Third Party? Not The Answer.

It’s something we come back to again and again and again and again and again here at America’s Right–the danger of the growing third-party movement among the American political right–and each and every time we’re met with the same sentiment: that we’re wrong.

But we’re not. We’re rarely wrong here. Heck, being right is right there in our name.

All hokeyness aside, a few minutes ago I stumbled upon an interesting piece over at HotAir. It’s all about a recent Rasmussen poll which points out that, while a hypothethical Tea Party Party candidate would fare better than a Republican Party candidate in upcoming congressional elections, both would get absolutely waxed by a Democrat. Kind of like what happened up in New York’s 23rd congressional district about a month ago.

The data is all there in the linked article, as well as the Rasmussen poll itself, but I really liked the way that Ed Morrissey summarized everything:

The key in 2010 is to have the GOP represent the Tea Party brand, and the only way to do that is to firmly insist on fiscal restrain and reduction of government as the platform for the election. The Right needs to put aside all of its usual hobby horses and focus on the message from the Tea Party movement. If they need an excuse, call it a moment of national crisis as the Democrats attempt a takeover of the health-care and energy industries. The next election has to be fought on those narrow terms in order to bring the GOP into line with the tea-party momentum and unite against what is clearly a fringe progressive movement to massively expand an already-broke government.

It’s the same thing I’ve been talking about here since we started to lick our wounds on that depressing first Tuesday of November last year. Here’s one example, from the day after the election:

We need to take a good, long, honest look at why we lost this election, why we lost so badly yesterday and in 2006. In doing so, the Republican Party needs to avoid the temptation to shift blame. Yes, the economy presented a high hurdle. Yes, the winner of this election raised an exponentially larger amount of money and had the unbelievably solid and effective campaign operation to prove it. Yes, this year follows eight years of an unpopular president, in a country fighting an unpopular war. All of these, for sure, were contributing factors in last night’s result, but if the party merely concentrates on these excuses, we are doomed to repeat the lessons we should have learned by now.

The GOP failed to do the “right” thing, in more ways than one, and that failure was not just confined to this election or the last two years. The party and our president have been swept up in a dangerous trend, a slippery slope identified by the total abandonment of conservative principles, and that track led right into the closing months of this election.

The right thing to do would have been to vote against the bailout, rail against the bailout, flood the airwaves with effective advertising about Obama’s radical left stance on infanticide, about his socialism-inspired hope to bankrupt the coal industry, about his Marxist perspective as it relates to Joe the Plumber and small and large businesses everywhere. About his laissez-faire approach to foreign policy and those who wake up each and every day dreaming of our destruction and demise.

Instead, the GOP went moderate. It facilitated a mentality that we must expand the pie, build a bigger tent, seduce those in the middle and even those on the left. This new approach doesn’t work. Moving to the center doesn’t work. In an election, we need that yin and yang that Ronald Reagan spoke about, that vast difference between candidates in every single respect. Opposing a socialist? Don’t vote for the bailout and for the socialization of losses despite the continued privatization of gains. Opposing a man who will tank the economy? Stop talking about cap-and-trade legislation, about reaching across the aisle – and when the democrats in Congress have ruined the housing and credit markets, don’t blame it on corporate greed.

Time and time and time again, America has shown that it is a center-right nation. Yes, moving to the right in terms of fiscal and social conservatism may alienate some in the center and on the center-left and, yes, the media might not like it very much — but those are the people we do not need. We don’t. We need to return to the message that captivates those of us who work hard, who fear God, who believe in the fundamental, unequivocal, unconditional greatness of the United States of America. We need to return to that message, and we need a candidate who can bring it to the people. There are more than 55 million people in America who see things as we do, who feel that America’s strength is in Her people, their values, their work ethic, and the freedoms they provide.

Like it or not, the result of this election provides us with a much-needed opening. As the next four years unfold, we will see a window, we will see a time when Americans are struggling, when retirement doesn’t come as easy, when people don’t have everything they want or cannot keep everything they’ve earned. It’s not going to be easy, and from that difficulty, we can prevail.

That “opening” which has been provided to us as a result of that election has been the exponential increase in the promised, projected and actual size, scope and reach of the federal government. That “opening” includes the growing perception among everyday Americans, people who have never been involved in the political process before, that their elected representatives–and, specifically, the Democratic Party majority–do not have their best interests at heart, not to mention the nagging feeling that this president doesn’t quite believe in that fundamental, unequivocal, unconditional greatness of the United States of America.

A third party is not the answer. A third party, as nice as it might feel, will be a sure ticket to six more years of Democrats running the Executive and Legislative branches of our government. (You’ll know I’m right when the mainstream press starts talking up the idea of a growing, viable third-party movement.) Instead, the only way to set us back on track to return to the style of governance preferred and advocated by founders like James Madison and Thomas Jefferson is to ensure that the Republican Party becomes the political vehicle for an exodus from our entitlement society and growing centralized government.

Our nation is on fire. Those of us who believe in fiscal restraint, limited government and personal freedom — we are the firefighters, ready to put out the blaze before it becomes a conflagration. If our fire engine blows a tire en route to the emergency, do we take the time necessary to build another truck from scratch, risking that the fire will burn out of control and consume our nation in the meantime, or do we install the right tire for the terrain and get back on the road to put the flames out?

Share

Comments

  1. Georgia Traveler says:

    You are absolutely right about a third party. If the Republicans could get together and adopt the Fair Tax plan they would win in most contests. The Democrat party only wants control, and will promise anything to get it. If you read over the Fair Tax plan you will see why the voters would love it.

  2. Gail B says:

    I totally agree that a third party would weaken the Republican Party; but while we're shifting blame, have we forgotten that it was a Democrat Congress that G.W. Bush had?

    If the United States had not gotten so mired down already in liberal control over our lives, I'd say, "They've made their nest; let them lie in it!" However, when one goes down, we all go down. And, with the Democrats in control, we really are in deep poop!

    Instead of splitting the party, the Republicans need to stand up for the principles that Jonathan Krohn, age 13, set forth on February 27 when he addressed CPAC. (AR's "Wow." at March 2, 2009)

    And folks like Mark Sanford need to keep their pants on and stay off the Appalachian Trail! Geez! Don't just give the Dems the ammunition to kill us with!

  3. Boston Blackie says:

    Of course you are right, as you say, it is right there on the banner of the website.
    Seriously though, I think the poll is quite telling. More and more Americans are disgusted with both parties and have become
    independents(or unenrolled as we are called in MA)so not to be affiliated with either party. I think it is time for us to go back to our republican roots and have a mutiny. We need to take back OUR party and throw all the dogs out, start having republican primaries and not be afraid that the incumbant will have the backing of the national GOP so why run against them. Start with the Newt Gingriches of the party who just go along to get along and support someone just because they have an "R" after their name and not what they stand for.
    Get pissed then get involved!!!!

  4. scp says:

    OK, so I voted for President Bush to privatize social security.

    Instead of doing that, he and his (R) congress gave me NCLB, the Patriot Act and record spending. He and a (D) congress gave me TARP and more record spending. He even used TARP (banking) funds to bail out auto-makers!

    Maybe you're right and a 3rd party isn't the answer, but neither is the GOP. They've proven they can't be trusted. I'm sick of doing the same thing and expecting different results.

    We need to look to the states. That's the only thing I can think of that we haven't really tried yet.

    If that doesn't work, then we may as well just lay down and make the best of our enslavement 'cause it's coming, and it doesn't really matter whether there's an (R) or a (D) after the president's name.

  5. Anonymous says:

    1. Screw both parties
    2. Bring the troops home
    3. Have them storm this administration

    Watching Glenn, and boy are we screwed with all these progressives in the White House

  6. Anonymous says:

    The problem Jeff is with corruption and the absence of States' rights. I could care less today what letter is behind the candidate's name. If they are corrupt, then they are corrupt, and all in Washington right now in my opinion are corrupt.

    I could care less if my Republican Rep Congressman Franks, who is supposedly a Constitutionalist and a Reagan Republican, gets re-elected. What has he done while in congress for his 4 terms? Absolutely nothing to reduce the size of government. He has not once spoken out on the lack of constitutional authority to compel citizens to purchase health insurance. I went to his townhall meeting here in Glendale AZ and all I heard from this poor excuse for a leader was elections have consequences, we don't have the votes, we'll have to wait until 2010 to change things. Nope, not gonna happen. If he can't support my rights now, then he doesn't get my vote in 2010.

    If that means a dem goes to Congress from my district, then so be it. Until representatives who aren't as corrupt as hell and can actually speak to Constitutional protections, it doesn't matter what letter is behind their name Jeff.

    Proof of my point, how much did government shrink from 2001 –2006 under Republican rule? Not one iota. How many of your Constitutional freedoms were protected from 2001-2006? or where they subjugated in the banner of protection? I've voted Republican all my life, and I'm done. Are the two parties different? Sure, one isn't as socialistic or progressive as the other, but both are wholly corrupt.

    Give me someone or something new, or give me nothing.

    KJ Kaufman

  7. Anonymous says:

    unless at the end they join the republican party, since we do not have parliamentary system, we can not form goverment with 2 or more parties, the republicans should wake up , or else i do not what kind game they are playing

  8. Claudia says:

    voting for a third party is throrwing away your vote. I am telling every person that solicits my vote from the Reps that I will NOT contribute one dime to them or anyone else UNTIL they start doing what I and all the others voting are telling them that we want or don't want. They are the ones who are supposed to do our bidding and they are not doing it. I will not contribute to any of them UNTIL THEY STRAIGHTEN OUT AND START TO SHOW THAT THEY WANT THE JOB by doing what we want them to do. And I will not give them any tax money to spend wantonly. Tere isn't a one of htem that deserves what we give them and I wnat them all out so that the Republican Party can start over with new people.

  9. Randy Wills says:

    Good article, Jeff, and very timely. I'm trying to get a piece ready to send in on the same debate going on relative to the "Manhattan Declaration" – the age-old battle between the purists (in this case, theological, of which I normally consider myself one of) and the pragmatists.

    I understand the "purists" who are fed up with both parties, but I'm going to have to go with the pragmatists when election day comes in 2010 and 2012 simply because I don't believe that the country can survive even three more years of the progressive jugernaut presently entrenched in Washington, to say nothing of seven.

    I'll be a political and religious purist in my personal life and in the primaries, but I'll be a pragmatist when it comes to the general election. We MUST at least slow down the destructive program – the fundamental transformation of the United States – that the progressives are intent on bringing about before we can even think about putting the runaway train in reverse.

    As much as one part of me yearns for a third party with higher standards than either party now holds to, I believe that it would be counter-productive to all that we're trying to accomplish in the upcoming election.

    Of course, I could be wrong.

    Randy

  10. ADIOS says:

    CLEAN HOUSE 2010
    435 NEW CONGRESSMEN

  11. Anonymous says:

    5:22 is right

    We are more threatened from within than by any Al Qaeda individual or Taliban army.

    verification word: troll
    Mr. Barry Soetoro

  12. Anonymous says:

    These 3rd party advocates have quickly forgotten that Ross Perot's independent "Reform Party" effort in 1992 brought us the Clintons. . . Without Ross, Slick Willy and his husband would've been just another Dukakis.

  13. Anonymous says:

    I'm going to shock everybody and start a FOURTH party.

  14. PEROT 2012 says:

    3:08,

    But WHAT IF a fiscally disciplined man like PEROT had made it in? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? I am still proud I voted for him, sorry.

Speak Your Mind

*