Today all the extreme far-right, tea party and religious fanatic Republicans are preaching that if you are not a Christian, support the right to carry a semi-automatic weapon, refuse women’s right to a medically safe abortion, that rape isn’t really rape and deny gays equal protection under the law, then you are not a true American and most definitely not a Republican.
Over the last few years, I have had to defend my Republican Party affiliation. In light of the recent Alaska Republican party activities, I have once again been asked, “how can I call myself a Republican?” Well, in order to fight for what you believe, you have to know what you stand for.
I grew up in a bipartisan house, my mother a staunch Democrat and my father a strong Republican. Debates were always interesting and enlightening. With both sides adamant about their position. I learned skills like debating, negotiating, compromising and that sometimes it is best to agree to disagree.
Overtime, I formed my own opinions. I learned I wasn’t really a Democrat or a Republican. After researching and reading many books on political views and parties I stumbled across “Rockefeller Republican”
Rockefeller Republicans (RR) are Republicans who hold similar liberal views on some issues as those of Nelson Rockefeller, hence the name Rockefeller Republican. RRs typically are center-right. They reject far-right policies, and are often culturally liberal. Many support private and government investments in the environment, healthcare and higher education as necessary for our Nation’s growth. Like former RRs, I support some regulation of business and federal social programs in matters pertaining to the public good.
RRs oppose socialism and the redistribution of wealth; however reject laws that create exclusive classes of citizens. Today’s RRs don’t believe in 99 percent of Americans working, paying taxes and dying so the 1 percent can amass wealth on the backs of everyone else. We believe in separation of church and state, that your religious beliefs cannot and should not infringe on others and that all Americans deserve equal protection under the law.
RRs have included Nelson Rockefeller, Alexander Hamilton, Theodore Roosevelt and Richard Nixon. In 1971, Nixon announced he was a Keynesian. The theories forming the basis of Keynesian economics were first presented by Keynes in his book, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, published in 1936.
Keynesian economics advocates a mixed economy, predominantly private sector, but with a role for government intervention during recessions (like President Obama did) and in the developed nations served as the standard economic model during the later part of the Great Depression, World War II, and the post-war economic expansion (1945–1973) The advent of the global financial crisis in 2008 has caused a resurgence in Keynesian thought.
I agree it is time for the Republican Party to redefine itself. What its goals are, what it stands for, what it will fight for. If Republicans want to get have a viable run for the president’s seat in 2016, I believe it has to. I also believe the majority of Republicans think like I do. I believe we all want the American dream of success and prosperity. However that cannot happen with a stacked deck.
Oil companies receive favorable tax breaks while reaping profits. In 2012, BP raked in $11.6 billion in profit. Yet, small business in America fights for a break even though they make up 99.7 percent of U.S. employers.
Climbing the success ladder on the backs of others isn’t progress, it’s abuse. Spewing hateful, disrespectful words at our president is not American, it’s obtuse. It teaches our children that we don’t have to respect the Office of the President of the United States because we don’t like his color or his party affiliation.
Should the Republican Party redefine itself? Absolutely. Should the Republican Party re-evaluate its mission and values? Absolutely. Will I continue to refer to myself as a Republican, yes but with a new/old definition; Rockefeller Republican.
• Gardner is a Juneau resident.
Comments (71)
Add commentto Ms Gardner
Ma'am:
1. your My Turn is on the mark;
2. your argument rings true with the current state of affairs;
3. I have conservative leanings, but I have a green heart (some may say like the Grinch, three sizes too small), but I am a troller and want the fishery to flourish;
4. the Republican Party needs to offer an alternative to this current administration that advocates wussyism and dependency. We, as a nation, once emerged from the Wilderness and we are now developing into something so civilized that we are soft. I do not mean that we need to get WWII mean; I mean we need leadership that tells us we are still not out of the Wilderness, that toughness and self-reliance are still virtues.
Don't think so,
If you keep an eye on D.C. it kinda comes to mind that the Republican party no longer exists, those who say they are, rapidly give in on most legislation proposed by the Democrats. They are doing so now on the second amendment. It would seem we have evolved into a one party system. Those who CALL themselves Democrats, those who side with the Democrat party, and those who adamently state they are NOT Democrats but let said party, invariably, control their actions (votes) Look in the rearview mirror to see the Republican party, as they are rapidly looseing ground! Perhaps we could call that branch the "Possum" party, as they always roll over when confronted!
Anachronism
Myrna, you're referring to yourself as a type of republican that's been extinct for at least a couple decades now. Might as well call yourself a passenger pigeon.
There's such a wide gulf between your Rockefeller Republicans and the current state of that party that the chasm can't possibly be bridged.
The answer is simple. Form a new, centrist party. Call it the Rockefeller party if you will. Collect the few remaining centrist republicans such as yourself, and gather the 'blue dog democrats', and you could have a strong party that would represent the majority of Americans' values.
This would then free the democratic party to become true to whatever its values are, and the republican party to focus on guns, god, and waterboarding as their core platform.
We desperately need more alternatives.
party politics---a corrupt game of bait-and-swtich
What you're describing, Ms Gardner, are the results of the republican party's efforts to plumb the depths of right-wing populism after democratic gains in 2008.
To a large degree it worked to reverse some of those gains in 2010, and it demonstrated an agility the democrats either don't have or don't want to have---They're being a little more careful about inviting THEIR fringe into mainstream forums, and have been quick to claim moderate territory abandoned by repubs under primary pressures from far-right challengers. Now mainstream democrats are considerably less liberal than, say, Richard Nixon; while characters like Karl Rove have found themselves having to push back to defend their own contingent of mainstream republicans from the far-right.
It is, overall, a brilliant bit of maneuvering and public manipulation, moving the entire political dialogue to the right-of-center; and pretty much happened the other way back in the sixties during the civil rights movement, when anti-war and environmentalist issues gained center stage along with racial equality---Speaking of Richard Nixon.
The democrats lost the south then, along with their image as the White Man's Party, but didn't take long to shake (or convert) the ideologues who'd brought those issues to the fore---Those that survived anyway.
It conjures the image of party politics as a damper on social unrest, a control on any real change that threatens to rock the boat, rather than any kind of vehicle for that change: In the best of terms, a pressure valve---At the worst, a puppet-show in place of real public discourse, a device used by a very few to control the masses (speaking of Nelson Rockefeller!): All the more reason NOT to identify any particular human virtue to either political party.
So now the repubs have to clean house, do they? It's hard to feel sorry for them: They don't want the TEA Party to be a vehicle for a broad-based anti-incumbency movement, which would mean a whole new crop of expenses for "investors."
Wow Myrna - this paragraph of
Wow Myrna - this paragraph of yours pretty much sums up your bigoted, racist, redistribution, class warfare ideals -
"Climbing the success ladder on the backs of others isn’t progress, it’s abuse. Spewing hateful, disrespectful words at our president is not American, it’s obtuse. It teaches our children that we don’t have to respect the Office of the President of the United States because we don’t like his color or his party affiliation."
Practice what you preach (i.e. your vitriole towards the TEA Party and Christians), then there might be some room for "respectful" discussion about the state of the Republican party. Until then, you're the problem.
Its an affiliation
Latitude58, I was making a reference. I don't believe the party is dead (Rockefeller Republican). Nixon referred himself as one. I think our party has gotten lost in the 15 minutes of fame and lost sight of what we are trying to accomplish as a party. The Tea Party, however dysfunctional or extreme right they are, they focused their mission to foster what they believed is right or wrong. Although, I don't agree, they were successful for a while in taking a short bus ride on the fame train.
I write what I believe and what my value chain is because I want others to know, for Republicans there are options besides far-right. I write to put ideas and suggestions out there. I believe if the Republican Party ever wants a chance at winning the White House, it must get over its religious fanatic position. We seem to have forgotten one core value of American, Separation of Church and State.
I believe my opinions and values are not unique and that many feel this way. We just have to start over, learn from life lessons, re-affirm our values and move forward.
Thanks Jamison
Glad to see you're having that weekly coffee indulgence. The clarity of your thoughts, and your ability to articulate them always rewards.
calypso, did you say something?
Christian reference
Calypso,
I only meant that there is this surge of opinions from politicians that there is only ONE right religion and that if you are not that one, then you are not American. I have religious values, they are not the same as Christians, Jews, Catholics, or Protestant to name a few. My point is very specific. Every Citizen of the United States has a right to his/her own religious beliefs. He/she has rights to not be prosecuted because he or she does not follow one religion.
My apology to you for your take on it. I hope this clarifies my thought.
thanks Lat---
same to you but more of it.
Thanks as well to Myrna Gardner---Not only do you have the wherewithal to use your name in both senses, but the courage to stand behind your convictions and to present rational, well thought-out views. I'll be standing by to see how your attempt to engage "calypso" in any kind of meaningful discussion turns out: It may well serve as an analogy for productive relations within the current version of the republican party.
Jamison Paul
Agree to Disagree
Jamison
I quoted in My Turn that one thing I did learn from discussions in my house was, sometimes it best to agree to disagree.
I didn't write this to sway anyone. Calypso has his opinions and values. I tend not to debate people who "jump off the bridge" in a discussion. You know the kind where they take one line and blow it up. My mom used to refer to that as smoke and mirrors debating.Instead of talking about the whole, the conversation is hi-jacked to make it all about one opinion or interpretation.
I was raised to be respectful of all people's religious views. My reference to Christianity was merely a reference as recent news report politicians and want-to-be politicians pontificating at the top of their lungs, if you are not....... (God fearing, sunday church going, NRA card carrying, etc. ) then you are not American. And that frustrates me.
I appreciate your points, Myrna
But Nixon's been gone for awhile now... And as far as religious fanaticism, GWB played that card for all it was worth. I think you can thank him, and his handler Karl Rove, for setting the party on that course.
Yes, the tea party has had some short-term success, but we're all seeing that that success is coming at a high price. You're correct that winning the WH is unlikely given the extremist platform the party will likely adopt. Nor is winning the Senate - what are the odds that a bunch of Joe Millers are going to upset the current incumbents? And given the evidence from the 2012 election, the republicans' hold on the House is starting to slip as well, despite the gerrymandering.
Why resist the third party idea? Why so wedded to a name? Isn't it the underlying values and ideas that truly matter? Create a new party that reflects the values that you so attractively articulated in your letter above and I might even give its candidates some serious consideration. As it is now, I will not vote for any republican (nor most democrats for that matter). And I consider that a failing of the parties to not offer a compelling field of choices.
jamison, I'll ignore your
jamison, I'll ignore your sactimony for now. My side (conservative vs. Ms. Gardner's RINO side) of the Republican party was directly attacked by Ms. Gardner. She drew fallacious conclusions and did not corrrectly portray what it means to be a conservative Republican.
If she hadn't stated that she was a "Republican" I'd say her ideology almost matches that of the current Democrat party.
How anyone that proclaims from the rooftops that they're Republican can endorse abortion (which Gardner misconstrues how conservatives feel about abortion), attack big oil over their profits, denigrate successful people and industries, promote Keynesian economics, and cry about separation of church and state when it's obvious she has no idea what the framers meant with separation of church and state doesn't make any sense to those of us that call ourselves Republicans. I smell a phoney Republican.
On a side note, separation of church and state does not mean that Christians cannot let their faith guide them in matters of abortion and homosexuality, etc. A good study on the separation of church and state would be the Church of England and Sharia Law.
Then she writes - "Today’s RRs don’t believe in 99 percent of Americans working, paying taxes and dying so the 1 percent can amass wealth on the backs of everyone else."
Just blatantly, factually wrong. The fact is, the top 1% who earn 19% of the income end up paying 37% of the income taxes while 47% of Americans pay NO income taxes.
In conclusion, Ms. Gardner appears to long for the party of old Republicans, think Hickel, Stevens, etc. And from all the past letters to the Empire (and there are many!), it appears that she's just a big government, Alaskan isolationist with her hand stretched out far and wide for "redistributed" funds.
I'm sorry if I appear harsh, but it's exactly these lies that so-called Republicans spread about the party that are turning people off to the ideals of individual liberty, limited government and rights bestowed on us by our Creator.
great piece, Ms. Gardner
I think I agree on virtually all fronts. I have liberal social views out of necessity. Not because I support the few who abuse social programs, but because I realize the need to support so many who truly need these programs. Sort of a necessary evil in some ways. I feel like RRs are a thing of the past for The Republican Party however. In my opinion the Democrats have all but siphoned your peers off. Both parties have shifted to the right over the years.
grendel, when did you start agreeing with Rockefeller Republicans? This morning? The majority of your posts trash talk the President for no legitimate reasons, show lack of support for women's abortion rights, and you always agree with Bishop Burns. In case you missed Ms. Gardner's first paragraph, she sums up the ways you aren't a Rockefeller Republican. Did the light bulb suddenly turn on this morning or do you just imagine yourself as a reasonable person?
Calypso, what a surprise...
Messaging
It cracks me up when I hear that. "The problem with the Republican Party is we're not good at messaging."
Uhh, no... The problem with the Republican Party is that it is full of people like Calypso. The party is a haven for willful ignorance, zealotry, racism, xenophobia, and demagoguery. I guess those sorts of people have to have some party to turn to. Since there are only two major parties, guess where they wind up? Well, you can see the results just as plain as the rest of us.
The problem with the Republican Party is that you can't polish a turd.
to my friend Lat58
1. nice post, honestly;
2. you made excellent points about another party;
3. I advocate the emergence of a party that espouses Alaskan values -- proper use of our natural resources, better management of our existing industry, and policy that allows us to have all the same advantages as our neighbours Down South. But we are Alaskans.
4. I have mentioned before that we need to start small; but we need to start somewhere.
Right on, HanSolo
"The problem with the Republican Party is that you can't polish a turd."
Yep. And thank goodness this comment system hasn't flagged at least one scatalogical description of the Repuke Party.
ALASKA-RAVEN
You are SO right on with many of your opinions! People like Calyspo are NOT interested in most of the true values that our country stands for. He, and others like him have NO regard for the little man in our country. They some how feel it is right for companies like that big oil , that can make HUGE profits are ok in this country. They believe that big business is the true nature of our country. They forget that this country has grown on the backs of the little people, that he and others have grown to hate.
ALASKA-RAVEN
You are SO right on with many of your opinions! People like Calyspo are NOT interested in most of the true values that our country stands for. He, and others like him have NO regard for the little man in our country. They some how feel it is right for companies like that big oil , that can make HUGE profits are ok in this country. They believe that big business is the true nature of our country. They forget that this country has grown on the backs of the little people, that he and others have grown to hate.
hmmm
An excerpt from calypso's "worthy" reference and a possible glimpse into the tunnel vision shared by the too-far-right-almost-loony faction of the Republican party:
"The Republican victory in 2000 was as much about a rejection of Al Gore and the Clinton years as it was an embrace of a watered-down version of conservatism."
Ahh yes, the landslide victory in which George W Bush... er... captured(?) the presidency, sending a message that regardless of losing the popular vote, and obstructing a legitimate recount, Republicans were a clear choice by the American people... yes, that's my story and I'm stickin to it!
Calypso, you want to know why you were dismissed? I'll give you 132 guesses... and more if you still can't figure it out.
hmmm
deleted
hmmm
deleted
I have noticed
that the liberal-minded, do not like Grendel types, tend to register later in the day. I think you all are slackers, sleepers, and do not have a solid grip. F-off, tired of you. Comment or get stuffed.
Abraham Lincoln wouldn't be welcome at all in today's GOP
After all
1)He didn't see property rights as sacred and absolute(i.e., he criminalized the practice of treating human beings as property);
2)He didn't accept that states had the right to secede from the Union(the right to secede was proclaimed by at least one Republican presidential primary candidate in 2012);
3)He didn't believe that any one religious faith should be privileged above all others in this country(and may not have had any particular religious convictions himself);
4)He raised taxes(including taxes on the wealthy)to pay for the war he fought rather than simply driving up the deficit(thus displaying a fiscal responsibility the last GOP "war president" refused to display), and took a strong line against war profiteering(there was no equivalent to Haliburton in the Civil War);
5)He didn't accept that the interests of corporations(which included low textile prices and cheap labor, as provided by the Confederacy)were more important than the greater good of
the nation(preserving the Union and ending slavery);
On the other hand, the first Democratic president, the big-spending, Indian-slaughtering, slave-owning and slavery-defending war criminal Andrew Jackson, would be shortlisted for the keynote speaker spot at the next GOP convention if he were around today.
@Kenb41
1. I know you are sincere;
2. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, authorized summary executions, and oversaw the murder of sucessionists. These are crimes that Stalin committed, on a much larger scale, but still;
3. President Lincoln would not sleep for days because he worried for the sake of the nation - he saw a reunification of North & South, not a subjugation and beat-down on those rebels. If you have ever been to Illinois you would know that it is where northern & southern sentiments cross-over. That is where this president grew up.
4. A man of strong faith - but you get that part;
5. Do you have any idea how much the Civil War cost? It destroyed the South, and the North lost more men. Money doesnt count. Lives & livelihoods and the chance to start over counted. Numbers add up to nothing. (Koba Stalin got that one right).
@Kenb41
misfire - repeat. (and if I get a thumbs down on this one I say f-off bozo loser -- not you Kenb41, I happen to like you.)
Yes, Lincoln was a spiritual man,
but he was not committed to any one Christian denomination and, at times, it wasn't clear that he actually saw himself as a Christian at all. I'd classify him as a highly-moral agnostic with Christian leanings.
And yes, Lincoln DID want to bring the country back together-as opposed to TODAY's GOP leadership, who want to keep dividing it into "REAL Americans"(as if any American citizen is any less "real" than any other) and those who don't fit that category. Lincoln would never have stood for that kind of talk-and the differences between his party and much, but not all of the Democrats of his day(Martin Van Buren was a Democratic opponent of slavery for example) led to a brutal war, as you pointed out-and great mistakes were made in that war(such as Sherman's senselessly brutal March To The Sea, a campaign that still inspires great bitterness in the South). Still, Lincoln wanted the South rebuilt after the war, and wanted it rebuilt without the kind of cynical opportunism that the "carpetbagger" types brought to Reconstruction after Lincoln's death.
Grendel,
I've noticed my detractors are generally early risers, like myself, but that they tend to disappear in the relatively early evening, understandably---I interpret this to mean that they are, by and large, older retirees, who have done their time and have experience to inform their opinions.
I treasure all of them.
You're growing on me, Grendel, and I appreciate it that you are willing and able to engage in meaningful dialogue and have a grasp of history---I forget at the moment if you were a marine, but that's always something I've liked about them, that many have a good grasp of history, especially military history.
Plus, you're a troller, so you automatically have my good regard, whether I agree with you or not, politically. We probably know some of the same people, like Matt on the Kibitzer...
Anyway, don't be so thinned-skinned---People are going to disagree with you no matter what you say: non illegitimi carborundum, as the Romans would say---Don't let the bastards get you down.
Ooops....
BTW: I found this piece on Wikipedia and compared it to Paragraph five of her letter. Unless she was the writer of the original, she has committed something pretty close to plagiarism….
Perhaps Ms Gardner is young and inexperienced?
‘Modern Rockefeller Republicans are typically center-right, reject far-right policies, and are often, but not necessarily, culturally liberal. Many espouse government and private investments in environmentalism, healthcare and higher education as necessities for the nation's growth, in the tradition of Nelson Rockefeller, Alexander Hamilton and Theodore Roosevelt.[citation needed] In general, Rockefeller Republicans oppose socialism and the redistribution of wealth while supporting some regulation of business and federal social programs in matters pertaining to the public good.’
changing the identity
One can hardly view an hour of TV without hearing some reference to the GOP attempting to re-brand itself. Meanwhile I have to laugh at the posters who believe the Democrats are the ones with problems.
The election was hardly over when the conservative began their move to finding their candidate for 2016. But the field is wide and appears to have little or no solid platform. As long as the conservatives continue to play against each other there will be little chance of success at the poles as the factions of the GOP seem to now be of the my way or I'll leave mentality.
further clarify
I worked in Oil and Gas industry. I have no qualms about any business making record profits. I do have qualms where we (American policies, regulations, laws) cannot give small businesses tax breaks like they give BP, CP, Exxon, etc. We (America) still gives millions and millions in tax breaks/credits when these businesses rake in billions.
Now I don't know about everyone here, however I understand breaks, incentives, credits to be given when there are huge startup costs, higher risks, low rate of return in exchange for jobs and contract opportunities.
That was my point of referencing them.