The Heritage of the Republican Party
By Walt Posted in Republicans — Comments (13) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
As the Republican Party--the party of Lincoln, TR, and Reagan--meets in convention, it is important to reflect on the party's history. Where have we been? What have we accomplished? What is the party's long-term vision for the nation?
I just got a book, Grand Old Party, by Lewis Gould, and it has been placed on my list of books to read. Inside, facing the title page, is a picture of a memorial plaque in Jackson, Michigan, which is one of the places that claims to be the birthplace of the Republican Party. It reads as follows:
July 6th, 1854, was born
the Republican Party
Destined in the throes of civil strife
to abolish slavery, vindicate democracy
and perpetuate the Union.
These words made me wonder about the party's platforms from the early years of Republicanism. Check out these excerpts from the Republican Party Platform of 1856:
This Convention of Delegates, assembled in pursuance of a call addressed to the people of the United States, without regard to past political differences or divisions, who are opposed to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise; to the policy of the present Administration; to the extension of Slavery into Free Territory; in favor of the admission of Kansas as a Free State; of restoring the action of the Federal Government to the principles of Washington and Jefferson; and for the purpose of presenting candidates for the offices of President and Vice-President, do
Resolved: That the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence, and embodied in the Federal Constitution are essential to the preservation of our Republican institutions, and that the Federal Constitution, the rights of the States, and the union of the States, must and shall be preserved.
. . .
Resolved: That the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign powers over the Territories of the United States for their government; and that in the exercise of this power, it is both the right and the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism—Polygamy, and Slavery.
The Republican platform of 1860 spoke of the need for fiscal restraint in the federal government and, on the subject of the slave trade, declared
That we brand the recent reopening of the African slave trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a crime against humanity and a burning shame to our country and age; and we call upon Congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable traffic
The Republican Party has a noble history. If you are a Republican, don't let others define your party for you. Take the time to read the past platforms of the Republican Party.
The platforms linked to above are maintained by the American Presidency Project at the University of California, Santa Barbara. For more platforms--Democratic, Progressive, and otherwise, as well as Republican--visit their list of platforms.
« Burn the Witch — Comments (18) | Protests, riots? Cui bono? — Comments (11) »
The Heritage of the Republican Party 13 Comments (0 topical, 13 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Bush is a failed puppet... Rove is the devil... Cheney wants Halliburton to own it all... neo-cons, neo-cons, neo-cons... You certainly do not sound much like a Republican, Winterbear.
In what bizarre, parallel universe do you think it's best that Kerry wins the presidency? No matter what your grievances with George W. Bush, if you are truly a Republican, he is closer to your issue positions than John Kerry. John Kerry's Senate record and public pronouncements make it clear that he does not understand what it means to defend the United States: he voted consistently against the weapons systems in use today and voted to cut CIA funding. His economic policies smack of tax-and-spend: he's voted to raise taxes numerous times. And should John Kerry get elected, he will certainly have to opportunity to name two or more Supreme Court Justices, likely including a new Chief Justice. If you are truly a Republican, winterbear, is this what you want?
Winterbear, I want you to explain your understanding of the "insane neocon agenda" -- another of the Michael Mooreish buzzwords you chose. It seems to me that the foriegn policy agenda advanced by this administration is based upon the idea of actually defending American lives (something we clearly all have a "vested interest" in, in your own words) rather than bowing before international institutions overrun with European powers (inhabited by your friends, whose opinions are irrelevant in a US Presidential election) that haven't defended themselves in 60 years and tinpot dictators of the third world.
I'm NOT a Republican, winterbear. I'm a registered Libertarian. I ran for Pennsylvania State House as a Libertarian in 2002. I don't think George Bush is perfect by any stretch of the imagination (especially on fiscal and social policies). But I break with my party when it comes to national security. There are horrifying threats out there. George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld understand this, and are willing to pursue and destroy those threats rather than passively react to them with indictments and pointless airstrikes, like their immediate predicessors. Terrorism and Islamofascism are grim realities that the Western World, led by the United States as the only true superpower, has to face and destroy.
Think about something the second man you voted for said, winterbear. Reagan said of Communism that "the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face -- that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender." These words ring true today in our fight against terror and Islamofascism. They want to either destroy or enslave us, and destroy our way of life. Reagan understood this about Communism, and Bush understands this about terrorism. But it is clear that the Democrat left does not grasp this, and bluntly, winterbear, neither do you.
. . . those who criticize the war on terror provide no advice on how we should otherwise fight terror.
LibertarianJim, great response to these typical lines from the anti-Bush crowd.
LibertarianJim was too kind in responding to you -- I think he almost took you seriously. I've seen fake "I used to belong to X, before Y happened, and I want to come home after Y is taken care of" pieces before, and quite frankly, friend, this is one of the weakest of the breed. There are, precisely, two possibilities here: You're a troll posing rather uncleverly as a fairly dense, disaffected Republican; or you're a fairly dense, disaffected Republican who somehow managed not to pay attention at all to the Party between 1980 and the present, and who has completely consumed the entire pitcher of Kool-Aid from Howard Dean's campaign.
The "Garrison Keylor [sic]" reference is a dead giveaway.
tmcgee
Maybe you're being sincere, but I'm guessing you're not. And thus:
RedState - Turning Trolls Into Bandwidth
Welcome to the RedState "Turning Trolls Into Bandwidth" Project. As you know, RedState has an active and vibrant community of posters and commenters. Then there are trolls. If we learned anything from the Dean campaign (other than Iowa caffeine is waaay strong) is that a community can help keep the trolls away by donating every time they disrupt the conversation. So, you can help "Turn Trolls Into Bandwidth." Every dollar donated through this page will directly go towards supporting RedStates growing bandwitdth expenses.
I can honestly say that I used to love the republican party. The first vote I ever cast was for George Bush's in the 1980 Texas primary.
And if that's not love, what is?
I am undecided about who to vote for in November because I am fed up with GWB, JK and the dirty politics that is going back and forth this year. I think that both party's have individuals that are better suited to lead the country.
I agreed with the need to depose Saddam Hussein but am disillusioned with the lack of an exit strategy and the poor planning for post-war Iraq. Did we learn anything from history?
I am also discuted with the Neocon wing of the Republican party, as I am a conservative and feel many of those in power today are warmongers.
I feel that a few of the better men in the party are John McCain and Lindsey Graham. They have both spoken out on issues and I think could give us much beeter leadership than the current administration.
....the "neocons" are warmongers, then you definitely need to re-examine the foreign policy views of John McCain.
Ok. There are somethings he says about foreign policy that I disagree with. Every candidate or elected official says things you disagree with personally.
How should we handle rogue regimes? We should utilize the UN, but the UN does not like to cooperate. I do not think we should do to all rogue regimes what we did in Iraq, however, North Korea is another question. They do not want to cooperate with disarmament discussions. Should we go in there like Iraq? I am not sure, but something needs to be done. I know there are people that understand this stuff better than I, so I would appreciate their comments.
but I had to respond to that in any case.
Outstanding, well written article. The link to the the platforms... i will be spending a lot of time there. Our party does have a fine heritage and a lot to be proud of.
I can honestly say that I used to love the republican party. The first vote I ever cast was for George Bush's in the 1980 Texas primary. Second was for Regan in the fall. Many times I pulled the Republican party lever...
But this time I just cant do it.
George W Bush is the worst president since Harding. The neocons that have taken over my republican party are insane warmongers who have done nothing to promote the kind of conservitism that I support. Bush is such a puppet, Rove is so evil, Cheany is in bed with corprations, Rumsfield has so miss managed the war and the agenda of the neocons is so repugnant that I have fallen into the ABB camp (Anybody But Bush). God, anyone has to be better than Bush! I dont want to be at war with Iran in the near future, I hate that my friends in Europe think my government has lost its mind, I hate the incredible amounts of money that has been squandered on a stupid war that has not helped make my nation one bit safer... After 9-11 we could have done anything... we had the full support of the world. Bush desided to use that tragedy as an excuse to invade a country with no military in order to fullfill some insane neocon agenda and/or fullfil some personal agenda.
This situation is really infuriating. I dont see how those of us who do not have a vested interest can vote for Bush. I can understand people that are making a lot of money off the war or who believe that america should dominate and subjigate the world support Bush. But those of us who believe in Reagan fiscal responsibility, Washington's (i know..) avoiding forign entanglements, the warnings of Ike against Militarism and other traditional conservative values, sorry, but we can NOT support GW Bush.
I recommend you read an article by Garrison Keylor. I am not too fond of him, but he put my disapointment into some very elegant words. http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/979/
The party has always had its bad side... narrow minded bigots, overly fundamentalist non-tolerant religious nuts, greedy unscrupulous business men, Love it or leave it coloniaists. But they were never in a majority and certainly never in power before GW Bush. Historically the party quietly marginalized these people... limiting their influence in the same way you might handle a raving lunatic at a party in your own home. Politely but firmly ask them to leave. For example see McCarthy.
Somehow these dangerous, shrill, neocon lunatics have thrown me and other thoughtful moderates out of our own party.
I am thinking now that the best thing that can happen is for Kerry to win.
I am sure that by 2008 we are all going to be totally fed up with Kerry. However, I think the same thing is in store for Bush... except that in the 2008 election the hijacked "republican party" will run a hand picked neocon candidate. I am beginning to think that the only chance we have for getting our party back and avoid the spectre of never ending corprate benifiting war is to elect this democrat and let him fail.
Perhaps then the Republicans can reorganize themselves, purge the neocons and recapture the white house in 2008 with a candidate I can admire.