Will or should the GOP go fork itself?

Are we exaggerating the Ron Paul support?

Yeah he lost the primaries, but if he ran as an independent, would he even make a dent?

As for the Rep. party, it would help to outline what are the main factions, it has to be more than libertarians and religious conservatives no?

For every one thing Paul has said that makes sense, he's said 10 others that are legitimately fucking insane. I could never understand people supporting him honestly unless they just don't know his really crazy (and in my opinion, dangerous) policy stances. And anyone who wants to just get rid of public education instead of putting forth the effort to fix it can go screw. That goes for liberal candidates too.

Ask Ralph Nader if a third party can have a negative effect on the electoral chances of an ideologically similar candidate of a larger party?

I didn't support Paul in the primary because I didn't agree with him on a lot of issues like abortion and the elimination of a lot of federal agencies.

I think he has the right idea for an over-arching role of government, but I think it could be done in ways that aren't as radical.

I did support him in regards to his views on the Patriot Act.

No, Ron Paul would not make a dent if he ran as an independent. He'd probably hit higher numbers than previous Libertarian runs if he were the Libertarian candidate, but it would still be pretty small.

The reality is that the American system, unlike the parliamentary systems in many European countries, doesn't work well for third parties. I'm probably not doing my argument any favors by casting it as libertarians taking over the GOP. I'm more talking about the GOP ridding itself of the Christianists.

If you look at the Libertarian Party, everyone in that party basically understands that they have no immediate chance of winning. Maybe they think they can make a long-term impact by slowly building their brand, but they know Bob Barr ain't gonna beat McCain. So all the people that are active in the Lib Party are the extreme, hard-line idealists, which is sort of a self-perpetuating cycle that keeps them out of the mainstream. But if you were to take those base principles and temper them into a more moderate, mainstream position, you would have a party that was fiscally conservative and socially liberal, which I believe is the mainstream of American politics. Mind you, that's not MY politics--I'm very liberal on the economic front--but I think it's where most Americans are. It's where Arnold Schwarzeneger is, for instance (he's a bit lefty on the environment, but since I'm talking about a hypothetically mainstream party, that's not unthinkable).

Of course, what it would take for this to happen would be for Republican politicians to decide that socially conservative positions are costing them more votes than they are gaining them. At that point, it seems to me that the process could start. It wouldn't happen over night, but maybe over the course of a decade.

I personally don't know many "libertarians", but just based on what I've read and heard on the radio, many come off as just hard core Republicans that just don't want to admit it.

Don't they just vote Republican anyways when it comes to the voting booth? They also strike me as really selfish, because I think they are more radical than the Republican platform when it comes to general spending to help society.

I jokingly suggested in the other thread that McCain is so pissed off at all the social conservative and other baggage he's been saddled with as the head of the Republican party that he's decided to deliberately throw the game so as to bring about the split we're talking about here. Silly, but his pick of Palin is so petulant it's hard not to think he's not taking this seriously anymore.

By the way, Cap, you suggested in the other thread that a loss for the Dems would be "more catastrophic" than a loss for the Republicans, but I disagree. The Democrats are going to have a lot of power in November, no matter what, and losing the presidency is kind of status quo for them. If the Republicans are as solidly ejected from the government as they seem they might be, and with no clear leader, they're going to deteriorate into a lot of bickering and blaming that might indeed lead to a party schism. It really won't be hard to imagine the political conservatives blaming the fundies for Palin, who might cost McCain the election.

Here's a source I want to bring up: a book called The Fall of the Evangelical Nation: the Surprising Crisis Inside the Church by Christine Wicker. You can hear an interview with her on Live from the Left Coast (scroll down to find the May 25, 2008 podcast). The takeaway point is that the "religious right" is a much smaller group than anybody realizes. The claim is that there are 16 million Southern Baptists, but Wicker estimates there are maybe 4 million. The National Association of Evangelicals claims 30 million members, when the reality is, at best, 7.6 million. The Catholic Church basically counts everyone who was ever born to a Catholic family as a member, implying that those numbers support their bizarre political positions. On the whole, the "religious right" claims to be 25% of the population, when it's actually more like 7%.

I agree with this except for the idea that the active members of the Lib Party are hardliners. I see them as people who are just fed up with the two party system. They disagree with the Dems on economic policy, but support them for the most part on social issues.

I do think, however, that their dislike for this Republican Party has been growing for the sole reason that the party left their brand. Instead of an economic conservative party, it has shifted to a defense-centric deficit spending machine that does not care if the country falls deeper in debt. Coming from a Libertarian standpoint and knowing a lot of other Libertarians just like myself, I can tell you that our dislike for this Republican Party has to deal with:

The ties to the Religious Right
The ties to Big Business and the ignoring of small business growth
The ties to the military-industrial complex
The ties to deficit spending and the lack of control of government spending

Good point. I just think Republicans are more prepared to lose this time around than Democrats. They are really not that excited about McCain if they are honest.

If they lose, they will blame it on McCain, what you will hear is that they need "true" Republicans to run for office and not middle of the road people. Also they hate the fact that McCain was a media darling, and they will use this to demonize the media more and prefer candidates that are less mainstream than even McCain.

What I mean for Democrats is, it would make it seem like they just can't win presidential elections because it would be the 3rd. It would also hurt more because they have every reason to win. Still, they are in a better position because of congress, and an Obama loss just means Hillary gets another chance and that would almost mean she would win that primary.

I don't really think the Catholic Church is part of the American "religious right", although they share some issues, mainly abortion.

They're part of it alright. Maybe not as much as say, the Baptist convention, but they are a part of the religious right.

Please let Bob Jones U know about that so they can stop $@% with us.

The Catholic Church is increasingly a part of the Religious Right. They are allies on gay rights and abortion, and evangelicals are in fact adopting the Church's insane views on contraceptives.

You're right, but I just couldn't see myself voting for a guy who believes the wrong things are causing the problems. It isn't the agencies themselves, but rather who we put in charge of the agencies, who we put in charge of the country, and what powers we give the agencies.

For example, if we took away the Department of Education we would have no federal oversight of public and private education (there's some there).

If we eliminated some of the powers Ed has, we could redistribute that money and provide more mandatory funds for states to use for their state systems and local school boards. The problem with public education is not on the federal level, but on the state level. You increase the funds for states to use on their education budget, the better use of that money to get better schools. Federal education mandates don't work.

Right there, it shows that Paul's idea works on a more narrow level. During the primaries, it came off like Paul wanted to axe everything because it wasn't working. Sometimes it's not the best thing to kill off a program that isn't working.

You are right about Paul and the Executive Branch.

Of course they are out of step with them on fundamental theological views ("faith alone"), capital punishment, immigration, and general social justice (welfare, medial insurance, etc).

I disagree with the part in the OP's quote where "hawkish foreign policy" is equated with Paul and libertarianism, even indirectly. Along with Kucinich, Paul was the least hawkish of all the candidates, or of anyone who's gotten recent political tv time, really. A big part of the 'libertarian' or 'constitutional' platform is the opposition to most wars, seeing them as foreign entanglements or government wastefulness, or to even having a big standing army. That's one of the main differences right now between them and the Republicans.

Aren't most libertarians isolationists? At least Paul sounded like one.

Yeah. Big on sovereignty and all. But beyond that, strict adherence to only doing what the constitution says you can definitely do... that would lead to fewer wars and 'conflicts' anyway.

Just to add another example besides Muharulz to this, I consider myself a lowercase-l libertarian and I definitely do not skew Republican as a rule. Too big a difference of opinion on the war, on gay rights, on abortion (I personally am pro-choice, though it's complicated and not all libertarians are, obviously), and the general feel of 'old and racist' that comes with a good chunk of Republican politicians. I'd take Obama over McCain any day, for sure.

OK, interesting. For some reason, I associate libertarians with Republicans more than I probably should.

Maybe it's because I've listened to Neil Bortz a couple of times, and he says he's libertarian but really is just a Republican in my mind. He also reminds me of Devin a bit, because he's fanatically anti-children in flights.

Just to make sure, this would include libertarian-leaning types like Ron Paul who'd like to repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act (edit: and the 1965 Voting Rights Act!), correct?

Yeah. I mean, when he argues that he's doing it to reduce government invasiveness (according to firefox: not a word), I see what he's going for and I don't think he's lying, but I still think it's a dumb idea. If that makes sense.

Boortz does a lot of what he does for shock value aka good radio. I read his latest book and he talks about how what he says on air he does to keep up discussion and to get people fired up so they listen more. So his radio show isn't a good barometer of where he stands on all issues.

I like the fact that the GOP is being infiltrated by others than the religious right. I hope libertarians and "social moderate conservatices" do have a stronger influence in the party. I still think McCain loses the election. And when he does, the GOP will either go back to the Romneys of the world and become a nitch party or they will look to the Guilianis of the world and become competitive with the Dems.

As for Ron Paul, he would get less votes in a general election than Michael Vick. I would have more respect for Dr. Paul if he appeared in public wearing his tinfoil hat he wears at home.

No, I know most libertarians aren't hawkish, and tend to be isolationists. I got myself into a rhetorical mess at the beginning, because I'm not really talking about the Libertarian party, but the Republican party. Specifically, the Republican party ditching the "social conservatism" agenda and concentrating on the "economic libertarianism" agenda. The third pillar of the GOP is the hawkish foreign policy, and I saw no reason to remove that, but of course this is all hypothetical. (Although, I think we can expect a milder version of it from here on, with the disaster that the neocon vision has turned into.)

I don't know about that.

You'll maybe see less quasi-imperialism, but you're still going to get a lot of shit talking on Iran and many on the right legitimately want that war to happen.

Well, when we talk about the "religious right," we're talking about a political movement, so the doctrinal differences don't really matter much. And I agree, the Catholic Church does take more progressive, social justice positions, but I think in recent years those are increasingly taking a back seat. I mean, I don't recall any stories about politicians being denied communion because of their anti-immigration positions.

Maybe I'm stating this poorly, but that's what I'm getting at. Tough-guy foreign policy is an essential part of the GOP's DNA. And, as practiced by Nixon/Reagan/Bush41, I think it's a legitimate disagreement between the two parties. I disagree with them, but they're not insane views (like, say, thinking sex ed is bad).

True, among most of those issues, the abortion one is the most vocal. However, the formal organizations that represent "the religious right" are mostly evangelical in nature, and are headed by pastors who often don't even consider the Catholic Church Christian in the first place.

Some of those pastors are even allowed to run for office (Pat Robertson) while in the Catholic church that is clearly forbidden.

On the immigration issue, you are down playing it a bit, because the Church was very vocal against those stupid Republican laws trying to criminalize helping illegal immigrants and not reporting them to the authorities. I'm close to that issue, because I have a priest friend of mine quoted on the local paper they were willing to go to jail rather than snitch illegal immigrants (his Church is mainly migrant workers).

I don't think I've ever seen these evangelical religious right types saying they're willing to go to jail for illegal immigrants, or send messages to the president voicing protests against capital punishment every time somebody is killed (which Pope John Paul used to do).

It's kind of difficult to establish where the hawkishness begins and ends, though, since the origins of the neocon movement are in members of old liberals who didn't agree with the anti-war sentiments of the New Left. They also tended to be strongly pro-Israel and anti-socialist (the heavy-handed Christian stuff came in later).

The party may have been militarily fixated before then, but I think that was mainly defensive. The neocon influence in the 60s is when it became less about isolationism and more about the "democratization" of the world.

ETA: Just so it's clear why I'm mentioning all of this, I'm thinking that the pre-neocon Republican Party was probably a bit closer to the hypothetical libertarian-like party you're describing.

This. In theory, the Catholic Church is a very progressive when it comes to minority rights and social welfare (5,000 loaves and fishes is a helluva handout). In practice, all other issues are subordinate to abortion, which in our 2-party system doesn't leave many options. This is based on my own experience with mostly white, midwestern Catholic churches, mind you. Pastors, nuns, etc. would never come right out and tell you who you should vote for, but they would be very clear that it could not be the pro-choice candidate. I know a lot of people (mostly parents of friends, but some of the friends themselves), who have no great love for the Republican party or Republican politicians, but continue to hold their noses and vote for them for this reason.

Edit: Capitan's post reminded me of one thing I have to give to the Catholic Church; they are at least consistently pro-life, meaning that along with abortion, they also oppose the death penalty, which did evoke some grumbling from those midwestern congregations. They also don't normally go in for the insane Wrath-of-God explanations whenever a disaster strikes, which puts them a leg up on the Robertsons and Falwells.

According to this poll, it looks like Catholics are actually pretty evenly split, with Bush only winning by a few points in the last two elections. So, while Bush came out ahead in both cases, I can't imagine it would have been so close if abortion were the prime motivating factor for most Catholics. Granted, the poll doesn't break out the individual groups by level of devotion.

That thar is the reason why so much air time is given to the notion that Catholics are a swing constituency. Oddly, the three Catholic politicians/political families I can think of off the top of my head (the Kennedys, Giuliani and Biden) are all pro-choice.

And you can never underestimate the JFK legacy when it comes to Irish Catholics, particularly. There's a lot of nostalgia, there.

And I don't mean to undercut Schwartz's point entirely, because I'd be willing to bet that abortion's becoming such a high-profile issue post-Roe v. Wade is, in large part, responsible for the Catholic shift to the right in presidential elections. But it's apparently not issue enough for about half of voting Catholics.

There's also Tom Ridge.


The Casey family are a good example of a political dynasty (in PA) of pro-life Catholics.

Speaking as a former Catholic, I have to say in my experience most Catholics are "cafeteria Catholics" in that they pick and choose what beliefs they have and what they don't. If Catholics followed the party line when it came to contraception we'd be waist deep in lil' Catholics by now. And yet, I don't know any Catholics personally that don't use some form of birth control. I think Catholics can compartmentalize their belief systems more easily than you might think.

That's it, really. Most Catholics are willing to pay lip service to the Vatican, but when it comes to their personal life they do make their own decisions.

I say this as someone from a Catholic family that lives in a heavily Catholic region. Don't assume that they're all going to do what the pope, or even their local Parish, asks of them politically.

What a lot of people sometimes forget is that often the more "liberal" elements are the actual priests (not the bishops), as many priests in the US will let you know you're ok to ignore the whole contraception stuff.

As for the Republican party I think they could continue to be appealing to religious groups but not be hostages by them, specially the more radical fundamentalist ones.

Right, my point was that the issue of abortion is about the only thing tying the Catholic Church to the "Religious Right" and by extension, the GOP. Are there virulently anti-gay or anti-immigrant Catholics our there? Sure, but the Church doesn't push those issues directly.

My thing (which again, is based in the anecdotal) is that abortion is the one issue where Church officials would directly tell you a real Catholic can't vote a certain way, and that it is significantly, if not universally effective. My further anecdotal experience is that pretty much no one, including those who have a relatively hard-line approach to abortion, considers the all-out contraceptive ban remotely feasible, or worries about it at all.

Actually a pro-life Catholic can vote for pro-choice candidate according to then Cardinal Ratzinger;

The argument then is what are the "proportionate reasons", if you think a candidate is going to invade other countries and promote unecessary wars, that would definetely qualify.

Stances on the death penalty, helping the poor and immigrants also count, basically just because a candidate says they are pro-life doesn't discount all the other "evil" the Church considers harmful to society.

Of course this type of statement is very open to interpretation ...