I am an old Republican. I am religious, yet not a fanatic. I am a free-marketer; yet, I believe in the role of the government as a fair evenhanded referee. I am socially conservative; yet, I believe that my lesbian niece and my gay grandchild should have the full protection of the law and live as free Americans enjoying every aspect of our society with no prejudices and/or restrictions. Nowadays, my political and socio-economic profile would make me a Marxist, not a Republican.
I grew up in an era where William F. Buckley fought the John Birch society and kicked them out of the Republican Party. I grew up with -– in fact voted for the first time for –- Eisenhower. In 1956, he ran a campaign of dignity. A campaign that acknowledged that there are certain projects better suited to be handled by the government. See, business thinks in the short term, as he said. That’s the imperative of the marketplace. I invest and I expect that in a few quarters, I garner the fruits of my investment. Government, on the other hand, has the luxury to wait a few years, maybe decades, for a return on a given investment. As a former businessman, I know that first hand. Am I a Marxist for thinking that?
I witnessed the fight for equal civil rights in the 1960s. And as a proud American, I applauded the passage of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, and we became a better country because of them. Those acts made America stronger. Those acts, at their core, represented and still represent all the values upon which the Republican Party was founded. Yet today, our GOP representatives and leaders are ashamed of them. When they talk about them, you feel their discomfort, their clumsiness, and sometimes their shame. That awkwardness is so strong that it crosses the television screen and hits you in the face in your living room. Why is that? What happened to this generation of Republicans? We are the party of Abraham Lincoln, and yet we act and behave as if we are the party of Nathan Bedford Forrest.
I did not like Medicaid and Medicare when they were passed. I was opposed to them. Maybe I was too young, too strong, and too ideologically confined. Yet, over the years, I saw how Medicare helped millions of elderly Americans. I saw how Medicare helped my mom in her final years battling emphysema caused by years of smoking. You have to be blind to oppose those programs. You have to be blind to wish for the suffering of millions of Americans just because you believe in personal responsibility.
As a businessman, I was torn between my bottom line and providing health coverage for my employees. I knew that if I provided them with that coverage, their productivity increases. I did my best, but the riptide of the health insurance market defeated me. And with a heavy heart, I offered them gimmicky coverages that, deep down, I knew did not provide a comprehensive and adequate coverage, but it was the only coverage I could afford.
I voted for Nixon and for Reagan. Although I did not like the deficit spending of the Reagan administration, I blamed it on and rationalized it by the necessities of fighting the Cold War. I liked Reagan — who didn’t? Even my Democrat and liberal friends liked and respected him. I voted for Clinton, twice. I thought he was the best Republican president since Ike. No, I did not make a mistake. Bill Clinton was closer ideologically to Eisenhower and Nixon than Bush I and II could ever be. I thought that Clinton practiced and articulated true Republican ideology in his fiscal discipline, job creation, smart tax cuts, and foreign policy better than anyone since Ike.
Then something happened in the 1990s. The leaders of the GOP grew belligerent. They became too religious, almost zealots. They became intolerant. They began searching for purity in Republican thought and doctrine. Ideology blinded them. I continued to vote Republican, but with a certain unease. Deep down I knew that a schism happened between the modern Republican Party and the one I grew up with. During the fight over the impeachment of President Clinton, the ugly face of the Republican Party was brought to the surface. Empty rhetoric, ideological intolerance, vengeance, and religious zealotry became the common currency. Suddenly, if you are pro-choice, you could not be a Republican. If you are for smart and sensible taxes to balance out the budget, you could not be a Republican. If you are pro-civil rights, you could not be a Republican.
It started with minorities: they left the party. Then women; they divorced the GOP and sent it to sleep on the couch. Then, the young folks; they left and are leaving the Republican Party in droves. Then, someone stood up and told my niece and my grandchild that they are not fully Americans — just second class Americans because they are homosexual. They wished hell and damnation upon my loved ones just because they are different. Are we led by priests or are we led by rational politicians? Now, we have became the party of the Old Straight White Folks. We should rename the Republican Party the OSWF rather than the GOP.
Recently, since the election of Barack Obama, common sense has left the Republican Party completely. We are in the era of craziness. As David Frum has written, a deal was there to be made over the healthcare bill. Instead, this ideological purity blinded the GOP. As LBJ said it, instead of being inside the tent pissing out, we choose to be outside the tent, pissing against the wind. And we got splashed by our own nonsense. Why did we do that? Well, when a political party shrinks its electoral based to below 30% and is composed by one demographic group, all that is left are a bunch of zealots. We shrank it by kicking out of the party those who believe that abortion should be legal but limited. We shrank it by kicking out those who believe that an $11 trillion economy, like ours, needs a strong government, not a government that can be drowned in a bathtub. We shrank it when we sanctified Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck, and canonized Sarah Palin. These are the leaders of my party nowadays. How did we go from William F. Buckley to Glenn Beck? How did we go from Eisenhower and Nixon to Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann? I do not know. What I do know, however, is that these leaders remind of me of the leaders of the Whig Party. And if they continue on their nonsense, they will bring the collapse of the GOP.
I do not recognize myself in the Republican Party anymore. As someone said it before, I did not leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me. I have the same ideological positions on most of the issues that I had when I voted for Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and George W. Bush in 2000. However, I just cannot trust the reins of our government and nation, of this formidably complicated and complex gigantic machine that is the USA, to the amateurish leadership of the Republican Party.
We are living through tough times. We are being challenged like I have never seen America being challenged before. China is a formidable foe, and it is out there competing against us on every field and beating us on several fronts. While our education budgets are being slashed in every state across the nation, China is doubling and tripling theirs. These are the challenges and challengers that we are facing. And we need our best and brightest to lead us, not a half-term governor or radio/TV talking heads.
Maybe I am too old and too cynical, but I think the Republican party is in the last stages of agony. If nothing happens, we might win an election or even two, but in the long run we will lose America.
ottovbvs // Apr 6, 2010 at 8:59 pm
franco 2 // Apr 6, 2010 at 6:50 pm
“I am not a GOPer”
…….hahahahaahahahahahahaha….too funny
S.L. Toddard // Apr 6, 2010 at 9:23 pm
“I grew up in an era where William F. Buckley fought the John Birch society and kicked them out of the Republican Party”
I wonder if the author is cognizant of the irony here. Just after the “Conservative Movement” was born the purging began, as he himself recounts here. The Canadian whose name is on the masthead at this very publication led his very own purge of anti-war conservatives and traditionalists to *his* right, for not toeing the party line on the Iraq debacle (incidentally, history proved the purgees right, and the purger wrong). Only now does it seem to be a problem, when those being purged are on the Republican left. And note whose expulsion the author bemoans – is it Sam Francis’s? Robert Novak’s? Joe Sobran’s? Pat Buchanan’s? The Southern traditionalists? The anti-war conservatives? No – just his own, David Frum’s, and their fellow travelers on the ideological left. Folks who, like the author, believe our economy needs “strong government”.
There is another layer of irony here as well: the GOP is no less statist, no less enamored of reckless government expansion, wild spending and massive liberal utopian schemes like No Child Left Behind and the War In Iraq than it was when Frum and co. were in the GOP’s good graces, helping to send four thousands of my countrymen (*not* Frum’s) to senseless deaths in the desert. Frum has not been purged for what he believes – he’s been purged for what he’s written. It is not a problem when an establishment Republican has no conservative principles like Mr. Frum (almost no one in the GOP establishment has principles of any stripe any more, much less conservative ones). It’s only a problem when he *stops pretending* he has conservative principles.
kevinb // Apr 6, 2010 at 11:21 pm
WOW…well said! It’s funny…I’ve always considered myself a pretty middle of the road voter…more fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I don’t care what you do…as long as it doesn’t hurt me or anyone else, be my guest! The Republicans pretty much disgust me these days. Under Bush I started to wonder if we were going the way of a theocracy. The hypocracy of it is head-scratching. Don’t talk about the ideals of liberty and freedom if you aren’t talking about freedom for ALL…whether you are from a Judeo-Christian faith, Islam, Budism or no religion at all…whether you are speaking about men or women…gay or straight…black or white or brown or purple. Then there’s antoher issue…I just don’t get how a “Christian Conservative” could possibly believe that Jesus would want us to allow our fellow man to endure pain or death because he or she didn’t have enough money to pay a doctor or hospital.
I think that our political system is broken…period. Too much power concentrated in too few hands makes for a very fragile system that is prone to corruption. I can’t think of a true Statesman…all just greedy politicians willing to twist themselves into a pretzle to get re-elected…and that has resulted in catering to the extremes…for money and votes. I think it’s time for a new Constitutional Convention.
kevinb // Apr 6, 2010 at 11:31 pm
OMG…I almost fell out of my seat upon reading the post by “PJ”…I’m glad my laptop still works after the mouthful of water I had in my mouth sprayed all over the screen and keyboard, ” Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck, is this fellow ever bothered to listen to them , would know that they are very reasonable people.”
franco 2 // Apr 7, 2010 at 9:34 am
Doesn’t it say a lot when lefties use this junior high school bulling tactic of dismissal and mockery, like kevinb here above?
It isn’t funny. It can’t be funny to kevinb, regardless of his background and beliefs that someone in an ostensibly conservative chat room would think Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck are reasonable. They do have about 30 million listeners combined.
I mean, I don’t spew water over my keyboard when i read some Truther say 9/11 was a hoax. I’m used to hearing this from some quarters. I disagree, I think they are wrong and paranoid, but it doesn’t elicit laughter from me, nor should it.
The pretense is pretty lame.
So why is he misrepresenting his actions/reactions? He didn’t spew water over his keyboard, he didn’t even laugh out loud. He just wants to mock and dismiss and try to intimidate. This is all kevinb has to offer- just like back in junior high. That’s how people like kevinb operate. Kevinb has his beliefs and feels a need to enforce them however he can. It’s simple bullying. And we are onto it.
Ditto with otto
CentristNYer // Apr 7, 2010 at 11:19 am
kevinb // Apr 6, 2010 at 11:31 pm
“OMG…I almost fell out of my seat upon reading the post by “PJ”…”
I’m sure his post was parody. No one could be this oblivious.
More Conservatism Is Dead at The Fry Side // Apr 7, 2010 at 12:50 pm
[...] Even more on the loss of American conservatism: How The GOP Purged A Conservative [...]
philmon // Apr 7, 2010 at 2:47 pm
Well, I’ve never been a Republican, although I’ve tended to vote that way. To me, a Republican is a member of a Party, which amounts to a club.
I do think that people tend to overstate, as Chris does here, the position of social conservatives in the Republican Party. They don’t WISH eternal damnation on gays. Many just believe that that is what is probably in store for them. As long as they don’t think the law should put them in jail or otherwise restrict their liberty, they are entitled to their religious beliefs. You know, that first amendment thing. And as I said, only a very few, very fringe Christians “wish” eternal damnation on anybody.
But what they also don’t wish is for someone to legally force them to call something “marriage” that they don’t believe is marriage, and be further forced to accept behavior they already tolerate. None of us have a right to be accepted by anybody. And everybody has the right to freely assoicate … or not … with anyone they wish to associate … or not.
This does not make people second class citizens. The government shouldn’t even be involved in making decisions over what marriage is, as it is a social institution, not a government institution. The government can recognize and enforce contracts, but it has no businiess telling us that something we have always called “A” will now include “not A”, regardless of the similarities “not A” may have with “A”. Because the next logical step is hate-speech laws being applied to those who don’t agree with the Official State Position.
That is what this is about. Forced acceptance. It runs counter to our ideals of Liberty. If you want acceptance, work for it socially. Don’t try to do an end-run around the Constitution and mandate it by some bogus made-up rationalization of non-acceptance being synonymous with “second class citizen”.
Our Constitution basically says everyone is equal UNDER THE LAW. It doesn’t say everyone has to treat everyone else equally. That may be a desirable social goal. And it may not be. But that argument is to be made in the sphere of society, among people — to win over willing converts. Not to dictate to them what they will believe.
It is in this sense that, though I have sympathy for Chris and his neice and granddaughter — I have to say, no. Certainly Republicans have had their flaws — but we are a nation of laws, not of men. And this is exactly why. Men are flawed. We are not supposed to be led by politicians, we are supposed to be led by our individual conscienses. We, from the beginning were arguably supposed to be led by the clergy of our choice than by politicians. We elect politicians to carry out our will (within the confines of the Constitution), not to lead us. They work for us. Not the other way around.
If it’s a choice between the endless march to statism on the Democratic fast track, or the slower Republican track, I grudgingly pick the slower Republican track as the lesser evil. But ultimately, we have to reform at least one party (both would be nice!) back to something much closer to the ideals upon which this country was founded. The rest will fall in to place.
Rabiner // Apr 7, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Franco:
Its reasonable to think Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh are unreasonable. While Rush is unreasonable and uses a lot of hyperbole to make his points he isn’t crazy. Glen Beck on the other hand is certifiable. His whole premise is to use paranoia to make points. His logic isn’t logic at all but rather something far less intelligent. Sure he’s a performer on TV network that claims to provide balanced news but he’s really just stoking fears that are unfounded. He practices ‘guilt by association’ even when there is no real association between the two people he’s attacking.
The difference between a ‘Truther’ and Glen Beck is that Glen Beck has political clout in the Republican party and Truthers have no clout in the Democratic Party. I don’t see 50 Democratic Congressmen claiming that President Obama was not born in this Country or refusing to admit that he was born in Hawaii. Rather than speak truth and tell their supporters that “they’re wrong on this” they’d rather beat around the bush and stoke paranoia.
Rabiner // Apr 7, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Philmon:
Marriage is both a social and CIVIL contract. Gay Marriage wouldn’t force religious organizations into performing marriage ceremonies but it would force the government to give them the legal status and benefits associated with marriage. That’s why it should be legal. Once the government decided to regulate who and who can’t marry and associated benefits to it then they shouldn’t put a barrier to it for homosexual couples. Once in this country a Black person and White person couldn’t marry and that was deemed unconstitutional. It wasn’t tolerated originally in society but now it’s common place. Times change, societies evolve and denying a segment of the population the protections of marriage without calling it something different to maintain a stigma will cease to exist in the next ten years either from voters, the legislature, or the courts.
You talk about how we are all equal under the law and they individually we don’t have to treat people equally. That’s true, but if the laws treat people unequally then there is problem with the law.
Balloon Juice » Blog Archive » The Party Left Me // Apr 7, 2010 at 4:42 pm
[...] This tale of a Republican who left his party was posted at David Frum’s site the other day. [...]
blogenfreude // Apr 8, 2010 at 12:02 am
Blame yourself. Did you object to Nixon’s Southern Strategy? Did you complain when Reagan activated bigots and religious zealots to vote for him? Did you say anything when GWB ignited the worst elements of your party to step up? I doubt it. So reap what you have sown. You had power, but you sold your soul to get it. The GOP is now mainly sociopaths, the criminally insane, and the home-schooled. And it will die – not tomorrow, but soon enough.
philmon // Apr 8, 2010 at 5:40 pm
“Marriage is both a social and CIVIL contract. ”
Not exactly. Marriage is a social institution that is recognized by the government as a contract.
My position is that gays can enter into any kind of arrangement they like and call it anything they like — but to further nuance my position as I have stated on my own blog in the past … I’d be quite happy to have the word “marriage” replaced in civil contract with “civil union” or whatever. Gays and “Hets” would each be free to call each whatever they like. Then the government could enforce those contracts without officially expanding the definition of a word for everyone, against the will of the majority — due to the demands of some.
I used to think that the government would never force religious organizations (or as our founders called them, “Establishment(s) of Religion” ) to perform gay marriages, but I’m not so sure anymore. Progressives are the royalty of rationalization, and their entire goal in life seems to be to force their version of morality onto everyone using the coercive power of the state. They find ways of justifying things. Each new “reform” becomes the jumping-off point for the next one.
Maybe they wouldn’t. But I could easily see a minister preaching his or her believe that such behavior is wrong being accused of a hate crime and arrested for it. Things like this have happened. Not in this country yet. But there are those in this country who seem hell-bent on emulating countries that have. It would completely violate the first amendment, I know. But we do have people (such as Rahm Emmanuel) who believe that the First Amendment is “highly overrated”, people who want to completely abolish the second amendment, and the tenth amendment has been trampled to the point where it is practically meaningless anymore.
When you have Congressmen who can say “I don’t care about the Constitution” when it comes to passing legislation they want to pass because THEY believe “it’s the right thing to do”… the Constitution might as well not exist.
Rabiner // Apr 8, 2010 at 7:20 pm
Philmon:
Sure I’ll agree with “Marriage is a social institution that is recognized by the government as a contract” but also say Marriage is a civil institution in this country that is encouraged through tax benefits and other legal protections. No person advocating Gay Marriage in the mainstream expects churches to perform these ceremonies. That is the role of the government rather than religious organizations.
It’s ironic that you question Progressives’ motives and say their “entire goal in life seems to be to force their version of morality onto everyone using the coercive power of the state” when it is Conservatives that are unwilling to allow segments of the population time and again have equal access to legal protections, legal standing, and representation. It was Progressives who were successful in enfranchising women in the 1910s. It was Progressives who were successful in passing Civil Rights legislation in the 1950s and 1960s. It was Progressives who have been fighting for the last 20 years to allow GLBT population the ability to serve in the military without being deceitful, the ability to marry, and the ability to adopt children in all States.
maryvirginia // Apr 9, 2010 at 7:18 am
Hate, hate, hate. Republicans are full of hate these days. That’s why I left. And self-righteousness. Yuck, self-righteousness, the sign of a closed mind.
vff_on_the_move // Apr 9, 2010 at 8:19 am
I was encouraged by Philmon’s suggestion – ” I’d be quite happy to have the word “marriage” replaced in civil contract with “civil union” or whatever”. While I am straight, my politically active gay friend agrees with philmon and I about the Government getting out of the religious sacrament of marriage and just focus its power on “civil unions”. I think civil unions should be for both gays and straights. Then if the couple wants the religious sacrament of marriage they could ask their church for that. Each Church would then have its own rules. Gays would probably be able to marry if they belonged to a Unitarian Fellowship but not if they belonged to a Catholic Parish. That to me means religious freedom and a separation of Church and State, which I think are blurred by current laws.
jedwards95 // Apr 9, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Finally a republican with some common sense – oh wait, you’re not a republican anymore. Great article and I couldn’t agree more. Even though I’ve always been a democrat, I too wonder what happened to the GOP. At least there used to be conversation between the two parties and both “seemed” to have good intentions. These days, it’s all about talking points and getting re-elected. When are people going to realize that Rush, Hannity, Beck, Palin and their like aren’t at all interested in what’s good for America? All they care about is higher paying sponsors and/or a better book deal. They never offer real solutions, just berate anyone who does. Just like the new nuke treaty. Reagan proposed the exact same 30% cut 20 years ago, but Rush won’t tell you that. These guys have taken Howard Stern’s playbook and run with it. The more simplistic and outrageous the statement, the more people tune in. Are we really a nation of morons? We do we continue to kick ourselves in the ass? We should be thinking 20 years ahead, not one news or election cycle.
abejero | from the Big Apple to the banks of the Mekong // Apr 14, 2010 at 5:52 am
[...] thing I find interesting is the purge among the GOP of many of its bright minds who refuse to be blinded by rigid ideological purity. This religion of “American exceptionalism” needs dialogue, but that seems not [...]
Hero Sandwich » Mondays are for Makin’ Trouble! // Apr 19, 2010 at 9:31 am
[...] one of Frum’s readers says the GOP’s current love for extremists and whackjobs has run him off. This stuff really is weird to me. The crazy building-bombing militia movement wasn’t that [...]