Skip to content

Paging Mr. Disraeli

09 April 2013 @ 13:42

Over at Protein Wisdom, Jeff Goldstein quotes at length from a piece by Robert Romano that appeared on Net Right Daily, entitled: The GOP’s Real Grassroots Problem.

It is very thoughtful and insightful and well-worth a read. A highlight:

For the inside-the-Beltway Republicans, real limited government candidates must not be allowed to run. And if they run they must not be allowed to win. And if they win, they must not be allowed to govern. Senators like Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Ted Cruz who are turning Washington, D.C. upside down in defense of constitutional principles never would have been allowed to emerge in the top-down prescriptive, safe candidate approach advocated by the institutional Republican establishment.

The grassroots has been spurned for over 100 years now. Since World War II, there have been arguably only two conservatives presidential nominees to the party, and only one of them got elected.

The real question is can the marriage between organizational Republicans and the grassroots be saved, and does either partner want it to be?

Here’s the first part of Jeff’s commentary on this piece:

I’ll answer: the partnership, such as it is, can and should be saved, but only out of expedience — and even then, only when it benefits the grass roots. Which is to say, it’s time to flip the script and let the establicans and the RINOs know that if they wish to vote for the lesser of two evils (from their perspective) — something they’ve been requiring of their base for years and years now — they’ll have to choose between conservatives/constitutionalists/classical liberals and big government statists on the left.

Typically, when called upon to do this, the establishment has worked to make sure conservative interlopers are defeated, if only as a way to punish the base for its temerity in nominating such creatures to begin with. This needs to end — and it needs to end by way of the grass roots doing what people like Rick Moran so clearly despise: purging from the party those statists who, like their leftwing counterparts, agitate for bigger government, and in so doing, work with Democrats and the media to demonize all those who don’t accept the paradigm under which the need (and public desire) for big government is a settled question.

Please do take the time to click here and read the rest of Jeff’s remarks.

If the GOP is worth saving [and I'm no longer convinced it is, but I
remain open-minded], then we should probably study how Disraeli overcame his versions of the RINO and Establishment types and remade the Conservative Party into a true conservative party, so that there was truly a difference between the Liberals and Tories.

While both Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were successful in the short term, able to pull their respective countries back from the edges of the pit of Socialism, they were both stopped from leaving greater positive legacies by the backstabbing wets in their own parties. They were undermined by traitors from within. Many of their accomplishments were squandered by the Establishment Grandees who equally despised both of them.

  1. Ernst Schreiber permalink
    09 April 2013 @ 14:00 14:00

    Disraeli is to British Conservatism as Nixon is to American Conservatism. Tory Democracy is Compassionate Conservatism is American Greatness Conservatism. It’s a slogan disguising the same old big government socialwelfare-/regulatory-statism. Only a little smaller, a bit less intrusive, somewhat more efficient and slightly less expensive.

    No thank you.

    • 10 April 2013 @ 19:02 19:02

      [Apologies, Ernst, for not replying sooner – RealWorld(tm) keeps intruding this week.]

      Disraeli took a party that was moribund because it had embraced the Utilitarianism of the Liberals and had lost it’s identity. It’s leaders thought the best way to win elections was to out Liberal the Liberals, who had been successful in beginning the delegitimization of religion, tradition, and long-standing order. The Tories believed that which they held dear was doomed to fade and they were the most qualified to manage the transition to the radical individualistic society that the Benthamites had unleashed. So, they abandoned their principles and became, like the GOP Establishment today, nothing more than point-seeking players in a grand power game/sport.

      Mr. Disraeli sought to restore, as Russell Kirk chronicled, ‘the revival of aa feeling of nationality, community, repudiating Utilitarian selfishness and individualism’ and ‘the restoration of true religious feeling’ and ‘the renewal of reverence for The Crown; the reinvigoration of the Church; the preservation of local government’ These goals, and many more, separated the Conservative Party from the Liberal Party and, once again, gave Britons a clear choice between separate visions.

      Now, granted some of the goals mentioned would not be applicable to America, but they did suit Great Britain. Also, some of his achievements were corrupted by future leaders, such as Joseph Chamberlain.

      My point is that Benjamin Disraeli took an opposition that had lost it’s way, had been infiltrated by power players/seekers, and restored to it The Sword Of Imagination. He made the Tories ‘a choice, not an echo’.

      I certainly don’t agree with everything he did.

      • Ernst Schreiber permalink
        12 April 2013 @ 19:39 19:39

        I understand about the Real World. She’s a bitch. An icy, snowy, windy bitch that knocks down your trees.

        On Disraeli and the conservative party losing it’s way by attempting to out-liberal the liberals: It was in one of Disraeli’s novels that the phrase “Tory men and Whig measures” first appears. It was Disraeli who “dished the Whigs” in the Reform Act of 1867. So it seems to me that Disraeli revived the Tories by succeeding in out-liberaling the liberals where his predecessors had failed.

        Disraeli and Bismark were kindred spirits: social-welfare paternalism and nationalism were the cornerstones of their policy.

        I haven’t read Kirk, by the way, just Himmelfarb on Disraeil and Knox Beran on Bismark. Knox Beran makes the comparison between Disraeli and Bismark.

      • Ernst Schreiber permalink
        12 April 2013 @ 20:39 20:39

        It occurs to me that the Disraeli-Bismark comparison isn’t fair to Disraeli. There was nowhere near the concern for power or realism that guided Bismark. Disraeli acted out of conviction. Making him, I guess, the original compassionate conservative.

  2. Ernst Schreiber permalink
    09 April 2013 @ 14:02 14:02

    change “expensive” to “unaffordable.”

  3. Adobe_Walls permalink
    10 April 2013 @ 00:20 00:20

    “If the GOP is worth saving [and I’m no longer convinced it is, but I
    remain open-minded],”………

    Keeping an open mind as to the salvalgeability of the GOP will, has and can only lead to defeat for the conservative movement. The time to burn that structure to the ground arrived in 1988…….and…….yet it still stands. The “Gingrich revolution of 94 was a total failure in that it produced no lasting accomplishments and merely served to set up the republican’s Caligula period which is at least as much to blame for where we are today as are the Bolsheviks.

  4. 10 April 2013 @ 07:08 07:08

    There is no, no hope for the GOP. They have sold out for a mess of pottage hoping they can stay at the trough and continue to stuff themselves at our expense. They need to go the way of the Whigs.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: