Republicans: It’s time to hang it up

This will not be an easy post to write. I have been registered as a Republican since 1971, and as a young adult, I ran twice as a Republican for local offices and was a party activist. However, after 152 years, it’s time for the Republican Party to call it quits.

In the last century, the national Republican Party has suffered from bipolar disorder, where the poles may neatly be described as paleoconservative and neoconservative. The paleoconservatives, of which I consider myself one, have consistently advocated limited government, particularly at the Federal level, balanced budgets, a strong national defense but avoidance of foreign wars; and social and economic freedom. Examples of paleoconservative Presidents are Herbert Hoover and Dwight Eisenhower (with the qualification that President Eisenhower was unable to balance his budgets – partly due to World War II debt and partly due to a Democratic Congress through most of his administration).

Neoconservatives have consistently advocated the use of the military to expand American interests throughout the world, economic freedom, and a more proactive approach to the regulation of business. Since 1980, neoconservatives have advanced a social agenda reflected in the preferences of the Religious Right, They have been outspoken for Second Amendment rights, and have tended to expand Federal powers affecting secrecy and individual rights. Early examples of neoconservatives (before the term came into use) are Theodore Roosevelt and Richard Nixon. More recent examples of neoconservative Presidents are Ronald Reagan, and our current incumbent.

The bipolar shifts have confused Republicans to the point where many wonder whether the Party has a philosophy at all; and it has alienated the general public to the extent that a recovery in four years may not even be possible.

Therefore, I would like to offer a not-so-modest proposal. For now, America would be best served by a vibrant three-party system.

The Democrats would remain as is, less a few conservatives who would be more attracted to one of the other parties, since neither now would be called “Republican”. The Democrats would continue to represent the liberal tradition of governmental activism both at home and abroad.

A Populist Party would represent the paleoconservative tradition, best represented today by Ron Paul. It would seek a return to Constitutional limitations on Federal power, would emphasize both social and economic freedom, and support a strong national defense – but for defense only.

The neoconservative home might be called the “Christian Conservative” Party, because it would represent the desires of the Religious Right regarding homosexuality and abortion, favor military interventions abroad, and be less committed to decentralism than the Populists. Sarah Palin might be a good example of a Christian Conservative.

This partisan alignment would lead to shifting coalitions based on issues. For example, the Christian Conservatives might ally with the Populists on economic issues, but with Democrats on foreign policy. The Populists and Democrats might see eye to eye on social policies, while the Christian Conservatives and the Democrats might ally on economic stimulus issues.

I do not expect such a system to be permanent – American history teaches that sooner or later the parties will again become only two – but while it lasts, it would give the American people an opportunity to see issues more clearly and to decide for themselves just what this nation is about.