November e-zine: The Republican Party – True to Its Core
By Brian Schoeneman | Friday, November 19th, 2010 | Magazine
How many times have you heard that today’s Republican Party is a far cry from the Party of Lincoln? Or Theodore Roosevelt? Or Dwight Eisenhower? Or even Ronald Reagan? If you’re like me, you probably hear it all the time. One of the frustrations of being a student of history, especially political history, is how some ideas become ingrained in common culture and changing those ideas – even if they aren’t based in fact – can be a difficult challenge.
This article originally appeared in the November Issue of “Virginia Politics On Demand“.
Get “Virginia Politics On Demand“ delivered via email monthly:Sign Up Today!
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
A veteran political professional, a long-time Republican party activist and new attorney, Brian W. Schoeneman has been offering his opinions at Bearing Drift since 2010. He serves on the Board of Virginia Line Media, LLC, which operates Bearing Drift and spends his days representing the U.S. Merchant Marine in Washington, D.C. He hails from Fairfax County, Virginia, where he lives with his wife and son.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
7 Responses to "November e-zine: The Republican Party – True to Its Core"
@Brian, enjoyed the commentary but gotta agree with snarky Democrats and liberals; Lincoln would find few common bonds with 21st century GOP. He left Whigs for the cause of individual rights and likely would quit us for same reason.
In Lincoln’s time the party was a true big tent. The 1856 (and 1860) platform documents included: ” …we invite the affiliation and cooperation of the men of all parties, however differing from us in other respects, in support of the principles herein declared; and believing that the spirit of our institutions as well as the Constitution of our country, guarantees liberty of conscience and equality of rights among citizens, we oppose all legislation impairing their security.” Men of different parties joined by a common cause: liberty and equality for all.
In 1858, Lincoln said: “I believe each individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruits of his labor, so far as it in no wise interferes with any other man’s rights.”, and “If we cannot give freedom to every creature, let us do nothing that will impose slavery upon any other creature.”
And as late as 1980, the core of what it meant to be a Republican included (as you noted): “It has long been a fundamental conviction of the Republican Party that government should foster in our society a climate of maximum individual liberty and freedom of choice.”
Play it forward to late 20th century; we produced bloated budgets & deficits … engaged in nation-building and “entangling alliances with foreign countries”…. and promoted our own version of welfare – corporate welfare (the “systematic plunder of the public treasury by [Republican] favored partisans”) ~ all in direct opposition to the founding principals (and previous platforms) of the Republican party.
And yes, change did escalate (coincidentally?) w/ party expansion into the southern bible belt, midwest, and southwest. We negotiated principles for a guaranteed voting block. Unfortunately the after-effects of Born Again Does Washington include steady erosions of privacy and increased government interference in the private & personal.
Today, Lincoln would definitely be the Libertarian candidate! We hold that each individual has the right to exercise sole dominion over his own life, and has the right to live his life in whatever manner he chooses, so long as he does not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live their lives in whatever manner they choose. ~ 2010 Libertarian party platform. http://www.lp.org/platform
Show me anyone calling themself a republican who disagrees with what you wrote JayD and I will show you an old south democrat. The party is so fully infested with them that the true core principles of the party play second fiddle to what tradition indicates being a republican for a reason meant so many decades ago.
We have a rare, second chance for a do-over in the next congress, courtesy of the HC bill, trillions in new spending & borrowing, and overwhelming national discontent w/ the current administration. It will be interesting to see if ‘old ways’ percolate up and how much of this new political currency is spent (wasted) on social reform.
Kevin Phillips, chief political and voting-patterns analyst for the 1968 Republican presidential campaign, wrote an interesting 2006 article which, in my opinion, is a very accurate commentary on the party’s modern mutation: How the GOP Became God’s Own Party. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/01/AR2006040100004.html
If Lincoln was what we would know today as a Libertarian, why did he do thing such as send in troops to stop lawfully elected state houses and have hundreds of people jailed without trial. I believe Lincoln may have had high ideals but he let winning a war control him to the point of compromising those same ideals.
Lauren, I would argue that Lincoln didn’t compromise his ideals and his actions were very much compatible with Libertarian values.
John Merriman didn’t simply speak out against the Union (exercising a protected constitutional right of free speech), he raised an armed group to attack and destroy the government – outright rebellion. The Constitution permits suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in “cases of rebellion and when the public safety” requires it, and suppression has always been a function of the executive branch.
After rebellion becomes war, the well understood rules of war dictate (not the same used in democratic jurisprudence). Captured enemy combatants, American or foreign, are (were) not entitle to the same legal rights we enjoy; it’s the reality of wartime.
Lincoln relied on the Constitutional for guidance and authority. A national crisis did exist, and in the interest of self-preservation he believed he had to act (understanding that Congress would ultimately pass final judgment).
He found his authority in Article II, section 1, which requires the president to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution, and then again in section 3, which requires the president to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” In Lincoln’s time, nearly 1/3rd of the states were resisting (i.e. not faithfully executing) the laws.
The Libertarian platform defends each person’s right to engage in activity that is peaceful and honest; it also supports a military to defend the country against aggression. Lincoln’s actions to suspend writ of habeas corpus – to stamp down un-peaceful activity and aggression against the country – seem pretty consistent and in line w/ Libertarian’s party platform.
I don’t think he would, JayD, as there is no legitimate alternative party. Lincoln wasn’t a third party type – he was a Whig until they imploded and became a Republican when they formed. I think he’d take one look at what the Democrats have become and stay with the GOP.
I’m no expert on the matter but I was under the belief that Lincoln had as many as 300 people in prison at one time for things as simple as writing newspaper articles that disagreed with the war.
Leave your response