This is not the blog post I first intended to write for today. Last month I happened to see that Ralph Nadar was celebrating his 90th birthday (on Feb. 27), and I planned to write about him. But my plan changed when I saw this headline: “Trump Jr. says ‘MAGA movement is the new Republican Party’.”
Various
voices over the last few years have spoken about the death of the
Republican Party. Surprisingly, one of those voices was that of Senator Josh
Hawley (R-Mo.).
In
November 2022, CBS
News quoted Sen. Hawley as saying, “The Republican Party, as we have known
it, is dead.” That was an expression of his disappointment about the outcome of
the mid-term elections. Democrats maintained that those results were because of
voters’ displeasure with Trump.
Since
then, though, Trump and MAGA Republicans have become much stronger. Last week,
“Donald Trump Jr. mused that the ‘Make America Great Again’ movement has
replaced the old guard of the Republican Party.”
That
New
York Post article went on to cite Trump Jr. declaring, “That
[old-school establishment] Republican Party frankly no longer exists outside of
the D.C. Beltway.”
With
Trump Sr. replacing the leadership of the Republican National Committee with
his hand-picked supporters, including his daughter-in-law, the traditional GOP
has essentially become the MAGA Party.
As
the March 25 issue of Time magazine says (on p. 7) under the title,
“It’s Trump’s Party,” “The MAGA
movement’s takeover of the GOP is now complete.” In that sense, it may be
correct to say that the Republican Party as it has existed for the past century
is dead.
What
are traditional Republicans or opponents of Democrats to do? That seems to
be the dilemma many U.S. voters find themselves in now.
Come
November 5, one of two old, White men will be re-elected POTUS (assuming they
are both still alive and well then, which is by no means assured.) But what if
you cannot bear to vote for “Sleepy Joe” or “Sleazy Donald”?
That’s
where Ralph Nadar enters the picture. According to Wikipedia, Nadar is an “American
political activist, author, lecturer, and attorney noted for his involvement
in consumer protection, environmentalism, and government reform
causes, and a perennial presidential candidate.”
The
latter is the only aspect of Nadar’s career that I will consider here, for
Nadar’s running as a third-party candidate in 2000 is quite likely the major
reason George W. Bush was elected President over Al Gore.
It
is difficult to fathom how much better off this country, and the world, would
be if Gore had been elected in 2000. As you may remember, Gore did receive the
most popular votes, but thanks to the Supreme Court’s dubious decision,
Florida’s electoral votes went to Bush and he became the 43rd POTUS.
In
that decisive state of Florida, Bush defeated Gore by only 537 votes. Nader
received 97,421 votes in Florida, which led to justifiable claims that Nader
was responsible for Gore's defeat—or rather, the Democrats and Independents who
voted for Nadar were those most responsible for Bush’s election.
What
does all this mean for 2024? Among other things, it means that those—and
most especially those who live in the so-called “swing stages” of Ariz., Ga.,
Mich., N.C., Nev., Penn., and Wis.—must beware of voting for a third-party
candidate if they don’t want Trump to win the election.
Some
speak of voting for the lesser of two evils, and others say if both candidates
are “evil,” they cannot and will not vote for either.
But
it seems quite clear to me that it is far better to vote for the better of two
evils than to not vote at all. Also, it is far better to vote for the lesser of
two evils rather than for a third-party candidate that will potentially lead to
the election of the greater of the two evils.
And
mark it down: it is nearly 100% certain that either the Democratic or the
Republican candidate will win the 2024 presidential election.
If
Trump’s MAGA party is the only alternative to the Democratic Party, which seems
to be the case now that the traditional Republican Party is the same as dead, I
admonish you to vote for Biden’s re-election and for Democratic Senators and
Representatives. Democracy itself and so much more is at stake.
I agree, Dr. Seat. Any prospect of adding the devil of a third-party candidate could leave us with a discredited incompetent in the White House again, and one bent toward neo-fascism and a darker world, to boot. That is, if he is not absolutely hampered by criminal convictions. The current Kennedy run is at best spiteful, too, and only adds to the confusion.
ReplyDeleteRepublicans may not recover, if they do, for decades, short of a miracle, and who knows what the party conception and structure will be a decade out? Democrats are factional, perhaps dangerously so, forced on their own accord to savor the bitter fruits of overemphasized group identities and individualism as well.
I agree with others who refuse to accept the appellation Biden is evil considering the comparison to DT, which is to say, functionally, no comparison. Sadly, both of them reflect our conflicted tendencies these days.
Here's to voting against the irresponsible right radicals.
Thanks so much for posting your lucid comments so early this morning, Jerry. It was good to hear from you again (and I was just thinking about your yesterday since it had been a while since you had posted comments).
DeleteI do not agree with them, but I know of people who consider Biden (or any Democratic politician) "evil" because of their position on abortion and LGBTQ rights. And now some are considering Biden "evil" because of his support of Israel and its military action against Hamas that has resulted in the deaths of so many Palestinian civilians already (and I plan to write more about this in my April 10 blog post).
But looking at the bigger picture, I agree with you and others "who refuse to accept the appellation Biden is evil considering the comparison to DT."
Here are comments received by email from local Thinking Friend David Nelson--even before Dr. Summers posted his comments above:
ReplyDelete"I am one who is not voting for the lesser of two evils. I am proudly and confidently voting for a man only a few years older than me who, in spite of vicious name calling and opposition, has led this nation these last three years. His record will be commemorated in history as one of the best."
Thanks, David, for your strong, clear statement in support of Pres. Biden's re-election. I largely agree with your very positive assessment of his presidency up to this point, although I do disagree with his support of Israel (and plan to write more about that next month as indicated above).
DeleteSince I am a few years older than Biden, I do have serious concerns about his starting another four-year term in January next year. I would have been pleased for him to have stepped down in order for a younger person with similar political views to accept the mantle--and perhaps the Vice President would have been the logical one to have taken up that mantle, so I am glad she will be ready to step up for greater responsibilities if it becomes necessary for her to do so before January 2029.
But since Biden is the only candidate that could possibly get more votes (popular and electoral) than Trump, I will vote for him as a man worth re-electing and by no means only the lesser of two evils.
Here are comments local Thinking Friend David Fulk asked me to post from him. (Sometimes people, such as David this time, have trouble posting directly on the blogsite, for reasons I have no control over, but I am always happy to post comment received by email--just be sure to copy the comments you try to post on the blogsite in case it doesn't "take.")
ReplyDelete"While the Republican Party has drastically moved to the right, you can see segments of the Democratic Party are moving further left. This seems a bit of a natural reaction to me.
"While recent Democratic presidential candidates have tried to broaden the party umbrella to include disenfranchised Republicans who don't feel they have a home, I believe that's going to be harder to do as some younger Democratic leaders force the party to the left. The gap in the center will become wider, more populated.
"Without leadership in this center, many people will feel they don't have a home or a party with which to identify. The need for a more centrist party is there, but I don't believe that will come without a series of MAGA presidents.
"Interestingly, the pendulum swings back and forth and in doing so spends more time in the middle than the extremes. But without leaders in the center, I'm not sure a party will emerge to represent those views."
Thanks for your comments, David, and I was happy to post them for you.
DeleteI agree that there needs to be some political party between extreme leftwing Democrats and extreme rightwing Republicans, although at present it seems to me that Trump is the prime supporter of the extreme rightwing Republicans, but Biden is far from being a supporter of, or even in substantial agreement with, the extreme leftwing Democrats.
If Trump is re-elected, no telling what will become of our nation by 2029--and if he is defeated, no telling what will happen between Nov. 2024 and Jan. 2025. But if the Republican Party implodes after Trump's defeat, which is a real possibility, I think, perhaps the more traditional Republican Party will be resurrected, and the country will be back to a healthy two-party system again.
What I don't see happening is the emergence of a viable third-party--at least not before 2044, as I suggested below.
Just a couple of minutes ago, I received this brief comment from Thinking Friend Glenn Hinson in Kentucky:
ReplyDelete"I fully support your views, Leroy. The return of Trump to power is unthinkable."
Leroy, almost certainly third party candidate(s) gave us W in 2000. During the election season, I happened to be in conversation with a "Progressive" Democrat from Austin who said to me that there was no difference between Bush and Gore. I reminded her that one of them would appoint one or more SCOTUS justices. Bush did. He is the current Chief Justice. SCOTUS would be entirely different were it not for those 547 votes in Florida. I didn't particularly like Hilary in 2016. She's a snob, and proved it by her "baskets of deplorables" comment, which may well have cost her the election. But I voted for her. If she had been elected, SCOTUS would be decidedly different today. But, "If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a party."
ReplyDeleteThanks for your pertinent comments, Charles. I don't think I would call Hillary Clinton a snob, but I agree that her reference to half of Trump supporters being in a basket of deplorables was not helpful to her cause, even though she was speaking primarily of "the racists and the haters." In denouncing them, she should have said that they were saying and doing deplorable things rather using deplorable as a characterizing noun.
DeleteAnd then this from Michael Olmsted, a Thinking Friend in Springfield, Mo., and another retired preacher/teacher (as the two above):
ReplyDelete"Thanks for a clear call to stability and decency in a world moving ever closer to disaster ... corruption of freedom ... and a 'Hitler-like-darkness'!"
Wouldn't it matter who the third party candidate appealed to? If the third party candidate appealed to those who would never vote Democrat wouldn't that help Biden? If the Republican Party is dead as you say the natural next step is another party comes to take it's place. If the Republicans go the way of the Whigs and the Federalists a new party will need to emerge from their ashes. On a personal note, I am an Anti Trump conservative living in a very blue state. Trump will not win my state, I have never and will never vote for Trump. I have never and will never vote for a pro-choice candidate for President. How am I hurting the republic by voting my conscience and voting for a 3rd party or not voting for that race at all?
ReplyDeleteThanks, Dave, for your comments (and I still would like to know more about you and where you are located). Sure, voting for a third-party candidate instead of Trump would help Biden, but voting for a third-party candidate rather than Biden would help Trump. The fewer votes either candidate gets makes it more likely the other will win the election.
DeleteYes, many years down the road, there may need for a new political party to emerge that would take the place of the traditional Republican Party or the current Republical Party controlled by the MAGA movement led by Trump. But that has no bearing on the 2024 election, although maybe things will be different by, say, 2044.
You are right that because of the electoral college voting system, in most of the States a small percentage of the voters choosing to "vote their conscience" by voting for a third-party candidate will make no difference in the presidential election. But I ended by making reference to U.S. Senators and Representatives as well, and there are few states that the election of one Party's candidates for Senate or the House is nearly as certain as the votes for electors who will cast their votes for the President. And I firmly believe that the Republic will indeed be hurt if the MAGA Republicans gain control of both the Senate and the House even if Trump is not elected President.
It is not just the demise of Republican party, but the apparent loss of our democratic ideals that grieves me deeply. Will we become a puppet regime for V. Putin? We thought the cold war was over. Now we are beginning to see we simply were blind to its unresolved issues. Will we go down in history as the generation that failed to stand against fascist aggression? Or is this God's judgment on the sins of our past (Psa. 75:8)? I am kept from the brink of utter despair by the promises of scripture (Psa. 37:34-36; Isa. 8:11-13; 41:10). We have lived through dark times before. There is always hope.
ReplyDeleteRay, it was good to hear from you again, and I appreciate your thoughtful comments.
DeleteBro. Leroy, you sure opened the door to diversity with this topic. This is as widely disparate a group of responses as I have read in some time. Like you I see two old, White men running for president. From my perspective both need to retire from the public eye. I cringe thinking Kamala Harris would ever be our president. She is our immigration czar! Because a very vocal chorus is raised against both candidates, I see the real danger you raise coming from a third party candidate. Before there was the Bush-Gore fiasco, there was the similar event in 1992 when for some of us Bush Senior should have been our next president. Instead thanks to Perot, we got Bill Clinton whose personal morals were put on rather public display.
ReplyDeleteAs to the death of the Republican Party, I hope not. The Goldwater defeat in 1964 was also called a fatal blow to the Republican Party. Yet Nixon was given the chance to create his mess. The Democrats were able to hold the office for only four years before the Republicans came back to hold it for twelve. There may be too much fear of the US becoming a country run by multiple party coalitions (ex. England and Israel) leading to a single party country (Russia and China) for us to ever move away from a strong two-party system.
Thanks for your insightful comments, Tom. As I suggested above in my reply to TF David Fulk, if (and when!) Trump is defeated in November's election (and if there is not an outbreak of violence over a "stolen" election), I think there could well be a revival of the traditional Republican Party such as occurred after Goldwater's overwhelming defeat (52-486 in the electoral college) in 1964. And I agree that the country needs and will probably continue to have a strong two-party system.
DeleteInterestingly, I just read an article pointing out that the GOP is almost bankrupt, down to $8 million cash with $2 million debt. Now that Trump is desperately needing cash himself, and his daughter-in-law is now co-chair of the GOP, he may well pull the GOP down with him. You can read more here: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/3/19/2230355/-Trump-s-going-broke-and-he-s-taking-the-whole-Republican-Party-down-with-him?
ReplyDeleteOn a more serious note, both parties have been sliding right for decades, the GOP just moreso. Compare Biden to FDR, and Trump to Eisenhower. Eisenhower inherited a top tax rate of about 90% from Truman, and passed the same rate on eight years later to Kennedy. Despite Nixon, McCarthy, and "In God We Trust" on American money, Eisenhower was pretty close to the New Deal. I mean, Earl Warren was a Republican Governor appointed to the Supreme Court by Eisenhower!
Nixon opened the era of neoliberalism, where lower taxes and less regulation of big business increasingly became the zeitgeist of the land. Those MAGA Republicans are mostly just the children of New Deal Democrats who feel increasingly lost and abandoned. There are few Centrists in either party because it has become increasingly obvious to most of America that both parties belong to Wall Street, and only rarely work for common people. Trump at least listened to the grievances of rural and working poor. His answers are dangerous fabrications, but when he complained about "the rusting tombstones" even I knew what he was talking about. You can see one of those rusting tombstones on the Highway 24 viaduct over the Blue River in Kansas City, Missouri. There lie the rusting bones of what was once Armco Steel. Just south of it was the large manufacturer where my father was once a product manager. The GDP may be working well for Bezos and Musk, but the over 650,000 houseless people in America bear silent witness to a floundering system.
In my youth, I remember Robert F. Kennedy polling well with George Wallace voters. The commentators were confused. Well, Bernie Sanders polled better than both Clinton and Biden against Trump. Even today, give the working class something to vote for, and some of those Trump voters can be lured back. Telling them that they do not understand how wonderful the GDP is so counterproductive. Bezos getting billions of dollars richer does no one else any good at all. Progressive Democrats are desperately trying to figure how to fix the Democratic Party even as the try to hold off the MAGA Republicans. Biden wooing American billionaires and Israeli elites is not a good image.
Craig, I always appreciate your thought-provoking comments. But this time, again, there are several things you said with which I disagree--and which would take more time than I feel like I have to respond to adequately. Let me just mention some of my disagreements:
DeleteYou wrote that "both parties have been sliding right for decades." While they may not have been as far to the left as FDR, I certainly don't see the last two Democratic Presidents (Obama and Biden) as sliding toward the rightwing camp. And Biden is often compared favorably with FDR (see this article in a Feb. 2023 issue of The Nation:
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/joe-biden-capitalism-fdr/ )
You wrote, "Those MAGA Republicans are mostly just the children of New Deal Democrats who feel increasingly lost and abandoned." Really?
And you wrote that "it has become increasingly obvious to most of America that both parties belong to Wall Street, and only rarely work for common people." Again, really? Obvious to most of America? And regarding working for the common people, I wish you would take seriously what Heather Cox Richardson has said repeatedly how that is becoming more and more what is being done under Biden and the Democrats who are standing strong against the trickle-down theory that was forwarded by Pres. Regan in 1981 and has been central to the Republicans' economic policies ever since.
Concerning "the rusting tombstones," have you seen the statistics about the growth of industrial jobs in the U.S. under Biden? Again, I recommend reading and checking the veracity of Dr. Richardson, who is an academic historian, not a politician. (She self identifies as a Lincoln Republican.) In her March 21 newsletter, among many other things, she wrote, "Biden’s version of America has built a strong economy in the last two years, with extremely low unemployment, extraordinary growth, and real wage increases for all but the top 20%. Inequality has decreased." Here is a link to that "letter."
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/march-21-2024
Well, that is enough (or too much?) for now.
About 4:00 this afternoon, I received these thoughtful comments from Thinking Friend Eric Dollard in Chicago:
ReplyDelete""Thanks, Leroy, for your thoughts about the Republican Party, which has a voluted history from opposing slavery and endorsing equal rights after the Civil War, to the progressivism of Theodore Roosevelt, the conservatism of Robert Taft and Ronald Reagan, and now to the quasi-fascism of the Party of Trump.
"Trump is not a conservative and the Republican Party of today is not a conservative party; it is a right-wing populist party. America, along with every nation, needs a responsible and principled conservative party, but America no longer has such a party. Principled conservatives should ban together to start such a party; maybe it will happen.
"I do not consider myself a political conservative, but principled conservatives can be valuable in formulating public policy. What we see in the Party of Trump is political theatrics and no serious discussions of public policies."
Earlier this afternoon, local Thinking Friend Harold Philipps sent these pertinent comments:
ReplyDelete"Thanks for this blog. I wonder often what I would do if the Democratic Party were 'taken over' by some bizarre crazy fringe group. My best example is if George Wallace had been the Democratic candidate in '68 or '72 vs Nixon what would my Father have done.... he could not stand 'Tricky Dick' and he was a 'Yellow Dog'.... such a dilemma in 2024 for mainstream Republicans."
I appreciate the brief words of affirmation from these Thinking Friends:
ReplyDelete"Good post. Seems very, very clear!" (A TF in Maryland)
"I absolutly agree with you 100%. This election may prove to be the most important in our life time." (TF Richard Horn in Texas)
"'You hit the nail on the head,' as the saying goes! Thank you for stating so clearly, the truth of this election season." (TF Virginia Belk in New Mexico)