Friday, February 8, 2008

I am taking over the blog again to mourn another loss, the loss of the Reagan coalition in the Republican party. I was sickened last night as I watched the election returns, sickened to see my party turn against everything that Nixon and Reagan had done to build up a party machine that has dominated party politics since 1968. It now is inevitable that John McCain will win the Presidential nomination for the Republicans, a man who economically and socially should not be allowed to call himself a Republican, at least not the Republican party of Reagan. With his win I will not be surprised to see a third party come into being, running a true conservative, so conservative voters will still be able to vote their conscience. Before I go on, I first, as you may guess, what to discuss historical elections that have some significance to this one, or at least remind me of this one.
The 1824 the presidential election was between 5 men all calling themselves republicans, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, and some guy named Crawford. Because they were all Republicans the party did not decide on a ticket and all 5 men were still involved in November. When the Electoral College voted, none of the men received a majority of the votes and so the election was kicked over the House of representative. Once there, Henry Clay, knowing he could not win the election told his supporters in the House to vote for John Quincy Adams, the man who was closest to him ideologically. With the support from Clay, Adams won the election, and in return reward Clay was the secretary of State position, the launching pad from most Presidents in the early Nineteenth Century. This election came to my mind last night in the West Virginia primary. In West Virginia the delegates vote together to come to a consensus vote. In the first vote none of the candidates could capture a majority. So McCain knowing he was the least likely to win, instructed his supports to vote for Huckabee, guaranteeing Huckabee a victory and blocking a win for Romney. Nothing illegal was done, but morally it may be questionable. In 1824 the deal became known as the “corrupt bargain,” and it did carry repercussions. Andrew Jackson was running in the race, but only half-heartedly, not fully knowing if he wanted to be president. However, after the corrupt bargain, he was so angry that he and his supporters began campaigning right away for the next election. Jackson supporters broke away from the Republican party and began calling themselves the Democratic Republicans or later just Democrats. Based on the personality of Jackson, and Democratic anger over the corrupt bargain, Adams only served a four-year term, and was soundly defeated by Jackson in 1828. Will this election cause another break in the Republican party is yet to be seen, but many conservative voters will find it difficult to stomach President McCain.
A second election that comes to mind is the famous 1968 election. The Democratic party was going through a philosophical shift as it was become a much more liberal party, and becoming the party, of minorities, women, poor, and the anti-war movement. The Democratic primary came down to three men, Humphrey, McCarthy, and Bobby Kennedy. The hopes and dreams of the new left were placed on the man that they believed could change everything, Kennedy. He would get them out of the war, protect civil rights, and began a liberal state. McCarthy also represented the new left, but not as strongly as Kennedy, and Humphrey was a more traditional Democrat. However, to the horror of the party, Kennedy was gunned down after a campaign speech in California, and McCarthy basically dropped out after Bobbie’s death, leaving Humphrey to accept the Democratic nomination. The New Left Movement did not take Humphrey's acceptance lightly, as seen by the riots that broke out in Chicago during the convention. What ended up happening was many new left Democrats did not vote allowing for the Republicans to began a thirty year dominance of the White House. Nixon also had a hand in the victory, running a perfect campaign of playing off the fears of middle America, who were tired of the violence, protests, hippies, drugs, and rock and role. Nixon brought together a coalition of conservative, and blue-collar families into what was known as the silent majority (the hundreds of thousands of people that do not go on TV and complain, but vote). This was a powerful coalition, but was only increased by Reagan, who added conservative democrats and those who thought we were losing the Cold war. But he also strengthened to the core of the party with the Christian right, a group that up to now, has been necessary to please in order to win the Republican party.
This election could turn out to be similar to 68. Many conservative voters, myself among them, could become very disenchanted with the party. In some ways I would rather see a Democrat in the White house then McCain. The Democrats have complained for 8 years about Bush and the war. Let them fix it; let them see it is not so easy. Let them pull our of Iraq and watch as terror gets stronger and Americans come under attack. But with McCain, who will challenge him. He is liberal enough for Democrats to agree with, and can Republicans be the one challenging a Republican president. This could be a watershed election, like 1896, or 1968, where there is a fundamental shift in party ideology. My personal opinion of whether Republicans vote or not depends on which Democrat is elected. If Hilary is the nominee, Republicans, my self included, will have to vote for McCain, he may be bad, but at least he is not the anti-Christ.
What I hated seeing the most last night, was a conservative, Huckabee, blocking for McCain. If the election was a two way race between McCain or either Romney or Huckabee, I do not believe McCain would be winning. If you watched the polling numbers, strong conservatives were not voting for him, he was winning the moderate vote. The conservative vote was split between Romney and Huckabee, allowing McCain to win. If Huckabee did not win the states he won last night, Romney would have won them. It is a shame to see the only two conservative men fighting against each other with the outcome of letting the liberal win. The Party needs to have some control over the situation. I have been a supporter of Huckabee, until I saw him smooze up to McCain last night. After he made the comment that the race was between himself and McCain a reporter asked several times, why should voters support you over McCain, but Huckabee would not give a answer. All he would say is that McCain is a good candidate and he would not say anything against him. When you are actually trying to win, you do not have to bash the other guy, but you can point out where he is very liberal.
One last comment. It is apparent that I do not like McCain and just incase anyone is still reading this I will give my justification and why I think he will ruin the party of Reagan. Socially, he supports the liberal agenda, from stem cell research to women’s rights. He voted against the Bush tax cuts. He is proposing billions of dollars to fix global warning, I do not have a problem with saving he environment, but where does he think he will get them money. Vote for McCain and taxes will go up. He has admitted on air that the economy is not his strong point, in a time when the economy is in desperate need of help. He supports amnesty to illegal immigrants. I am not anti-immigration, but I think it should be done properly. When given a chance last week at the Reagan library to say he would veto the McCain/Kennedy immigration bill, he would not answer. His record of voting with democrats is enough to scare me too much. I know I am rambling, this blogging is dangerous, and so far I have discussed religion and politics. I love this country, and I take the right to vote very seriously, so when I see things going so wrong I get up set because there is not much I can do about it. I need to add here at the end, that the views of his blog do not necessarily represent the views of the Finck Five, but I sure hope they do.

2 comments:

Pound Fi'ty said...

You said he voted against the Bush tax cuts, which is true, but forgot to mention he's on the record stating it's because they didn't also cut spending. Isn't the reduction of government part of the traditional republican party? I totally support him on that vote. I'm not saying I like McCain, but fiscally he's fought to reduce pork barrell spending and other wasteful spending. If we're going to evaluate him properly, we also have to give him credit for things he's done right.

Tamara said...

I have friends that are reading this and are waiting to hear more...