Republican Party Still Trying to Herd Cats

The Gadsden Flag
During the Presidency of Ronald Reagan, Republicans enjoyed a cohesiveness and focus not seen since. Even despite the crushing Republican victory in the 2010 mid-term elections – which was far more a statement of dissatisfaction with Democratic Party policy than it was an endorsement of Republicans – the party of Lincoln has been in self-destruct mode. Whilst the Democratic Party has become a soul-less, monolithic bloc of lock-step – or, more accurately, goose-step – ideologues, the Republican Party is still trying to herd cats.

It is true that there exists one difference of opinion on the Left; on the one hand, many traditional Democrats, who would still identify as ‘Liberals’ or ‘Social Democrats’, know that government is not the answer to every problem. On the other hand, Progressivism has become the dominant force; openly supported by the Socialist Party, the Progressives have infiltrated every element of modern American society – most specifically, the education system. Progressives believe that private citizens have no right to freedom of thought, speech, action or even ownership of anything; they are the ultimate Statists, insisting that government alone should provide everything – and control everything. Democratic voters, however, blindly support their party whilst paying no heed to that party’s agenda. Proof of this becomes evident when one considers that the Obama administration is guilty of every action for which Democrats so despised the Bush administration.

On the political Right, by contrast, there is growing dissent and an increasingly visible divergence of ideology. There still exists the Republican voter; like the Democratic voter, they will follow the party line – neither knowing nor caring where it leads, so long as the name of their man, or woman, has an R after it. The establishment Republican both fears and loathes the true Conservative, who is seen as a disruptive influence on the big government, big business Republican agenda. The extremist wing of the Conservative movement is generally known as the Religious Right; on the one hand, its inhabitants give the appearance of loyalty to the Constitution but they are marked out by deep-seated intolerance of any religious faith other than Christianity or Judaism. Whilst most Conservatives are Christian or Jewish, they still willingly accept the First Amendment concept of freedom of religion. The deeply religious Conservative, on the other hand, would have the government impose laws based on their own moral values and the United States – given enough time – would come to resemble a Christian version of Saudi Arabia, devoid of any religious and theological diversity and intolerant of any fashion, entertainment or lifelstyle-choice that it deems immoral.

The other, and arguably fastest growing, faction of the political Right is the Libertarian movement. Whilst Conservatives and Libertarians are kindred spirits and have come together under the TEA Party umbrella, traditional Republicans – particularly the Statist, Progressive arm of the party, represented by the likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham – see Libertarianism as an anarchic, guerilla movement that threatens to scuttle the Republican establishment. In truth, Libertarians still believe in the rule of law and the role of government; they simply understand that the government’s role should be limited and that the only legitimate laws are those that truly guard society against total mayhem. Libertarians do not have follow a different belief-system from Conservatives, they merely take the limited-government concept a step further and they are socially permissive to a degree with which many Conservatives are uneasy.

As if there weren’t enough cats for the Republican Party to herd, even the Libertarian movement is fractured; Those that cleave to the Libertarian Party doctrine tend to jump on every conspiracy theory; the government was behind the 9/11 attacks; there was no moon landing; the sinister and shadowy cabal that rules the planet is bent on global genocide, etc. Most notably, Libertarian Party loyalists are isolationist; they are opposed to any form of American intervention in foreign affairs, for almost any and every reason. The many Americans who self-identify as Libertarian but feel no loyalty to the Party are not so isolationist; whilst they are opposed to overweight government agencies – even the Department of Defense – they understand that the United States cannot afford to disengage so completely from world affairs – put simply, they see the wisdom of the old adage that if we do not fight our enemies ‘over there’, we will end up fighting them over here.

The true Libertarian holds sacred the words of Thomas Jefferson, when he wrote “If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket what difference is it to me?” The stark truth about Americans is that many of those who call themselves Conservatives, and even a large number of those who would say that they are Liberal are – in truth – Libertarian, without even realizing it.

Leftists, other than the very small percentage who can still think for themselves, have a pack mentality; they will follow the leader without question; they tolerate no dissent; they are blind to the stupendous hypocrisy of allowing their political representatives to do the very same things for which they excoriate Republicans. Rightists, by definition, are opposed to the group-think concept. The mere fact that the TEA Party is still not an official political party with a nationally recognized leader and universally agreed upon manifesto is proof of this. It is now very clear that the Republican leadership has abandoned its principles and its traditional constituents, yet it tries, with increasing desperation, to herd the right-wing cats.

McCain, Graham, Speaker Boehner, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell et al have no agenda other than maintaining relevancy and preserving their lucrative political careers. They simply do not understand that you cannot herd Conservatives and Libertarians, for those are the very people who understand that truly great and lasting societies are built, not from the top down by overbearing political machines, but from the ground up by determined and courageous individuals.

An op/ed by Graham J Noble

9 Responses to "Republican Party Still Trying to Herd Cats"

  1. TheOldHand   September 22, 2013 at 3:41 pm

    The consequence of the law of unintended consequences. May I humbly suggest that redistricting for the purpose of insuring safe seats provides (the unintended) result that the candidates in safe republican districts tends to be more “anti-establishment” than would otherwise be. Then, may I humbly suggest that unlimited campaign donations provides (the unintended) result that significant funding has become available to “non-establishment” republican candidates. Finally, may I humbly suggest that doing away with “earmarks” has had (the unintended) result of significantly reducing leadership’s ability to control its members who may stray from the party line.
    And that’s beside (the unintended) consequences of the 24 hour news cycle & the “echo chambers” created by the widening of the communication spectrum.

  2. Jeff Seussalias   September 21, 2013 at 10:20 pm

    “Problems arise when people choose to deviate from these morals. Dissension is dangerous to society as a whole. Anything which goes against conservative morality must be quarantined, lest it corrupt and erode society. Conservatism is not that different from liberalism in this manner. The only difference is that both sides disagree on what is actually harmful to society. No one should be surprised when conservatives elect politicians who promise to enforce conservative ideals, even if they might not fit the conservative philosophy’s moral standards and then end up being morally bankrupt and embroiled in some controversy or scandal.

    Libertarian political philosophy is morally motivated as well, but it comes from a different standard than conservatives. Self-ownership, which establishes exclusive ownership rights for individuals to their own body and property, and the Non Aggression Principle (NAP), which holds that it is immoral to initate force against a peaceful person or their property, govern libertarian morality and are actually universally applicable. In other words, people should be able to volutarilly interact without violent interevention.

    Social problems are caused by violating the non-aggression principle in a libertarian paradigm. This is why libertarians prefer market forces for resolving issues. Profit and property are extensions of the person and therefore the individual’s representative in the market. People that act in an anti-social manner (violating the NAP) become market pariahs. This should encourage them to start cooperating and is much more humane than jail or execution, and also does not involve violence or the threat of violence. ”

    Yep conservs and libertarians.. soo similar.. 😉

  3. Jeff Seussalias   September 20, 2013 at 10:37 am

    Since this clearly IS an opinion piece, and as such is worth what? Every person has one.. 😉
    but I will make one remark re: this statement:

    “for those are the very people who understand that truly great and lasting societies are built, not from the top down by overbearing political machines, but from the ground up by determined and courageous individuals………….”

    Which is also valid for the economy..
    IF you show me any of your “conservatives” that feel they should throw a few “banksters” in jail.. well you might have some relevance.. BIG talk about justice and liberty.. Little solution to enact it..You just sound angry…

    You think Dems are “monolithic” as compared to your cats??? Really???
    Republicans are currently the poster child of “herd instinct” for self preservation.
    .. That is just ignorance of what is out there..

    “opinion” signed:
    Milwaukee “sewer socialist”.. Look it up. 😉
    not to mention “progressives” were the offshoot of what party???

    • Graham Noble   September 20, 2013 at 12:00 pm

      Firstly, I cannot imagine how you interpreted this editorial as angry. What, exactly, is angry about it? Care to give me an example of “anger” here?

      Secondly, why are you whining about Republicans? My entire piece was a criticism of modern Republicanism….I guess that went over your head. If we are talking about herds, however, please give me even one example of diversity of opinion within the Democratic ranks. There is none. The Progressives (Socialists) are in control and the rest of the mindless Obama-worshipers just go along with whatever they are told. If you disagree, go right ahead and give me even one good example of where I am wrong.

      Basically, your comment meant nothing and proved nothing. Not even a valiant attempt at logical argument.

  4. Andrew   September 20, 2013 at 12:58 am

    Lincoln was not a Republican in the sense that this article is portraying him. He was a politician in a party that at the time called itself such. However, he was not even close to the shadow of our contemporary Republican Party. His views were much more moderate, even leaning towards the modern day Democratic views. Granted, I would hardly put myself out in the wind to say he would actually be a Democrat. But, he definitely would not be a Republican in today’s world. I find no surprise in reading uneducated remarks from commentors who are oblivious to the difference between reading a book and regurgitating whichever biased propoganda their favorite media source portrays, however, I would think a journalist would – at the very least under the guise of research. This entire article reads as though it is a synopsis of some other article. A synopsis that ommited the punch line. Why did I read this? I understand some contrary surface value point was made, but why should I care and how is this relevant? Very poorly written.

    • Graham Noble   September 20, 2013 at 8:37 am

      This is an opinion piece. Your comment is disingenuous, in that you are attempting to suggest that i am merely repeating something else I have read and am now presenting it as fact.

      As for the idea this is poorly written; please do go ahead and provide your learned analysis of how the writing is poor.

      Seems to me that you simply do not happen to agree with me and are, therefore, attempting to dismiss what I have said.

      As for Lincoln; I do see where you’re coming from, but I would argue that Lincoln would have absolutely nothing to do with the Democratic Party of the Obama era, which is no longer the Democratic Party – it is now a Socialist party.

  5. none   September 19, 2013 at 4:54 pm

    REAL republicasn have never been in better shape. We cut off $36M from those so called poor, on Oct 1 were going to bring the useless Federal gov to a halt, we’ve gerrymandered PERMANENT control of House sites, and income distribiutions shows were RICHER than ever. You libertards are just jelous becasue WE WON!

    • Graham Noble   September 19, 2013 at 5:03 pm

      Your party is run by Progressive, big government crony capitalists who have no principles. You are finished unless we Conservatives and Libertarians completely take it over – which will be within the next two or three election cycles….assuming the Obama administration, with the help of its Republican pets, does not establish a dictatorship.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.