What if new 2022 elected GOP Conservatives changed to a third party?
SAN DIEGO: It’s time for the Republican Party to fold. A new, uncompromising conservative party needs to be created in its place. Those are not original words. Many people have been saying this for years. Up until now, it’s been little more than a pipe dream. But with our constitutional republic dangling by a thin thread, this dream better become reality while there’s still time.
I don’t say this easily. I am fully aware of the problems with third parties. But maybe the resistance to the GOP does not START with a third party?
Up until now, I have never advocated for a third party. We remember all too well what happened in 1992 when the semi-conservative Ross Perot cyphered off votes from the semi-conservative President George H.W. Bush attempting to win his second term. Perot was nominated by a third party, the Reform Party.
He and his party succeeded only in dividing conservatives and handing the election to Democrat Bill Clinton.
So yes, we are painfully aware of the glaring third-party paradox.
Unfortunately, this may be our only remaining option. But how can it be done?
The Democrat Party power grab is doing everything possible to stay in control of Washington, changing the rules and ignoring the Constitution to suit their narratives. They are codifying election fraud by writing new laws about mail-in ballots, making it illegal to insist on I.D. at polls, etc.
They are talking about ending the filibuster, packing the Supreme Court, granting Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico statehood. It is all a rouse to change America’s governance to ONE political party, Democrats. They have been successful in doing this in California. Our (faux) Vice President being a resident of the state feels America should emulate the poverty, homelessness, despair, rolling blackouts, and mismanagement of California.
They launch such ambitious projects because they know the GOP’s track record for fighting is anemic at best and usually downright worthless.
It’s not that Republicans do not continue to stand for the right things; they do. But prior to President Trump, Republicans showed their abysmal record for following through with a conservative, Constitutional agenda.
The problem with politics in America is simple: Republicans do not keep their campaign promises.
President Donald Trump did. And the Democrats do. To be sure, Democrats, particularly Joe Biden, made ghastly promises, but they are keeping them.
Republicans make loud courageous noises. They did so when they had control of Congress, but not the White House. They had no problem passing bills overturning Obama Care while Obama was still president. Despite the futility of it, knowing full well that such bills were dead on arrival at President Obama’s desk.
But after President Trump was elected, when Republicans had the House, Senate, and White House, somehow they could not muster the strength to overturn Obama’s crippling legacy, protect voting rights, or stop the Democrat’s socialist agenda that was as apparent then as now.
And yet, in the face of Deep State tyranny ranging from false accusations about Russia collusion to election fraud itself, the support President Trump garnered from his own party was microscopic. Imagine if from day one, Reince Preibus would have mustered the support of the Republican Congress for the President and his agenda.
If old stalwarts, like Mitch McConnell, jumped on the America first bandwagon and supported the President? Guided the President? Been a confident, not a whistleblower, for the President?
During the DOJ’s investigation into Russian collusion House GOP Majority Leader, Paul Ryan showed zero interest in protesting the investigation or protecting the President. Ryan, a Romney sycophant, could not break ranks with the Never-Trumper from Utah.
And while Kevin McCarthy did a better job of supporting Trump, he distanced himself immediately from the President after the Capital break-in on January 6.
“The president bears responsibility for Wednesday’s attack on Congress by mob rioters,” McCarthy said.
Senator Lindsey Graham, who backed Trump on many issues the past four years, also turned on the President in January.
“Trump and I, we’ve had a hell of a journey. I hate it to end this way. Oh my God, I hate it. From my point of view, he’s been been a consequential president. But today, the first thing you’ll see. All I can say is count me out, enough is enough,”
However, President Trump’s popularity doesn’t seem to be going away. And so these same two men, wind testing politicians to the last, are now portraying themselves as allies again.
Neither man voted for the second impeachment. And Graham is no longer talking like someone who has “had enough.”
“I spent the weekend with President Trump,” Graham said in January. He’s more determined than ever to grow this party, not shrink it. He is the most dominant voice in the Republican Party—not Mitch McConnell, not Lindsey Graham. His ideas will stand the test of time.”
But few responses to the January 6 incident were as shameful as the words of Senator Mitch McConnell from the Senate floor on the day the Senate voted on the House’s Round Two impeachment charges.
“There’s no question,” Mc Connell said, “none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president and having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole, which the defeated president kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet Earth. The issue is not only the president in temperate language on January 6th. It is not just his endorsement of remarks in which an associate urged quote “Trial by combat”. It was also the entire manufactured atmosphere of looming catastrophe. The increasingly wild myths about a reverse landslide election that was somehow being stolen.”
During the same speech, in response to Trump’s claims of a stolen election, McConnell said,
“The legal system spoke, the electoral college spoke”.
McConnell was misleading the American people, not fighting for them. The matter had not been technically settled. Courts (including our Supreme Court) had refused to even look at the evidence of fraud. There’s a difference between a court decision and a court refusing to try a case.
In the absence of courageous courts, 88 legislators representing five of the key questionable states requested time to reexamine the situation.
They sent the following letter to Vice- President Mike Pence who was to preside over the official counting of the total fifty state’s electoral votes on January 6.
“There are extensive and well-founded accusations of electoral administration mismanagement and deliberate and admitted violations of explicit election laws enacted by state legislatures in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin…Therefore, we write to ask you to comply with our reasonable request to afford our nation more time to properly review the 2020 election by postponing the January 6th opening and counting of the electoral votes for at least 10 days, affording our respective bodies to meet, investigate, and as a body vote on certification or decertification of the election. This action can be completed prior to the inauguration date, as required by the Constitution.”
While legal scholars may argue about the constitutionality of this request, such an unusual system of events warranted more than a safe, compromising political calculation. We expected our GOP Senate Majority leader to offer at least a modicum of empathy. Instead, all we heard was that the legal system and electoral college had spoken. Yes, they had spoken, McConnell, but you ignored a large portion of what was spoken.
McConnell also failed to mention that the high majority of the thousands upon thousands of January 6 protestors did NOT storm the Capital and that President Trump went out of his way to encourage a peaceful march.
Speaking to his crowd of supporters at the January 6 Washington rally.
“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard…” – President Trump
Nevertheless, McConnell went on to claim that President Trump could have spoken against the violence AFTER it broke out. The President did, but not soon enough or forcefully enough for Mc Connell.
And so, we were left with a strong public rebuke from the Senate Majority Leader to the (at that moment) former President of the United States.
And then, in true Washington form, in a manner that any aspiring politician might want to study as the template for fence-straddling and atmosphere testing, McConnell switched gears. He voted AGAINST impeachment.
“But in this case, the question is moot because former President Trump is constitutionally not eligible for conviction. Now, this is a close question. No doubt. Donald Trump was the president when the House voted. Though, not when the House chose to deliver the paper. Brilliant scholars argue both sides of this jurisdictional question. The text is legitimately ambiguous. I respect my colleagues who’ve reached either conclusion. But after intense reflection, I believe the best constitutional reading shows that article two, section four, exhausts the set of persons who can legitimately be impeached, tried, or convicted. It’s the president, it’s the vice-president and civil officers. We have no power to convict and disqualify a former officeholder who is now a private citizen.”
This statement came across as the other half of McConnell’s self-surviving politics, an insurance policy just in case Trump’s popularity continues to grow, making him the 2024 nominee or at least kingmaker for other nominees. McConnell was harnessing both possible directions of the wind.
And yet, it also seemed clear that McConnell was hoping Trump would be gone for good, offering a wink-wink, nod-nod to possible criminal charges.
“President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office as an ordinary citizen. Unless the statute of limitations is run, still liable for everything he did while he was in office. We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation and former presidents are not immune from being accountable by either one.”
It’s tempting to say that we expect more from our Republicans than a circling firing squad. Unfortunately, none of this is a surprise anymore. Cowardly, politically expedient betrayal is the usual Action Du Jour.
President Trump hopes to support new, strong Conservatives in 2022, but we can no longer put our hope in the GOP.
While a third party may not seem to be the answer, perhaps it’s time to think outside the box. Let’s use our imaginations for a moment to see if some bold, unusual strategy might just make a new party work after all.
Supposing a new movement began to grow using a template likened to the Tea Party movement, a party which supported Republicans temporarily by holding their feet to the fire and removing RINOs during primary season. So far, we have seen this sort of thing happen before. But what if this time, a clever new step is taken?
What if enough conservatives were elected as Republicans to regain a majority in both houses, conservatives concurrently showing loyalty to a newly formed party. We’ll just call it Party XYZ for the moment, so as to have a reference point without quivering over names.
Here’s the fifty-million-dollar question about creating a new conservative party:
After coming into office, what is there to prevent every single one of these new senators and representatives from changing affiliation? If all at once they made the switch to Party XYZ in one fell swoop, a new party would be in power instead of sacrificing conservatism at the altar of three-party elections. With organization, there might be a good number of sitting Congresspeople that would find themselves joining as well.
Yes, this sounds outrageous. But before dismissing the idea out of hand, consider this: On an individual basis we have seen this kind of maneuvering often.
Since the year 1890, 21 elected senators changed party affiliations AFTER taking office. These included Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Lieberman switched from Democrat to Independent in 2006. Specter switched from Republican to Democrat in 2009.
Even more U.S. Congressmen made the switch. Recent examples are Justin Amash’s switch from Republican to Independent in 2019, then from Independent to Libertarian in 2020. And Jeff Van Drew’s affiliation change from Democrat to Republican in in 2019
And so, if this can be done piecemeal, who’s to say he can’t be done in concert?
Undoubtedly some legal expert will explain how this is impossible. In any event, there ARE probably better ideas. The purpose of this article today to inspire some creative thinking even if that takes us to a plan no one is articulating at the moment.
Either way, somebody better think of something soon, or we can kiss our once great republic goodbye. If your hope is still in the GOP after what they did to President Trump, then perhaps you should form a party of your own.
How about the Pollyanna Party?