Originally posted by: ScottyB
As a liberal, I have a strong dislike of conservatives of any flavor. I believe that they are wrong on every issue, and their ideals are fundamentally wrong for America and the World.
However, there has always been a certain segment of Republicans I can respectfully disagree with: the fiscal conservative. I may not agree with their views, but I can tolerate the difference of opinion and have an enlightened discussion with them. These same people now seem to be switching to a Libertarian platform, although many remain within the Republican fold.
But there is a segment of the population which I cannot respect. These are the social conservatives. Their main goal seems to be the destruction of those who do not believe in their god. These are the people that yell "terrorist" at McCain rallies. These are the people that actively discriminate against gays. These are the people that attack abortion doctors and young woman. They are the people I cannot and will not respect.
While the social conservative and the fiscal conservative have been joined at the hip for years, it seems the two groups are splitting. Some of the fiscal conservatives that are not filled with hate are distancing themselves from the social conservative while others use them for political gain. But I do not think the two groups will last for long.
Social conservatives are not interested in the fiscal disciplines of traditional Republicans. They are interested in hate mongering at its worst. They are interested in destroying those that disagree with their views. They are interested in turning American into a Christian Totalitarian government with no regard for the beliefs of others.
The Republican Image cannot sustain the schism that is happening within the Republican party or within the nation as a whole. The current economic crises seems to be drawing more and more Americans to their core values. Those that care about the world, the economy, and the aspects that affect everyone are trending away from social conservatism. Those that only care about their religion are bringing out their hatred in full force.
What I wonder is when the split will occur. And I do believe it will happen sometime soon.
Your thoughts?
First, much of that was well said. I can relate to the liberal position you describe.
One of the things to realize is that a cause of bad politics is the unfortunte alliance.
It's when you have 'two sides', and for one side to gain power, it's required to ally with some smaller group, and pressured to ignore the problems with that group.
Whether it was interests in Germany 'using' Hitler to their advantage (they thought) or Eisenhower putting Nixon on his ticket against his better judgement, dangerous fringe groups can sometimes rise to power when mainstream powers desperate for a 'majority power' ally with them - and are sometimes brought down themselves in the later events.
I've said a lot here about the dangers of the small elite wealth and powerful pursuing an agenda bad for the nation. Does the following sound familiar?
Conservative members of the former [German] aristocratic ruling class desired an end to the republic and a return to an authoritarian government that would restore Germany to glory and bring back their old privileges. They wanted to go back to the days of the Kaiser. For them, putting Hitler in power was just the first step toward achieving that goal. They knew it was likely he would wreck the republic. Then once the republic was abolished, they could put in someone of their own choosing, perhaps even a descendant of the Kaiser.
Big bankers and industrialists, including Krupp and I. G. Farben, had lobbied Hindenburg and schemed behind the scenes on behalf of Hitler because they were convinced he would be good for business. He promised to be for free enterprise and keep down Communism and the trade union movements.
The military also placed its bet on Hitler, believing his repeated promises to tear up the Treaty of Versailles and expand the Army and bring back its former glory.
Consider the danger that the need for alliance brought:
Papen ruled in an authoritarian manner by launching a coup against the center-left coaltion government of Prussia (the so-called Preußenschlag) and repealing his predecessor's ban on the SA as a way to appease the Nazis, whom he hoped to lure into supporting his government.
Ultimately, after two Reichstag elections only increased the Nazis' strength in the Reichstag without substantially increasing Papen's own parliamentary support, he was forced to resign as Chancellor, and was replaced on 2 December 1932 by Schleicher, who hoped to establish a broad coalition government by gaining the support of both Nazi and Social Democratic trade unionists.
As it became increasingly obvious that Schleicher would be unsuccessful in his maneuvering to maintain his chancellorship under a parliamentary majority, Papen worked to undermine Schleicher. Along with DNVP leader Alfred Hugenberg, Papen formed an agreement with Hitler under which the Nazi leader would become Chancellor of a coalition government with the Nationalists, and with Papen serving as Vice Chancellor of the Reich and prime minister of Prussia.
On 23 January 1933 Schleicher admitted to President Hindenburg that he had been unable to obtain a majority of the Reichstag, and asked the president to declare a state of emergency. By this time, the elderly Hindenburg had become irritated by the Schleicher cabinet's policies affecting wealthy landowners and industrialists.
Simultaneously, Papen had been working behind the scenes and used his personal friendship with Hindenburg to assure the President that he, Papen, could control Hitler and could thus finally form a government based on the support of the majority of the Reichstag.
Hindenburg refused to grant Schleicher the emergency powers he sought, and Schleicher resigned on 28 January. Though Papen flirted with leaving Hitler out of the cabinet and becoming chancellor, in the end the President, who had previously vowed never to allow Hitler to become chancellor, appointed Hitler to the post on 30 January 1933.
And so a 'mainstream' party made a compromise alliance mistakenly thinking it would not be a problem.
This was another way to keep Hitler in check. In fact, Papen had every intention of using the conservative majority in the cabinet along with his own political skills to run the government himself.
"Within two months we will have pushed Hitler so far in the corner that he'll squeak," Papen boasted to a political colleague.
The modern Republican party entered a political crisis after the Great Depression. What was their appeal to the American people they had brought ruin to? It wasn't economics - they had shown themselves to have harmful policies. It wasn't foreign policy - FDR had led the nation to victory in WWII. Republicans found themselves unelectable for a period. What they finally found to escape was to use the paranoia of the county - the red scare.
Later, the 'Southern Strategy' - the backlash against the Democrats' civil rights bill - further helped them. But another alliance they found very useful from Reagan on was the politicization of the religious right. Historically, religion was less politicized, and often liberal - such as the civil rights movement being largely based on church movements, as we recall the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and others.
But with the right-wing creating its own politicization - the Moral Majority, the 700 club, and so on, the Republican found another alliance that was quite helpful.
There are plenty of good books on the issue - check out Kevin Phillips and Christopher Hedges for two great authors.
But basically, the Republicans' pursuit of power, with a complementary group who does not conflict with their own agenda to push the interests of the wealthy, has been useful.
