Splitting the GOP

I try to focus my blog on issues, not politics or personalities, but something has become too obvious to avoid any longer. The GOP has split into two factions and they don’t seem to be getting along very well. I’m oversimplifying here to make a point, but follow along and let me explain.

In one camp, faction 1 has been around for a while and follows a consistent theme:

  1. Defending the establishment. Washington’s not too bad; it just needs a tune-up.
  2. Pro-business. We need business-friendly legislation to get our economy moving.
  3. Global intervention. Like it or not, the US is the world’s policeman. Military involvement is part of the package.

However, faction 2 shares many of the same values as faction 1 and even talks the same language at times. But when conversations and campaigns get a little deeper, you start to see the distinctions:

  1. Defending the establishment as it was meant to be in the beginning. Washington needs an overhaul and return to Constitutional principles, not a tune-up.
  2. Pro-liberty. We don’t need more corporate tax breaks and incentives. In the long term, business is strongest when Washington stays out of the way.
  3. Global leadership. We can’t afford to be the world’s policeman and it’s not cost-effective anyway. We can exert leadership without excessive meddling.

The split between these two factions has widened during the last few decades. In fact, Reagan seemed to straddle the two camps quite effectively. Washington was certainly dysfunctional in his day, but fixing it without a major restructuring seemed possible then. He made some progress, but only got so far.

With today’s burgeoning debt, ongoing economic stagnation, Middle East turmoil, and a federal bureaucracy more confiscatory than ever, a large number of “conservatives” have abandoned faction 1. Many distance themselves from the GOP altogether, preferring to call themselves Constitutionalists, libertarians, tea-partiers, or (small-r) republicans. To them, faction 2 is the only rational alternative. We tried faction 1 (McCain) in 2008 and lost.

This factional split is evident in the fight for the Republican presidential nomination. Faction 1 is anchored by the likes of Romney, Huntsman, and Gingrich, faction 2 by Paul, Bachmann, and Johnson. Perry might be the consensus candidate, but it’s still very early to tell, and straddling these two camps will become more difficult as the campaign intensifies.

I’m aware that there are real intra-factional differences among all of the candidates; illegal immigration policy is a good example. But the left smells blood here, which is why the tea party (faction 2) seems to be replacing Bush as their favorite boogeyman. Now is the time for vigorous debate, but we can’t let Obama split the party. The election is still over a year away, and it’s ours to win…or lose.

7 thoughts on “Splitting the GOP

  1. I’m getting sick of Karl Rove. I wonder if he would even support someone like Michelle Bachman or Ron Paul if they get nominated. He doesn’t like Sarah Palin either.

  2. Excellent observation & analysis, as usual, John. There are many in “faction 1” who will stop at nothing to protect, promote, and pacify the establishment candidates, as well. Many, myself included, learned this particular lesson the hard way, when attempting to challenge them via the primary/convention process.
    Politics is indeed an ugly business, full to busting with equally ugly characters. I simultaneously respect and pity those who venture into it, intent on shifting that paradigm. Few survive, let alone succeed.

  3. At least Faction 1 as you call it understands compromise. Faction 2 is pigheaded and will never get anything done. Faction 2 is killing the country. The racists in the R party have migrated to Faction 2. I’m a little disappointed with Obama but he’s my man in 2012. Please nominate someone in Faction 2. We will destroy him.

  4. Hey, ProudLefty. You seem to be enamored of compromise. Tell me: where is the “compromise” between food and poison? Where is the “compromise” between the thief and the property owner? Point being, compromise for its own sake has the potential to cause more harm than good. “Faction 2” understands this important distinction.

  5. “Compromise” means we in Faction 2 must agree with you on the left. Look where “compromise” has gotten us in this country: an insidious, relentless move to the left. The results are fairly obvious.

  6. I would like to know where the compromise was when Obama said “I won” during the health care conference when he sat there picking his nose. Oh, that’s right, compromise is only acceptable when it is conservatives agreeing to what the progressives want.

    I tend to fall in faction 2, although I realize that some compromise needs to be found after studying the miracle at Philadelphia. I would add to faction 2 a desire to stop redistributing people’s wealth. The government should not get in your way of being able to reach your goals of financial wealth, but they also shouldn’t be allowed to steal it from you legally just to give it to a segment of our society in order to garner votes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *