that the Republican Party is the pal of Wall Street's crony capitalists--worth the time it takes to compose a few intelligent sentences for an Amazon review? " I guess they'd like some reviews :) This subject always spurs a lively discussion in the Gulch so bring it!
SOURCE URL: http://www.amazon.com/The-Republican-Partys-Civil-War-ebook/dp/B00ICZ37TQ/ref=zg_bs_tab_pd_bsnr_3


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 11
    Posted by  $  richrobinson 4 years, 4 months ago
    Looks interesting. There is definitely a fight going on between the TEA party candidates and the establishment. I keep hearing the mantra that we have to put up candidates that can win. This is futile if they don't do what we expect when they get to Washington. I am wondering if anyone will cover the war in the Democratic party. I am convinced that Clinton was somewhat of a centrist and Obama is a Socialist. Having won 2 terms I think the far left wing of the Democratic Party are reluctant to see Hillary carry the torch forward. Funny how a little e-mail scandal brings more indignation than Benghazi. Interesting to watch.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  blarman 4 years, 4 months ago
      If you are talking about Bill Clinton being a centrist, I might agree. If you're talking about Hillary, however, I'd challenge you to seriously re-think that assertion. Hillary is a rabid Saul Alinsky disciple. Bill is a self-centered skirt-chaser.

      I completely agree with you regarding the Republicans, however. The voters WANT the Tea Party-style candidates, as has been shown for ten years. They want the basic principles of limited government which establishment Republicans seem much more willing to discard in favor of political power and appeasement of the media and Democrats.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  richrobinson 4 years, 4 months ago
        I was referring to Bill. I remember one of the complaints about him was he would bend whatever way the political winds were blowing. Hillary wouldn't as much but I still think the 2 couples actually hate each other.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  blarman 4 years, 4 months ago
          I have read much that indicates that Bill and Hillary only got together (and stay together) for political expediency. They knew that the American public in general overwhelmingly favor political candidates who present themselves as the traditional married couple with kids. But I don't for a minute believe that they see each other as anything more than a tool to something else.

          I have to feel sorry for Chelsea. Every kid deserves to believe that they were the product of parents who loved each other - even those who later got divorced.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jdg 4 years, 4 months ago
      The important thing is not to back down. No Republican can win any more unless he is acceptable to libertarians. Ann Coulter and her ilk will simply have to adjust to that reality.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by DrEdwardHudgins 4 years, 4 months ago
        Even more important, young people, the Millennials, are socially liberal but also want to be financially well off. Many, what I call the entrepreneurial achievers, lean toward free markets. And they are about 50% politically independent because they don't like Republicans or Democrats. In other words, they are libertarianish. If the GOP is to have a future it must attract these young people.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • 10
    Posted by coaldigger 4 years, 4 months ago
    I think the Republican Party needs to disengage itself from social issues that should not be the purview of government in the first place. They are like the Democrats in that they see the Constitution backwards. It does not spell out what we can do, it limits what the government can do about it. Freedom of religion means that the government cannot interfere with how we do or do not worship. What we call civil rights and gay rights were already addressed in the Preamble.
    Armies and police are there to protect our rights and to defend us from those that would violate them. I have a hard time justifying "sting" operations where police entice someone into a crime then arrest them for it because they are the type that might commit a crime. I have a hard time with attacking other nations because they might attack us. I have a hard time using force to ensure fairness much less for making up for the sins of our forefathers.
    Other than providing judges for resolving contractual disputes I can't see what government has to do with commerce. Wherever government uses its force, corruption results. Cronyism is the destroyer of the economy but it is like the sting because it entices businesses to take the bait and then damns them for it but not refusing the personal and political gifts that it brings.
    Both parties are equally guilty despite what they say because what they say is not what they do anyway. The belief that Republicans can form a coalition that would lead to freedom is based on some of what they say that Democrats don't even give lip service to but there is no evidence that they have ever believed their own BS.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by MinorLiberator 4 years, 4 months ago
      Well said. To my recollection the book being discussed here makes many of the same points, as well as a practical way to achieve it, which is why again, I recommend it.

      However, I don't think they state that their "practical way to achieve it" will be instantaneous or pain-free, certainly will not occur overnight, absolutely not fully in 2016, but has to start somewhere.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • 10
    Posted by freedomforall 4 years, 4 months ago
    The GOP has never been a force for individual liberty, just a fradulent facade hiding an agenda for statist power. The Republican Party already had their "civil war" and it diminished individual liberty, killed 600,000 Americans, destroyed half the free market economy, taxed half the people to benefit a small number of the elite, and suppressed the rights of all living in the southern states for 40 years. Stop listening to GOP propaganda.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by plusaf 4 years, 4 months ago
      And I maintain that 'anyone' who consistently blames ONE SIDE in this 'debate' or alleged 'discussion' is wasting half of their ammunition. Both 'major parties' have contributed to the crappy situations we're facing today. To even suggest that ONE side is "more guilty than the other" is a view through a reality-distortion field.
      imnsho...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  jbrenner 4 years, 4 months ago
    Freedom has not won in the Republican Party since at least 1896 except for when Ronald Reagan won and perhaps when Calvin Coolidge won.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  allosaur 4 years, 4 months ago
      I've been working on my IRS taxes.
      There's a little box you check if you want to contribute $3 to the presidential election.
      I'm wondering if I actually did that between the two terms Reagan was in office.
      That could conceivably be the only time.
      Since then I have once upon a time occasionally responded to a GOP fund raising requests with small amounts of money.
      Once upon a time is a long time ago. Now I look upon unopened envelopes with disgust before tossing them into File 13.
      I snail mail joined the Tea Party and donated some money.
      A couple of months later I received an email request to join the Tea Party.
      Now I wonder if someone takes Caribbean family cruises with any of that dough.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by DrEdwardHudgins 4 years, 4 months ago
        Actually, there are four major Tea Party groups plus a lot of local chapters. They vary in what issues they emphasize.


        A few years ago, surveys found about half of those who identified as associated with the Tea Party considered themselves social conservative with a little under half identifying as libertarians. But the social conservatives as well as libertarians gave priority to rolling back government, not to pushing a social agenda. That might be changing though, and if it is, it's to the detriment of the fight for liberty.
        .
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jdg 4 years, 4 months ago
      I wouldn't go that far. Harding and Eisenhower were reasonably pro-freedom presidents. Harding ended a depression quickly by cutting federal spending, and Ike very sensibly turned down an invitation to go to war with Egypt. And Ike's one major spending program, the Interstate highways, actually made sense and is constitutional.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  jbrenner 4 years, 4 months ago
        Harding was one of the more corrupt and less competent presidents. Do you remember Teapot Dome?

        Eisenhower definitely comes in third amongst the presidents since 1900 after Reagan and Coolidge. I will grant that point.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by artswavn 4 years, 4 months ago
    We (wife & I) have toyed with the idea of dropping the GOP. But then --- will we vote with the 'DEM's' -- NO, can't do that.
    What to do -- 'work to form the 'REP'S' into what they USED TO BE........
    Seems to be the only way - for now -
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  jlc 4 years, 4 months ago
      I agree with you artswavn. I think we are stuck with a 2 party system, consisting of 'black boxes' labeled with the aforementioned names. This does not keep the content of the 'black boxes' from shifting - or even reversing. (This has happened in the past.)

      I think we have to redefine the content of 'Republican', vote people into office who will make even some incremental increases to our protection from government abuse, and gradually work our way up the Constitutional food chain until we have a functional 21st century Constitution in place.

      Jan
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by DrEdwardHudgins 4 years, 4 months ago
      I have a chapter in my book on the Libertarian Party. While I've voted LP myself a number of times, I argue that it is not a realistic alternative to the GOP. In 40 years it has not established local power bases and a best about a dozen LP members have been elected to state governments. So for now, working within the GOP seems the best course.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by artswavn 4 years, 4 months ago
        I thoroughly agree with both JLC and yourself. I have been around MANY elections, and unfortunately have found by experience that by voting for my 'ideal' hero, in truth casts a vote (absence of one vote 'here' = one vote 'there') for the opposition. WE -- are running out of $$ and influence. Unfortunately it takes many 'scared-hungry' liberals some lean years to see the light.
        THEN -- they vote for 'someone' to fix things. Soon as the boat settles down -- the hand goes out (for the freebies) and votes return to the 'liberals'.
        WE are NOT a Democracy -- WE are a REPUBLIC -- under democratic rule. Unfortunately -- we 'forget' that.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DeanStriker 4 years, 4 months ago
    A far better question would be
    Can mankind create GOVERNments of Force and submit to their Rulers, and expect to be truly FREE?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years, 4 months ago
      there is such a thing as a proper government with checks and balances. Those must be adhered to. The people muct take take the task seriously
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by DeanStriker 4 years, 4 months ago
        okay, then how do we "make" people do "take the task seriously"? If they did, would there be any need for such endless discussion when so very few grasp the essential principles of Liberty?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by MinorLiberator 4 years, 4 months ago
          Agree, kh.

          The fact that "so very few grasp the essential principles of Liberty" was not always so, and is the outcome of a decades long effort by the Left-leaning and Far Left educational establishment (and their J-school graduates in the 4th Estate) to stop those ideals from being taught, and substituting their own agenda.

          It took a long time to obliterate those principles from a lot of, but by no means, all of, the population. Reversing it may take as long as it took the Left to accomplish what they attempted. There are many signs of at least the start of a reversal, but no guarantees, especially since the issue is now no longer an issue of just reclaiming the US, but whether the world will not destroy itself before that can happen.


          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 4 years, 4 months ago
            I think even before the Revolution, there was not majority consensus. However, the population had a stronger sense of Englishman's rights. Maybe even more so than people living in GB. There was a Bill of Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rig... so still front of mind. This clearly influenced the colonial legislature
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by MinorLiberator 4 years, 4 months ago
              Absolutely. Compared to today, the "average" American or Colonial Brit of 1776 I'm sure knew far more about their rights, or even that there was such a thing as rights. People don't fight, and die, for nothing. (Totalitarian regimes and countries with forced conscription excepted.)
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by DrEdwardHudgins 4 years, 4 months ago
            This comment is on the mark about education. It is no accident that most younger adults could not define or explain, for example, that the separation of powers and checks and balances in the Constitution are and why they were put there by the Founders. An ignorant population is actually essential for the left, which believes that government should be all-powerful with them, the paternalist elites, in control. Knowledge of the dangers of such power would certainly turn the people against them.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by MinorLiberator 4 years, 4 months ago
    I read the book awhile back and thought it was well-written and persuasive. I would recommend it, especially in the current political context.

    I can't argue on specifics right now, because it's been too long since I read it. But I've been meaning to get it out and read it again, so hopefully this will become a "hot" thread. It deserves to be, whichever side you're on. Then I hope to comment further...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 4 months ago
    I bought and read the book a couple of months ago and I have to admit, I wasn't overly impressed. The book does a good job of describing some of the existing internal battles within the Republican Party, but misses some real issues and problems by concentrating so much on salvaging the party. Saving, revising, reforming, however they wish to couch the discussions will have no effect other than to satisfy some that want their party to be on top like a Seattle Seahawks fan on the Super Bowl. And discussing something called 'political philosophy', an oxymoron if I've ever seen one, get's us nowhere.

    Its the parties themselves that are the problem. It doesn't matter who, with what goals gains control of the party. The parties are outside of the law and the Constitution which is not structured to limit and control such entities. The parties will always result in an 'us vs them' situation amongst the populace, will always provide for an additional split of 'the political class vs the populace' situation, and furthers a corporate/government partnership vs the populace arrangement. At best the party structure can only lead to compromise which concept AR despised.

    Additionally, the 'hidden' government of the bureaucracies and technocracies that are essentially self managed and controlled entities again outside of the Constitution, and the government employment unionization with work rules and the impossibility of firing or disciplining known or discovered malfeasance, and as subject to lobbying and the revolving door employment between corporate/special interest foundations/regulated businesses--all in opposition to the interest of the citizenry.

    Much could also be discussed about the need to remove the financial/power sources and incentives of taxes and fees and licenses again imposed at all levels of government outside of the Constitutional framework and controls.

    In short, the book falls short for me.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 4 years, 4 months ago
    For some reason that I cannot understand, the established solons of the GOP have sent up perceived middle-of-the-road candidates who have lost. Twice. Looking at the past governor and senator races, we see that the conservative candidates who would be more acceptable to the Gulch, have been the winning candidates. Are they so thick-headed that they blind themselves to truths they don't want to exist? Sure looks that way.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by DrEdwardHudgins 4 years, 4 months ago
      It's my contention that the GOP is in a 3-way civil war. The establishment Republicans, who so often lose, simply want to tweak the welfare state to make it work a little better. But in the end it will still collapse in the U.S, is they are collapsing in Europe. The social conservative should give priority to stopping the growth of government rather than blocking gay marriage and such, and side with the libertarian and Constitutionally oriented Republicans. This would give us the best chance of actually saving America from the fate of Europe.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 4 years, 4 months ago
        True -- but let's hope they are not so blinded by their desire to open the tent wide that they leave out their true constituency.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 3 years ago
          Herb is that true constituency the Rinos, the neocons, those who went independent of didn't regiser when they went left. The few, very few that are in the party in order to get elected If they don't know i'm sue we don't know but I'm equally sure Trump knows. They are a party looking for a leader and an owner.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by autumnleaves 4 years, 4 months ago
    One small bright light, hopefully, is happening in my little corner of the left coast. There are less democrats registered to vote now, and, more of those who refuse to state! Does that mean they are beginning to see the light?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 4 years, 4 months ago
    The Republican Party, whatever its sins of ommiss-
    ion or commission since then, did a great thing in
    regard to the Civil War and abolition; if the South
    underwent economic problems as a result, I don't
    feel sorry. Only individuals have rights.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo