The three wings of the Republican Party

[Sims2789]

How come the modern Republican Party is divided into three factions? There are the Traditional Conservatives such as Colon Powell, then there are the neo-Conservatives(Corprationists) like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, then there's the Religous Right. I don't think the Dixiecrats are still around(most switched from the Democrats to the Republicans after the Civil Rights Act got passed), but if they are then they're probably either Republicans(I am not saying that the Republicans are rascist, since most aren't) or they made their own fringeish 3rd party. The Religous Right sticks with the Republicans because they throw them a bone every now and then, and the neo-Cons(Corprationists) do it for power, but how did this come to be? And is there a reason besides a mutual interest in Authoritarianism and power that sticks these factions together? Plus, there's a few liberal Republicans, such as the actor Arnold Schwarchenegger(I know I spelled it wrong).

 

[Marla_Singer]

I agree with you that corporationist is the best way to define a neo-con. The question would be then, can we always say the interests of the US corporations are those of the US people ?

 

[cgannon64]

Would you rather them be a hive mind?

Oh wait. *Remembers Daily Show where they show 6 Bush administrators saying the same thing*

 

[luiz]

What is the exact definition of a Neo-Conservative? I always wondered that.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

I don't think it's fair to call Neo-Conservatives corporationists.

For one, the term "corporate Republican" is usually used to describe a Republican (such as Supreme Court Justice Kennedy or President Eisenhower) who has a very pro-business economic policy but has very moderate social and foreign policies. True, they are on the way to extinction, but they exist.

Second, Neo-Cons do not have economic policy as the basis for their beliefs. They evolved from socialists, actually, through a very odd process, and are not related to any other branch of conservatism. Basically, Neo-Conservatives believe that a nation should maximize its power in order to spread democracy and friendly governments around the globe (which does benefit corporations, yes, but that is not the goal) and have taken on very pro-corporate stances as a result of that because they believe it maximizes the economy and makes the state more powerful. For the same reason, abortion is bad (decreases population, thus ruining potential worker/soldier base), anything challengening traditional morality is bad, questioning the government is bad, etc. These are not ideals of Neo-Cons, but things that they believe will strengthen the state's ability to conduct proper foreign policy.

 

[Tragdor]

you forgot the Libertarian leaning Republican. A la Ron Paul http://www.house.gov/paul/

 

[Sims2789]

Originally posted by luiz
What is the exact definition of a Neo-Conservative? I always wondered that.

"What is best for the corprations is best for America" and "America's interests come first" are the unofficial mottos of these guys. They also tend to be very anti-immigrant, or at least pretend to be. They aren't really, but they don't like immigrants, but are willing to exploit the Mexicans for their cheap farm labor so that their feudal farm lord friends in central California will support them. I would also call them imperialist.

 

[cgannon64]

God, everyone wishes it was the 60s and Bush was Nixon...

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Alright, I'm back and now have time to write a little more. First, I urge sims to read my last post if he has not, because he mischaracterizes the Neo-Conservatives. They are very difficult and hard to understand, but all you have to remember about them is that they are obsessed with the conduction of proper foreign policy and oppose anything that could logically impede that and that they believe in using legislation and deception to engineer society so that it is more willing to be conducive to such things.

For the second part of the post, I will attempt to describe some of the groups that make up the US Republican Party. Please note that I am NOT a Republican and therefore am doing this as an outsider. However, since I am living in a country ruled by the Republican Party, I think I can pick up a thing or two from observation. Here goes:

1) Liberal Republicans
These are almost extinct, but survive in a few places. They used to absolutely dominate the Supreme Court. Warren, Burger, Blacknum, Stevens, etc. all fall under this category, as does Nelson Rockafeller (Ford's Vice-President), Arnold, and the last two mayors of New York (Guilliani and Bloomberg). Liberal Republicans agree more with the Republican Party than the Democratic Party, but will usually deviate from this on social issues. They might be pro-abortion, soft on crime, slightly socialistic in their economic ideas, etc.

2) Moderate Republicans
These are less extreme types of Liberal Republicans. They will either have not-so-liberal social/economic vies or will have very extreme conservative views to balance those out. Examples include US Senators John McCain and Olympia Snow, also Jim Jeffords, who left the Republican Party in 2001. Colin Powell falls in either here or under the Liberal Republicans; we do not yet have enough data.

3) Corporate Republicans
See Eisenhower, Anthony Kennedy, etc. They trace back to the 1950's and believe the US corporation to be the highest form of organization. They favor economic doctrine that aids corportations and attempt to run the government as if it were a corporation. More often then not, they simply don't care for non-economic issues as long as they are not directly related to business. When they do care, they are often quite moderate, if not liberal. They are going extinct as the world becomes more and more dissimilar from their glory days; many are becomming moderates.

4) Libertarians/Fiscal Conservatives
Tragdor brought these up earlier. Basically, they favor reduction in the size and spending of government. Many are quite isolationist because the military and wars take up lots of money and require centralization of government, both of which unnerves them (especially the first one). They can be very extreme on the issue of civil rights, where, of course, government infringement is a sign of bigger government. You will see some of these guys oppose the Patriot Act or even the drug war.

5) Neo-Conservatives
Currently the most influencial. See above for description. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz (ESPECIALLY Wolfowitz), all of your favorites.

6) The Religious Right
Fundamentalist Protestant Christians that believe in an full and literal application of Christian scripture to all things, government and legislation included. John Ashcroft, Trent Lott, etc.

 

[HighlandWarrior]

i thought bush was a religious zealot? and didnt bush propose legalizing all these illegals?

why shouldn't americas interests come first?? should canadas come first? who's going to vote for a president that says americas interests are not first?

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Originally posted by HighlandWarrior
i thought bush was a religious zealot? and didnt bush propose legalizing all these illegals?

Neo-Conservatives often reach similar social positions as religious zealots, just quite differently. This means they are very close allies -- especially within the Bush administration. Bush himself appears to be some kind of unholy mixture between the two.

why shouldn't americas interests come first?? should canadas come first? who's going to vote for a president that says americas interests are not first?

Did I ever argue against that? I happen to take a stand on that very close to that of the Neo-Conservatives, although by a quite different idealogical route. Indeed, I often find them a bit too liberal on US foreign policy.

 

[HighlandWarrior]

that 2nd "paragraph" was directed at sims

 

[Sims2789]

Originally posted by HighlandWarrior
...and didnt bush propose legalizing all these illegals?...

you mean the Sombrero Loophole?he did that so that his feudal farm lord friends in the Central Valley could get cheap labor

 

[Sims2789]

the neo-con foreign policy is more of a lack of foriegn policy then actually being one. Unilateralism is somewhat like the ironic Isolationist Imperialism.

 

[Mojotronica]

Originally posted by SeleucusNicator
Alright, I'm back and now have time to write a little more. etc..

I really liked your analysis of this. I don't think that the Liberal, Moderate and Corporate factions you describe are different enough to warrant their own categories, but I can see why you divided it along those lines.

I'd say that their are four distinct factions -- Libertarian, Mainstream, Fundamentalist and Neoconservative. Mainstream encompasses your Liberal, Moderate and Corporate categories, but individuals you listed have varying ideas as to how compassionate the gov't should be (thus creating the illusion that sub-categories exist.)

[*]Libertarian are the smaller gov't idealogists as you described. Economic policy is central to their idealogy, as are state's rights etc... They absolutely will not abandon classic fiscal conservatism.

[*]Mainstream are not necessarily small gov't advocates, but generally fiscally conservative. They may embrace supply-side economics, however. If I were to create a fifth category, it would be a supply-side economics faction -- but I think that it is enough to describe the Libertarian faction as anti supply-sider for now...

[*]Fundamentalists have a religious agenda and are comfortable using the force of gov't to pursue this agenda. They could easily abandon fiscal conservatism if they felt it advanced their cause.

[*]Neoconservatives are obsessed with aggressive foreign policy, and could easily abandon fiscal conservatism in pursuit of that agenda.

The main potential schism is between fiscal conservatives and those with another priority. I think that as the Republican party gets more powerful, it will eventually split along the lines of fiscal conservatism vs "progressive" (fundamentalist, neocon, supply-sider) agenda, and the losing side of that debate will be absorbed into the reformed Democratic party. That's what happened to the Dems in the 20th C.

Already mainstream Dems have embraced fiscal conservatism -- moreso than the Republicans lately. Free trade, balanced budget, embrace of corporations -- these are now bi-partisan platforms. The Pubs have WON those points, and in winning, they are losing the cohesiveness that those issues brought to the party.

BTW -- Ashcroft (like Bush) is a religious man but I think that he puts politics ahead of religion on his list of priorities. He is not truly representative of the religious right.

 

[Laughing Gull]

Originally posted by luiz
What is the exact definition of a Neo-Conservative? I always wondered that.

a "liberal with sharp teeth"

 

[Mojotronica]

Don't have time to detail it, but here is a rough treatment of the same topic fo the Dems...

[*]Progressive Utne Reader (Green party) Democrat - local economy, national social legislation -- but essentially liberal capitalist. The Democratic version of Libertarians...
[*]Clintonian Conservative Democrat - pro-free trade, pro-corporation
[*]FDRooseveltian Blue-Collar Labor Democrat - big-gov't business as usual BUT anti-NAFTA, free trade, protectionist
[*]Socialist Democrat - socialist agenda of some sort, anti-corporation

[*]Dixiecrats (extinct - they've become the Fundamentalist branch of the Republican party)
[*]NeoCons (they joined the Republican party in the 1970s, blossoming under Reagan...)

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Mojo: I think it is misleading to name the Moderate, Liberal, and Corporate branches as "mainstream" because, in the GOP, they are NOT mainstream. They are a minority and the party leadership has made it VERY clear that they are not welcome except in the very few cases where they are the GOP's only hope for winning an election (New York, California, etc.)

Glamorous mayors and governors they may have, but, on the national scale, they have no voice.