A declaration of civil war?
Okay, who's going to do it? Who's going to fire on Fort Sumter? Am I going to have to be the one? (I suppose there'd be a certain logic to that, since I spent most of my formative years in South Carolina.) Or maybe Fort Sumter has already happened? Maybe Rick Santorum fired the first shots at us.
Either way, I think the battle must be joined. I believe a civil war for the heart and soul of the Republican Party is inevitable, just as I believed a final showdown with Saddam was inevitable.
All right then, let's have on with it.
As I've been writing over the past few days, the aftermath of Katrina and Bush's "rebuilding" speech have once again highlighted the growing chasm between the libertarian and religious conservative wings of the party.
As much as I admire Ronald Reagan (Peace be upon him) there are times when duty demands that his Eleventh Commandment be broken. Nobody enjoys in-fighting in the face of a common foe, but we've reached the point where we can no longer stick our heads in the sand and pretend that we don't have a problem.
Check this out. It's a letter to Andrew Sullivan from a Republican who was trying to make the case for withholding criticism of Bush during the 2004 election.
Many of us either withheld or tempered our criticism before the election for the practical reason that (1) its detrimental effect on Bush's election chances outweighed any curative effect it would have on his governance (which curative effect it could still have post-November); and (2) Bush, even with his weaknesses, was a better choice than Kerry. You obviously concluded otherwise. That doesn't make you any more responsible for criticizing Bush or me any less responsible for holding my tongue.
It's a fair point, and one with which I think many of my fellow Republicans are sympathetic. But it's also moot. We don't even need to debate this anymore, because the election is over. Bush is a lame duck.
Many Democrats, it would seem, have yet to learn this. Rather than focusing on building a positive message and grooming attractive candidates for 2008, they're focused with a single-minded obsession on destroying the current president -- who will not be allowed to run in another election.
Fine. If they want to do that, fine. But continuing to defend him against the relentless onslaught of Bush-hating moonbats who are never going to be deterred is no longer worth expending the time and energy that could better be spent in working toward our party's future.
I believe a growing number of people are demanding fiscal sanity. Let's be the party that will give it to them. I believe the American people would rather use our federal resources combating terrorism than combating pornography. Let's shape our party's priorities accordingly, and if the religious conservatives don't like it they can damn well vote for Hillary Clinton.
We've got an opportunity to take our party back, people. It won't be easy, but it'll never be easier than it is right now. For the moment, we have the winds at our back, and even the most ardent Bush apologists are beginning to look beyond the next forty months. Witness, for example, Jonah Goldberg on John McCain from five minutes ago:
It seems to me that conservatives should really only care about three things these days: Killing the bad guys, Cutting government, appointing good judges. On the surface, it seems McCain is well-qualified on all three.
Amen, Brother Jonah, Amen! Welcome to the party. Have a beer. Have several.
And the rest of you Republicans should remember this: Bush is the party's past, not its future. And before you bristle, I mean that not as a judgment, but as a simple statement of undeniable fact.
It's time we think about the future, and look for the party leaders who will take us there. For now, at least, I'm encouraged by where we seem to be looking.
Now let's roll. Stay the course. All that.
Comments
Urk. Can we have someone other than McCain? Someone who will do all the above, but *not* vote with the gun-grabbers, too?
Posted by: John of Argghhh! | September 22, 2005 12:16 PM
Barry, I concur with a lot of what you have said.
However, please count me out of the John McCain bandwagon.
His latest move is that he, along with Hillary, has agreed to meet with Cindy "Occupied New Orleans" Sheehan for reasons which escape me.
It's one thing to be a maverick.
It's another to blatantly pander to the left while professing to be a conservative. John McCain wants to be president so bad he can taste it.
During the 2000 primaries, I don't recall that he won a single one where there was a pure party vote without crossovers.
That's hardly the stuff of future presidents.
Posted by: mal | September 22, 2005 05:33 PM
McCain is one my senators and not the one I prefer. He gets my vote if it's between him and Hillary but I'm not sure there is a lesser evil in that choice.
Posted by: BobG | September 22, 2005 06:26 PM
I would rather they start using federal resources on things that actually matter to a lot of people, like trying to reduce the abyssmal poverty rate in this country, and trying to get health care and insurance to those that can't afford it, or reducing the horrendous rate of homicide, sexual assault, and other violent crime rates, instead of either fighting pornography OR fighting terrorism.
Everyone was on the fighting terrorism bandwagon for the couple of years after 9/11, but when you step back for some perpective, you realize it still has effected only a tiny fraction of U.S. citizens, as opposed to the 37 million living in poverty here in one of the supposedly wealthiest countries in the world.
Posted by: Tracy Miller | September 23, 2005 10:44 AM
So, you're suggesting that as soon as we get bored with something, we quite, right?
Posted by: That Guy | September 25, 2005 03:47 AM
Which Party can change easier, Barry, that's the question of the day?
Right now, whichever way the Middle and Working class votes, they're screwed, either by high taxes and the Dem's "Mommy State," or huge deficit spending and the Republican's "Daddy State."
The GOP uses its Conservative base for votes and little more. Most of the all important MONEY comes from the ranks of the "Moderate Republicans," who're decidedly Liberal socially and against smaller government in general.
Buchanan (I know, you're no fan) tried to fight that war back in the early nineties, looking at the monolithic control of the GOP by its "Moderate-wing," with Bush, Sr, Dole, etc.
When the voters fight the money backers for control of a Party's agenda, the money backers almost always win.
I'd love to see the GOP become a socially Conservative, economically Libertarian Party, but that's a very long, uphill fight. The Moderate Republicans have threatened to bolt before and take their cash with them. That's always held the "Conservative rabble" in check before.
Perhaps its getting close to the point when the Conservatives and Libertarians have nothing to lose in such a political bloodbath, after all, their interests are not being represented now.
JMK
Posted by: JMK | September 26, 2005 05:58 PM