Question: What are these "roots" of the GOP to which everyone wants to return?

[atomicsink]

Pre 1940s I always assumed

 

[NoOneButPaul]

I think everyone should know more about Goldwater. Here is a playlist documentary on YouTube. It's titled "Mr.Conservative".

Part 1...

Part 2...

Part 3...

Part 4...

I'd say those are some similar roots... the last part in particular speaks to the change.

 

[Justinfrom1776]

I always think of Taft and Goldwater when I hear "roots of the GOP".

 

[TheGrinch]

Look, no one said it was going to be easy to undo 100 years worth of corrupt politics, but as you've highlighted here, what other choice do we have but to try? If 3rd party was a viable option, we'd be doing that, but we have a 2 party corporate monopoly that has to be broken up before that can even happen....

And who knows, maybe there are plenty of corporate and other donors who aren't just looking for preferential treatment, but for lower taxes, less regulations and a robust economy, so that they don't have to outsource all of their work to other countries. But regardless, we've shown so far that we can raise funds without having to bow down to corporate interests... And if I'm wrong, and standing by priniciples and not corporate interests ends up bankrupting the republican party, then well, a flawed political party meets it's ultimate fate and we move on if need be....

But regardless of our own successes in policy, taking the corporate interest out of the party can only be a good thing, to give them one less outlet that they can buy off. That's a large part of what we're doing, to try to make sure that corporate interests don't dictate policy... I don't see how it's any better to just say it's hopeless and let them continue their monopoly...

Again, you got any better ideas?

OK, let me throw this out to all of the pro-GOP RP supporters: do you know what the current DNC and RNC have that 3rd parties do not?

Corporate donors.

LARGE corporate donors.

That's the main reason (as far as I can see) that it's hard for a 3rd party to gain traction in today's political climate.

These LARGE corporate donors don't just throw money at these candidates. They expect something in return.

Are we going to continue to play ball with these corporations? Or are we going to stand on the principles of liberty when it comes to government contracts, free markets, etc?

If we stand on principle, how fast do you think that money dries up for the new Liberty GOP? How fast do you think we are relegated (once again) to third party status?

That corporate money is going to go to those who will continue to do the bidding of Big Pharma, Big Oil, etc. Wherever the current crop of crony corporatist establishment current-GOP types go, that's where that money will go.

Are there really only a handful of people here who see this?

 

[TheGrinch]

Unless someone has an idea that will make Hannity and Beck magically "like" us, they never will.

What's more likely is that some of us will think we can win them over by endorsing their candidates (ahem, Rand?)

Oh bullshit, but you're maknig your motives quite clear here for starting this thread...

Rand did not endorse so that the Hannity crowd would like him more. Hopefulyl real republicans (and some already do) will like him because he actually has ideals and can articulate the message in a way they can understand; But he did it so that they couldn't hold it against him as a "fake republican" if he didn't endorse the nominee... He told us long ago he would endorse whoever the nominee is, because he's a part of the party, and he also explained fully that he wasn't gonig to let them marginalize him like they were already starting to in 2010 because his dad didn't endorse.

 

[Athan]

Dr. Paul, Taft, and Goldwater like a boss.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Again, you got any better ideas?

I do. I would rather see us start a Liberty Party without the baggage that is the current GOP. If it can't be done that way, it can't be done. Period.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Oh bullshit, but you're maknig your motives quite clear here for starting this thread...

My motives for starting the thread are to find out what pro-GOP RP supporters see as the "founding principles" and "roots" of the GOP. As for what you think my motive are, I've made no secret about how I feel about going forward under the GOP banner.

 

[Crystallas]

Pre-Straus conservatism.

 

[TheGrinch]

I do. I would rather see us start a Liberty Party without the baggage that is the current GOP. If it can't be done that way, it can't be done. Period.

So would I... But if it can't be done that way (which currently all indications are that a 3rd party can't, as you yourself highlighted), then hell no, I'm not just going to concede that it's hopeless otherwise... I'll be voting 3rd party if Dr. Paul isn't on the ticket, but I fully stand with his GOP strategy choice that has already done far more for bringing liberty into the mainstream than the LP has in 40 years of being marginalized.

But definitely let me know if there's anything I can do to make 3rd parties more viable... Until then, I'll be supporting efforts to reform the GOP, because the stakes are too high and our numbers still to small to just say "my way or the highway". You can't take away a powerful majority with a powerless minority. You take them out by becoming a majority however you can. To me, giving up is not an option.

 

[NoOneButPaul]

OK, let me throw this out to all of the pro-GOP RP supporters: do you know what the current DNC and RNC have that 3rd parties do not?

Corporate donors.

LARGE corporate donors.

That's the main reason (as far as I can see) that it's hard for a 3rd party to gain traction in today's political climate.

These LARGE corporate donors don't just throw money at these candidates. They expect something in return.

Are we going to continue to play ball with these corporations? Or are we going to stand on the principles of liberty when it comes to government contracts, free markets, etc?

Again... it's weird to see such anti-corporate sentiment from people who claim to represent free markets.

The corporations will bet on who wins, it's what brings home the best investment for THEM, and our ideas DO appeal to them we've just never had a shot to win so we've never been worth the risk for any of their capital. It works the exact same way with 3rd parties.

If we stand on principle, how fast do you think that money dries up for the new Liberty GOP? How fast do you think we are relegated (once again) to third party status?

That corporate money is going to go to those who will continue to do the bidding of Big Pharma, Big Oil, etc. Wherever the current crop of crony corporatist establishment current-GOP types go, that's where that money will go.

Are there really only a handful of people here who see this?

Ron talks about in Liberty Defined that the corporate control over the donations is a symptom, not a cause, of big government gone amok. The corporations invest so much into the elections because there's so much power at stake in them. If government was small and didn't hold such influences there would be little to no incentive for the massive control over it. That capital would instead be reinvested into services for the people. It would become wasteful to try and control the government regulations to butt out competition because the rules to do so wouldn't exist.

The reduction in the size of government, and thus the reduction in the incentive for corporations to invest so much in it, can be achieved within the parameters of the GOP because the GOP is one of the two parties that is actually relevant and has the power to do so (you can argue the morality of that all day, I don't much like it either but the best way to change that is to take power, and taking power is best served within the parties of power).

The people themselves, if united and motivated, can get the politicians and the party to give them such a government.
Your point that we can't do anything without the corporations help is not only untrue but it's also a weak, pathetic, and powerless message to send-that somehow we can't stand up to them as a people, or as a country. No corporation controls you or what you can do to advance a message politically, they may hamper you but they can't control you or your message. If enough people control the political process they can't control that either.

But... it doesn't even matter that we could do it without corporate help because we would get corporate help IF we had a chance to win.

Slashing the corporate tax rate, abolishing the federal income tax, deregulating the entire market, abolishing significant parts of government oversight.

Do you really think these ideas don't appeal to ALL CORPORATIONS? The only corporations really against these ideas are the ones who already have the game fixed in their favor. The type of corporations you're talking about are the mega-corporations that are already intertwined in our government. But the vast majority of the corporations throughout the country don't have such influence and would be more inclined to support us IF we had a shot to actually win. The fact is the betting, or investing, public has never considered our odds worthy enough to risk their capital in.

Ron's entire campaign is a perfect example of what i'm talking about. In 2008 he had almost no corporate help, his entire campaign was funded by the people and for the people. A political action was pushed, within the GOP, and with little corporate help. This time around Ron got more corporate help (not a lot, but some) if anyone had ever believed Ron's chances were better he would have gotten more. If Rand runs in 2016 he'll get even more than Ron did now...

Corporate money isn't essential at first, and when the time comes we actually have a shot to win it will show up because we still represent ideals the majority of corporations like. The mega-corporations may never support us because they are too dependent on the government, but that does not mean the majority of corporations, or the majority of capital, will not. They will be more inclined to help us if they think a possibility exists that the mega-coproations cozy relationship with the FED could end with the implementation of our ideas.

Furthermore... what is your real point with this post? To simply push the idea we are already slaves to the corporations and government control? Fuck that... What are the solutions? No one want to hear about problems all the time, solutions are the real gold. What is your solution to the problem?

The majority of corporations are good, they aren't all bad guys. The mega-corporations that are in bed with big government are still outnumbered by the smaller corporations who want a bigger piece of the pie, or the investing class, that wants a new opportunity to make money.

Money will come if people believe you can win, that will never happen outside in a 3rd party because even if we were somehow successful in creating one it would only funnel all the money to the Democrats because they'd almost always be guaranteed to win with the GOP split in half. Fracturing ourselves is simply not an option.

The point people are missing is the GOP is already an empty vessel and the majority of people in this country are now independents. If we can recruit the leaderless, apathetic, and looking for something new, independents into the GOP vacuum we're essentially creating another party anyway but the difference is that the structure is already in place for us.

All the 3rd party talk just delays and prolongs the void filling. We need a reverse, we need to be convincing the conservative 3rd parties to comeback and help us. As the crowds grow even larger, and the preachers preach even further, the masses will continue to wake up to our message and eventually will fill the void entirely.

Then and only then will the majority of the regular corporations wake up with them and help us take down the entire system.

We are only the beginning! We are the remnant! We cannot be deterred by the status quo!

 

[Gravik]

Limited federal government, more states rights, sound currency, balanced budget, non-interventionist foreign policy.

 

[nobody's_hero]

I'd be happy if the GOP and the DNC crumbled to pieces, to be honest.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Again... it's weird to see such anti-corporate sentiment from people who claim to represent free markets.

If you think I'm anti-corporate, you're misunderstanding my post and my point; I am nothing of the sort!

What I am against is cronyism....the practice of accepting large donations from corporations and then giving special favors to those corporations.

For example, take environmental laws. We could argue on here all day long about whether a lot of the environmental laws we have now are constitutional, and I would be on the side that argues they are not. HOWEVER, our Congress critters passed those laws, and so we expect them to be followed.

Instead, everyone looks the other way for those corporations who paid the large donation, while small businesses that don't have that kind of money are regulated to death.

We have an FDA that is supposed to be concerned with food safety. We put Monsanto people in positions of power with the FDA. How is that a good thing??

The list goes on....

 

[NoOneButPaul]

If you think I'm anti-corporate, you're misunderstanding my post and my point; I am nothing of the sort!

What I am against is cronyism....the practice of accepting large donations from corporations and then giving special favors to those corporations.

For example, take environmental laws. We could argue on here all day long about whether a lot of the environmental laws we have now are constitutional, and I would be on the side that argues they are not. HOWEVER, our Congress critters passed those laws, and so we expect them to be followed.

Instead, everyone looks the other way for those corporations who paid the large donation, while small businesses that don't have that kind of money are regulated to death.

We have an FDA that is supposed to be concerned with food safety. We put Monsanto people in positions of power with the FDA. How is that a good thing??

The list goes on....

Everything I wrote and that's what you responded to... my overall larger point is your way of going about stopping these things is through the flawed 3rd party system.

And again you mention all these problems and again you offer up no solutions...

 

[TheGrinch]

We have an FDA that is supposed to be concerned with food safety. We put Monsanto people in positions of power with the FDA. How is that a good thing??

Of course it's not a good thing, that's why we're trying to change it so that no one gets preferential treatment, as NOBP's post explains quite well. Doesn't that pretty well answer your question that there will still be money from honest corporations, just not the degree to it is now for them to buy them off with? Certainly nothing wrong with that.

I guess I jsut don't understand why you listed all those gripes with crony politics, but are against us even trying to put honest politcians in so that doesn't happen with them.... Even if you disagree with some of the comprimises they might make, liberty politicans have not given me any indication that they can be bought off by corporations and lobbyists, and that counts for A LOT!

You still haven't listed a viable alternative, and no sorry, purity might make you feel better about doing nothing, thinking it's hopeless that the system doesn't work the way you want it to to allow for a 3rd party, but it sure isn't gonna change the course of the country to just sit here and feel bad for ourselves...

 

[LibertyEagle]

So would I... But if it can't be done that way (which currently all indications are that a 3rd party can't, as you yourself highlighted), then hell no, I'm not just going to concede that it's hopeless otherwise... I'll be voting 3rd party if Dr. Paul isn't on the ticket, but I fully stand with his GOP strategy choice that has already done far more for bringing liberty into the mainstream than the LP has in 40 years of being marginalized.

But definitely let me know if there's anything I can do to make 3rd parties more viable... Until then, I'll be supporting efforts to reform the GOP, because the stakes are too high and our numbers still to small to just say "my way or the highway". You can't take away a powerful majority with a powerless minority. You take them out by becoming a majority however you can. To me, giving up is not an option.

There aren't enough +reps to give you for this.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Question: What are these "roots" of the GOP to which everyone wants to return?

I've heard Ron Paul say this, and I've seen it repeated here as the basis for wanting to stay within the GOP ranks...to "return the Republican Party to its founding principles."

Which founding principles are we speaking of? Serious question.

First, there is little relevance to the answer. The GOP - like the Democratic party - largely controls who is elected to office. Until the GOP and Democrats have no power, there is a vested interest in controlling both organizations (think like Morgan Stanley). There are many roots some which should be cut off and others embraced. Ron Paul is simply using a talking point or method to give familiarity to the ideas of freedom that beltway GOPers have abandoned. For some people, Israel and drug wars will be "roots" of their GOP. BFD. There is no point in giving this issue literality.

Second, I believe your motivation to ask this "serious question" is your anti-GOP agenda. As such, I don't believe it is a serious question but a point you are trying to make. That is OK. I'm anti-GOP too but I don't make an agenda of it. I'm anti-government as well, but that doesn't keep me out of politics or the voting booth.

Remember, Morgan Stanley doesn't ask if Obama or Romney is the right "fit" for them. All that matters is that they back the winner (so they are betting on "red" and "black" and hoping the ball doesn't land on the weird green spaces). For the liberty movement, all that matters is destroying the reins of power. You can join all the parties or none of them in this endeavor. I doubt you will have influence if you don't understand the nature of the game or the point. For many, the GOP is a tool or a pathway, not the destination.

 

[cajuncocoa]

And again you mention all these problems and again you offer up no solutions...

I don't offer solutions because I don't have any solutions. (Other than the one I previously mentioned: staring a Liberty Party not affiliated with people who don't want us).

I don't need to know how to do brain surgery to know that setting fire to someone's head is the wrong approach.

Second, I believe your motivation to ask this "serious question" is your anti-GOP agenda. As such, I don't believe it is a serious question but a point you are trying to make.

I repeat: I have made no secret of being anti-GOP (and anti-Dem, too). That doesn't mean it wasn't a serious question; it was. But you're free to believe what you will.

 

[rideurlightning]

Coolidge.