Restoring the Republican Soul

I heard a commentator for the Republican Party on NPR this morning.  He, like most others interviewed this week, explained what the party needs to do to regain its soul.  His solution?  Concentrate on the basics as the party of business fighting for lower taxes, especially on businesses, less regulation, and free trade without all those unpleasant conditions regarding fair labor standards and such.  The only thing wrong with that is that it is an agenda that belongs to a trade organization such as the U.S. Chamber, NAM or NFIB.  It should not belong to a broad based political party that is supposed to at least pretend to be interested in the well being of the nation as a whole.  If that’s his idea of a party’s soul, it’s a pretty small thing of no real consequence, and I suggest they just go ahead and lose it.  So far the only thing I’ve heard from Republicans is a series of attempts to restore the country and the party to an imagined golden age that never really existed and the corrupt ideas of Gingrich and his Contract with America.  I think there is such a thing as a responsible conservative voice to be heard in American politics, but until the Republicans get rid of Harding, Hoover, Limbaugh and Hannity, they are not the ones to speak it.


4 thoughts on “Restoring the Republican Soul”

  1. perhaps, if they started by reading, studying and digesting our founding documents, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, Bill of Rights. They could find their way back. We need an intelligent party that will move past the quaint notion of democracy, to the brilliance of a representative government who taxes responsibly and strives for a better life for all her charges, rejects mob rule in favor of law, puts down their banners and flags and shiny things in favor of sober thought and guarding the ideals that set this country in motion.

  2. Bruno,I could not agree more, and remain astounded that GOP leadership seems to be so ignorant of the breadth and depth of wealth in our founding documents. They talk about \”strict constructionism\” and \”original intent\” as if they knew what that meant, but it always turns out to be about the selected self-interests of a few at the expense of the nation. What has very much impressed me has been their ability to sell that so very well to the people who suffer the most from it. I watched a part of the original God Father last night and it dawned on my that that is where the Atwater/Rove/Gingrich gang got their game plan, and it worked.CP

  3. You are too hard on poor Herbert Hoover. He was a good man who had a brilliant record of charitable work with food relief to the suffering of the Armenians, Russians in their civil war, and displaced people elsewhere. He was an efficient administrator who got caught up in a whirlwind of financial problems in 1929-32 that went far beyond his conservative beliefs could cope with. Cut his memory some slack! I think of him when I see poor Paulson trying to figure out what to do, or poor Greenspan forced to \”eat crow\” for his beliefs that did not quite work out. (Similar things have happened to all of us!)

  4. OK Dr. B, I\’ll cut Hoover some slack. He was a disaster as President, but picking up from his earlier brilliant work, he headed up the famous Hoover Commission to study and recommend a new plan for a more efficient federal government. That plan was good sixty years ago, and I\’ll bet it\’s still the best blueprint around for improving governmental operations. Too bad so little of it was ever implemented.CP

Leave a Reply