15 thoughts on “Speaking of Intra-paleo Feuds

  1. Savrola

    Porcius Cato: We are the Senate of Rome…!
    Marcus Tullius Cicero: We are old men with mud on our shoes!

  2. Bruce

    I like Professor Wilson but I think sometimes his anti-Yankee and anti-Republican positions grate on some people.

  3. James

    Because they grate does not make them any less true. Sounds like they hit a little too close for comfort to some.

  4. Matt Weber

    Well you can see both sides here. Wilson is right that the Republican party is expected by normal people to fill a role that it is uninterested and unsuited for. It has never been the conservative party and likely never will be. Tom Piatak et al are right that Romney was clearly better than Obama, and that categorically refusing to vote the lesser of two evils makes too much out of voting, a fairly insignificant act. The problem for Wilson is that there is no alternative to the Republicans, and the problem for Piatak is that the lesser-of-two-evils argument has no real endgame. There isn’t really any foreseeable circumstance in which the Rs become worse than the Ds, so you’re just stuck.

    I guess we are just stuck though, so there you go.

  5. Tom Piatak

    Matt,

    I was involved in an effort to create an alternative to the GOP. Unfortunately, Pat Buchanan as candidate of the Reform Party got less than one percent of the vote, and a party that genuine conservatives had taken control of, that was receiving federal matching funds, and that could have been a genuine conservative alternative to the GOP went the way of the dodo.

    Chris Kopff, by the way, supported Buchanan’s Reform Party run and was at the Reform Party convention in Long Beach. Clyde Wilson was not there.

  6. Sempronius

    On the whole, The Clydester was in the right in this exchange. The Republicans are a disgrace, and they’re hardly worth discussing anymore.

    Where The Clydester goes wrong is in his foolish attachment to Calhoun-inspired free trade and it’s “kissing cousin” (just kidding, just kidding), Southern separatism.

    His opinion of non-Southerners is somewhat extreme.

    I notice he hasn’t scribbled anything about recent events in S. Carolina….

  7. Sempronius

    Thomas,

    Buchanan was and is a long time Repub party hack. His association with Nixon and “Raygun” doomed him from the start.

    Further, a belated tariff regime is a horrible idea and hardly constitutes a “Reform” party.

  8. RedPhillips Post author

    James, is there some history between Wilson and Kopff?

    Tom, I always thought Buchanan picked the wrong party. On paper the Refrom Party was not socially conservative. He couldn’t foresee Perot stabbing him in the back the way he did, but that he would encounter resistance was predictable. I have always wondered, aside from the matching funds issue, why he didn’t go to the Constitution Party. My guess is that he didn’t want to be saddled with the CP’s absolutist platform.

  9. Bruce

    Thomas Fleming had a very insightful comment. The Republicans are the party of greed. The Democrats are the party of envy. Maybe more accurate than the “stupid party, evil party” bit. I’d add that the Democrats are the party of revenge too. ANd I”d say that the Republicans are teh party of war except that I think that’s just an extension of their greed.

  10. Tom Piatak

    Bruce’s comments are on target.

    Red, the Reform Party may have been the wrong party. But after the Long Beach convention there was no doubt that it was a conservative party, and that a solid conservative (indeed, the best presidential candidate of my adult lifetime) was its standard bearer. Still, the fact remains: a solid conservative, known nationally and with excellent skills as a speaker and debater, was able to get less than one percent of the vote running third party.

  11. Matt Weber

    If anyone could have pulled off a third party run against the Republicans to the right, it would have been Buchanan. But I think America is just a two party state and that will never change. If another party arose, it would be at the expense of one of the existing parties and would herald that party’s decline. Reforming the Republican party from within is really the only option, which has been Buchanan’s focus since his Reform party bid. Whether the party can be reformed is another question, but you would think 2012 would wake some people up.

    But I would put it as the Republicans are the party of plutocracy while the Democrats are–well they used to be the party of the common man but now appear to be the party of everyone but.

  12. Sean Scallon

    There have been a couple attempts to start an alternative party on the Right from the AIP to Reform (which didn’t start this way) to dreams of Southern Democrats and Midwestern Republicans uniting in alliance. They’ve all ended in division and failure.

    True conservatives have bounced around between both parties but have stuck with the Republicans because of Goldwater and Reagan and because New Deal and the Great Society made it impossible for conservatives to stay with the Democrats or have any meaningful role in how the party operates, especially after 1972. The problem with party building is that parties operate on a business/sport model – you win or you lose and if one way doesn’t work then you have to try a different way. A conservative party by itself cannot do this without serious rupture as we’ve seen with the AIP and the Reform Party.

    As I’ve written, IPOs (Independent Political Organization) ay be a more suitable method of politics in the future than non-major parties or party capture.

  13. Sempronius

    Kopf was right about at least one thing; Southerners do actually support the current regime. Wilson’s over the top response is proof of it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>