Sunday, March 22, 2009

NAT Party or Bust for 2010?...

Below is a compendium of my thoughts from comments I made on one of Flopping Aces' posts:

I want a “New American Tea Party” political party based on serious federal fiscal responsibility (deep cuts in spending, taxes and regulations) with candidate challenges against EVERY congressman and senator who voted for ANY of the TARPS, Bailouts or Stimulus Bills.

I then added a second post to expand my thoughts:

I know that the vast majority of congressmen and senators that have voted for the TARPS, Bailouts and Stimulus’ (stimuli???) have been Democrats, although a handful have also been Republicans. The problem is that for a large majority of those seats, people who normally and regularly vote Democrat won’t vote for a Republican just because of the (R) at the end of the name.

By having fiscal conservatives competing in those specific races (bashing both parties because, let’s face it, except for the brief ‘95-’01 period of R’s running congress it’s obvious that BOTH parties share the blame of fiscal irresponsibility), it’ll get enough disgusted voters to swing for “something new” even though it’ll just be standard fiscal conservatism but without the R name brand attached to it.

It will cause one of two things to happen: (a) actually get a committed NAT Party member in office, or (b) syphon off enough votes away from the incumbent D to get the challenging R elected. Because, in those hard-core, perpetually-D districts, you will NEVER get them to vote R, but you MAY get them to vote "NAT".

I got some resistance to the idea, so I clarified my points:

How are you going to get large, dense (in both senses of the word) pockets of hard-core registered Democrat voters to vote for Republicans? I grew up in Philly. Lived their for 31 years. The city has been a 1-party town for DECADES. They will NEVER vote for a Republican. But they MAY vote for someone who’s NOT a Democrat if they are appealing to them when their current Democrat politicians are pissing them off.

You may get the very rare, brief, local occurrence (e.g., Rudy in NYC, or Riordan in LA), but not in federal offices (why did the likes of Barney Frank, Rangel, etc. get re-elected despite all the scandals, etc?) [and certainly not in large or long-lasting numbers]. Why does Liebermann get re-elected AS A REGISTERED INDEPENDENT over BOTH the R & D candidates for senate [in a heavily-D state]?

If you are a registered Republican and are a strong conservative (such as myself), would you EVER vote for a Democrat? NO! Even though your own rep or senator is a friggin’ joke who infuriates you. Because you know what the “D” stands for as a party, and you don’t want to give that side of the aisle any additional power. Better a half-empty glass rather than a completely empty glass, you say to yourself. The letter “D” to a hard-core registered “R” has a taint to it. And vice versa. A hard-core registered “D” will NEVER pull the lever for an “R” candidate no matter how perfectly that “R” candidate matches that “D” voter’s politics. There’s no getting around that.

But if you are given a choice (for your own, small representative district) among (a) the current officeholder who is in the same party as you but who is royally pissing you off, (b) another candidate who’s registered with the other party that you consider a 4-letter word, and (c) one more candidate that articulates exactly what your thoughts and concerns are for the fiscal/economic situation at hand, but is not a member of “that other evil party”… you MAY be inclined to check the box for that third option.

Given that many, many more Democrat politicians in solid-D districts would be the targets, it’s a win-win situation for Conservatives. You get to maintain (for the most part) the existing Republicans in congress (at least the ones who are doing their jobs), and you open up an avenue for fiscal conservatives to pick up those otherwise untouchable seats.

Instead of treating the “third party” issue as a way of making the Republicans the Whig Party 2.0 (like too many conservatives have thought of doing since Ross Perot in ‘92), we’d instead be making the Democrat Party the Whig Party 2.0 — diminishing it to the smallest pocket of far-left socialists that they really are, and making them a perpetual small minority, politically. And the Republicans with the “third” party members would be better able to develop coalitions on key legislation (fiscal issues, foreign policy, etc.).

What are your thoughts?


West Coast Catholic said...

I going with the Zags all the way.

A foolish pick...perhaps, but my prayers are behind Fr. Gonzaga.

WCC +<><

TheBitterAmerican said...

Mike, I believe we already have, in part, the NAT Party. Its called "libertarians."

But I like your idea.

FWIW, the whole Ross Perot debacle was a media creation (sound familiar?)designed to deflect attention away from serious, well thought-out alternatives to the two-party system.

Personally, what will diminish the scope of the Democrats is already happening: newspapers are being shunned left and right because they distort the news and skew it towards a positive Democratic spin. Unless that changes - soon! - the Dems will be stuck having no outlet for their version of the truth.

BTW - it's Ed A. here!

Trubador said...

Hi Ed! The "libertarians" like most other current "third parties" are diminished in the eyes of the public. The Green Party, the Reform Party, and the Libertarian Party all have been marginalized by their own followers. All other pre-existing "third parties" are the fringe of the fringe.

The Greens are seen basically as johnny-one-notes on militant environmentalism (with socialism/communism thrown in for good measure).

The Libertarians are known for their "anything goes" extremism at the expense of morals and ethics (legalize drugs, prostitution, abortion, gay marriage, whatever... just "don't bother me and I won't bother you", mixed with "no government or regulations at all, just a military to keep the bad guys out").

The Reform party was a small group of moderates mixed with some frustrated (R)s who championed populism in the package of a first-class cranked (Perot), then veered off track with Buchanan, then congregated around another crank (Ron Paul).

Both existing main parties (R) and (D) are not looked too kindly - not only by the opposition, but also from within.

The Constitution Party (about 80-90% spot on, platform-wise) would be wise to make the transition by teaming with the New American Tea Party movement. Unfortunately, it's that other 10-20% of their platform they strays into conspiracy-land and dangerous isolationism.

Who knows!