the whitestick papers

looking at politics from a different perspective

The problem with the GOP

with 5 comments

Sure, you’re upset with the Republican Party.  It’s elected officials have let you down time after time, and the party leadership doesn’t publicly denounce the headlong rush to socialism.  You may be angered that it doesn’t pursue social issues strongly enough, or believe that it’s been taken over by the religious right and promotes them too much.

I can’t really argue with you about that; the Republican Party is weaker and less outspoken than it should be, and there are a number of reasons for that.  However, there is one key individual at the core of both the problem and its solution.  That would be you.

During the 1968 Democrat Convention, the world watched on as waves of angry :”yippies” broke on the shoals of a massive police presence.  They shouted and jeered, they chanted and sang, they fought and were arrested.  But, at the end of the day, they accomplished little.

The reality is you can’t change an organization from the outside.  Oh, sure; you can influence it and public opinion, but a real change in direction and focus can only be accomplished from the inside.  So what did those “yippies” do?  They cleaned themselves up, got an education and became Democrats.

They started by simply registering as Democrats.  Then they became part of the Party organization at the county level.  In Oregon, we call those Precinct Committeepeople (PCP) but they’re found in every state, albeit by a number of different titles.  They were appointed to city and county boards and commissions;  they ran for and won leadership positions in the Party; they ran for and won positions at the city, county and state levels.

Meanwhile, after the flush of Ronald Reagan, what did Republicans do?  Why, when someone in the GOP did or said something you weren’t happy with, you left.   You changed your voter registration to “not-affiliated” or one of the glittering array of third parties.  You came to consider Republicans , for all intents and purposes, interchangeable with Democrats and, in some respects, you’re right.  But with all of you who should be keeping the GOP true to its principles abandoning it, who did you think would do it?

You can’t change anything from the outside. You have to be part of something to change it into what you want it to be!

With the socialists’ arrogant revelation of an America under their control in recent months, we have an unusual opportunity to reverse the trend and recover some of our lost liberties.  The fact is no third party is in a position to seriously challenge the ruling Democrats; only the Republican Party has the depth and support network to pull it off in 2010 and 2012.  So here’s what I challenge you to do.  Take a lesson from the 1968 “yippies” and take over the Republican Party from the inside.

Now, don’t assume everyone currently in the Republican Party is an enemy to be defeated.  There are quite a few of us still in the party, even in leadership positions, who agree with you and have been fighting for liberty from within while you were away.  In fact, you may find folks who’ll assist you in your takeover efforts.  Some county organizations are more conservative than others and some are going to be concerned by (or even opposed to) a pack of motivated and energized enemies of the left rocking the boat.  Don’t worry about the critics and the fearful; just find  your allies – even if you don’t agree on every issue – and work with them where and when you can.

But, first, change your voter registration.  That’s not too big a challenge, is it?  Only from the inside can you make changes.


Written by Jeffrey S. Smith

26 December 2009 at 10:53 am

5 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. You know, calling moderates “Socialists” isn’t just stupid (c’mon, Mary, there are no Socialists in america), it’s arrogant and it betrays an intellectual weakness that just turns normal people right off. Just saying. that’s all.


    31 December 2009 at 6:16 pm

    • Parakeeta, I don’t know who you are or, for that matter, who the “Mary” you directed your comment toward is, but I do know socialism is defined by its actions, not by any opinion you or I might have. It’s an economic system whereby the government controls most aspect of its citizens’ lives. “Moderate”, by contrast, is part of a spectrum of loosely-defined political or sociological ideologies, cast more or less at the center of a range from liberal (or “left”) to conservative (or “right”). In today’s world, most leftists embrace a form of socialist ideology, but that wasn’t really the point of the blog post.

      A government takeover of the automobile industry is, by definition, socialist. So is government control of health care. There has been a slow drift toward socialism in this country for some 80 years, including the growth of government involvement in everything from seat belts in cars to the Great Society, but there has been an explosion of socialist policies and programs in recent years, most noticeably in the past nine months.

      People who propose socialist programs and policies are, by definition, socialists. It doesn’t matter what their political posturing might be, they’re socialists, so there definitely are socialists in this country. They’ve even grouped into formal political parties in some states. Sorry you weren’t aware.


      1 January 2010 at 12:45 am

      • “It’s [socialism] an economic system whereby the government controls most aspect of its citizens’ lives.”

        Socialism is indeed an ECONOMIC system, not a totalitarian ideology (like, say, current Republican conservatism), but that’s not what’s going on. Look, GM has revenue of less than $100bn, or, put another way, well less than 1% of GDP. If the government (Bush, then Obama) were interested in nationalization in the name of socialism, then the banks would have been nationalized, no? I mean, Obama had every opportunity to nationalize theenture financial sector, didn’t he?

        Govwernments usually do things the people want, and people want safe working conditions (see Republican Teddy Roosevelt), people want clean air and safe water (see Republican Nixon’s creation of EPA), and people want to live their lives without fear of losing everything if they get sick (see Obama and health care). You are confusing or conflating the objectives of government acting on behalf of the public wants and needs.

        You want small-bore government? Fine, work for that, but many people want a government that is in tune with modern society. As I said in my original post, you only alienate your fellow citizens by falsely roaring about “socialism.”

        Elections, Sir, have consequences. The Republicans lost in 2006 and they lost stunningly in 2008. The currently weird and creepy ideology of the conservatives in America is a sure ticket to political oblivion. America will never unite when people hurl meaningly terms like “socialist” at their mahjority party.


        1 January 2010 at 6:43 am

  2. reagan was the biggest socialist of all. he tripled the national deficit, that coward draft dodger.


    2 January 2010 at 12:22 am

    • When I started this blog, I told myself I wouldn’t get sucked into debates with trolls. I set myself guidelines; to pen just one response to a contrary comment, to see if they were a troll or interested in a meaningful dialog, and ignore obvious trolls entirely. But I hadn’t counted on blatantly nonsensical comments like Jimmy’s, which begs for someone to reveal his ignorance.

      First, there’s no connection between socialism and deficits. Socialism, as I wrote to Parakeeta, is an economic system in which government controls most aspects of its citizens’ lives. Deficits are when government spends more than it brings in – kind of like what most people do with credit cards, mortgages and student loans. Socialist policies often result in deficits, but one can create deficits without being socialist.

      But even taking Jimmy’s errant conclusion at face value, he has his facts wrong. Oh, Reagan – with a Democrat Congress, it should be noted – did “triple” the deficit. But he’s hardly the “biggest socialist” if the increase in the deficit is linked to a President’s economic ideology. Both George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush beat his numbers easily, and Barack Hussein Obama has already blown the doors off anything anyone else – including, of course, Ronald Reagan – has ever done.

      In fact, Obama has managed to create more deficits already than the combined deficits since George Washington was President, and that doesn’t include those resulting from revenue lost as businesses collapse after the Cap and Trade and healthcare proposals going through the US Legislature have their full impact.

      If we take Jimmy’s word for it and “deficit spender equals socialist”, then the current Administration definitely holds that dubious honor. And that’s after less than a year in office!

      For more information, check out:


      4 January 2010 at 9:47 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: