Patterico's Pontifications

5/8/2016

Trump: The Republican Party Is Not Called the Conservative Party

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:19 pm

A little “fuck you” to conservatives from the Trumpmeister:

And I’m a conservative, but don’t forget, this is called the Republican Party. It’s not called the Conservative Party.

He’s right, you know. Well, not about the part where he said he’s a conservative. That part is a lie. But the other part, the part where he talked about the name of the Republican party? He’s right about that.

And, you know, it got me thinking.

What if there were a party called the “Conservative Party”?

Guess what? It turns out there is! Technically, the name is the “American Conservative Party.”

I don’t really know much about them. But I went to their Web site, and read through this document, which is their statement of principles.

And I’ll be damned if I can find anything in there that I disagree with. Here is the beginning, to give you a taste:

The American Conservative Party represents a brand of Conservatism that we believe best reflects the true and noble intentions of our Founders, which in turn reflected the conclusions of thousands of years of human civilization.

We strongly believe in the freedoms and liberties ingrained in our founding documents; and we support the Constitution as it is written–to protect, among other things, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to petition the government, and the right to keep and bear arms.

American Conservatism stands for small, limited government at every level. It stands strongly for individual responsibility and a civil society where individuals take on duties to take care of their own communities, and where Government is the resource of last resort.

Taxes should be levied for the sole purpose of financing the limited responsibilities of government such as providing for the common defense, apprehending and incarcerating criminals, and adjudicating legal disputes. No taxes should be levied [for] redistribution of wealth.

These ideals were first laid out in the form of our Creed and have served as the cornerstone of our agenda since our founding in 2008. As a Party driven by Principles, we offer this document to effectively expound on those ideals and lay down a framework for a return to limited, enumerated, and federalist government in the United States.

Amen. Right?

I don’t know what I think about the idea of a third party. I am not thrilled with the libertarian candidates. Gary Johnson would force bakers to make cakes whether they agree with the message or not. Austin Petersen has rubbed me the wrong way when I heard him on a podcast. There are other minor parties — like the Conservative Party USA (CP-USA, not to be confused with CPUSA, the Communist Party of the USA), which endorsed Ted Cruz but had some warm things to say about Trump. Pass! There’s the Constitution Party, which seems a little bigger than some of the other minor parties, but I’m not sure I buy into the whole paleoconservative movement, which strikes me as kind of wacky.

The American Conservative Party is clearly not a major force in U.S. politics. Their organization appears to be somewhere between zero and, well, zero. But I do recommend you read their statement of principles. It’s pretty damned well thought out.

And, unlike the Republican Party, they do have “Conservative” in their name. So there’s that!

Comments (39)

39 Responses to “Trump: The Republican Party Is Not Called the Conservative Party”

I just think it would be funny if actual conservatives with influence took over this party and made a splash. Oh, Republicans are not called the Conservative Party, Donnie? Then we’ll vote for a party that does have that name!

I don’t know, the thought amuses me.
Patterico (86c8ed) — 5/8/2016 @ 11:20 pm
Φωνή βοώντος εν τη ερήμω.
nk (dbc370) — 5/8/2016 @ 11:57 pm
I would prefer a party called the “Federalist Party” in the sense that a return to a true federal system with sovereign states in federation with a central government that deals only with collective needs (security, interstate this-and-that, coinage, the borders and foreign affairs) like was envisioned in Article I, Section 8 and 9 and a few other places in the Constitution. Much along he idea of the Federalist Society, and pushing back against the Democrat (and now Republican) idea of a unitary national state.

But I have said for years that the Republican Party has never been a Conservative Party, mainly because a broad-based party in a two-party system must span to the center. A lot of people think otherwise, and are then resentful that there are centrists that call themselves Republicans. They erroneously call these people RINOs, when they are perfectly fine GOP party members.

The only way you can be a Republicans in name only is to call yourself a Republican while not voting for the Republican. Trump is not the RINO — we who won’t vote for him are the RINOs, so long as we still claim to be members of that party.

Perhaps it is time we stopped.

Again, I will point out that it costs ABSOLUTELY no money in California to start a new political party. And if you get a mere 1 in 300 registered voters to join your party, it’s official with seals and ribbons and everything.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 5/9/2016 @ 1:13 am
The problem with “Conservative” is that if you ask three people you will get 4 definitions.

Conservative can mean:

Socially conservative, with a variety of changes that one opposes. Does it include wanting to return to Jim Crow? It once did. OK, how about women’s lib (or even suffrage)? Most people today would argue it relates to abortion and SSM, but there are others who would go further. And the whole idea of a Bible-based society plays into this mix.

Or maybe just fiscally conservative, wanting sound money, a balanced budget and maybe even the gold standard. Plenty of people who believe this while not giving a rat’s ass about SSM. Are the Kochs conservative?

There are Scoop-Jackson Democrats who want to return to the New Deal era welfare state, and view that era as the good-old-days. Dole wanted to return to the 50s as well, and everyone says HE was Conservative.

So, when Trump and Buchanan and Webb call themselves Conservative,they are not necessarily wrong.

The word has just lost all meaning.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 5/9/2016 @ 1:25 am
The Constitution Party (originally the US Taxpayers Party) has combined with the American Independent Party (still called that in CA) which was Wallace’s vehicle in 1968. They don’t still want to return to Jim Crow, but they’ve not moved a heck of a lot further than that. I guess this makes them neo-paleoconservative.

Then there’s the Reform Party which still exists after Perot abandoned it to a parade of losers who seem confused about ideology. In 2000, the party nominated Pat Buchanan (and a rump group nominated John Hagelin) and in 2004 they nominated Ralph Nader. Even the GOP hasn’t gone that far.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 5/9/2016 @ 1:42 am
Quote: “They erroneously call these people RINOs, when they are perfectly fine GOP party members.”

Just one little fly in that ointment. Those perfectly fine GOP party members are acting and governing in direct opposition to the quite explicitly stated Republican party platform principles. To those who have no principles, I suppose that doesn’t count. If you stand for nothing, you’ll fall for anything, as demonstrated convincingly in this presidential primary. Anyone who tries to make the claim that Trump is not a RINO has willfully embedded themselves in that category.
Luke Stywalker (d2b053) — 5/9/2016 @ 1:53 am
Don’t we need two parties before we have three?
mg (31009b) — 5/9/2016 @ 2:40 am
We have had a lot of right leaning minor parties fall over here. Not a 2 party system (switched to proportional a few years back now), but you will always have large, big church parties that have factions within and dissatisfied factions.

Best to stick to existing structures and persaude people to your cause.
scrubone (13efcb) — 5/9/2016 @ 3:03 am
romney, kristol, lindsey, juan and the rest of these pouting babies must make the no trump crowd proud.
mg (31009b) — 5/9/2016 @ 3:20 am
Stephanopoulos Sunday @ Patterico.

Might as well dump this. Stephanopoulos, ABC have not fully disclosed Clinton ties: Schweizer

even though he has apologized to his viewers for keeping this information from both his audience and his bosses, there is much that Stephanopoulos has yet to disclose to his viewers. Indeed, far from being a passive donor who strokes Clinton Foundation checks from afar, a closer look reveals that Stephanopoulos is an ardent and engaged Clinton Foundation advocate.

For example, in his on air apology for this ethical mess, Stephanopoulos did not disclose that in 2006 he was a featured attendee and panel moderator at the annual meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI).
He did not disclose that in 2007, he was a featured attendee at the CGI annual meeting, a gathering also attended by several individuals I report on in Clinton Cash, including mega Clinton Foundation donors Lucas Lundin, Frank Giustra, Frank Holmes, and Carlos Slim — individuals whose involvement with the Clintons I assumed he had invited me on his program to discuss.

Stephanopoulos did not disclose that he was a 2008 panelist at the CGI annual meeting which, once again, featured individuals I report on in the book, such as billionaire Clinton Foundation foreign donor Denis O’Brien.

ABC’s most visible news employee did not disclose that in 2009, he served as a panel moderator at CGI’s annual meeting, nor did he disclose that in 2010 and 2011, he was an official CGI member.

Stephanopoulos did not disclose that in 2013 and 2014, he and Chelsea Clinton served as CGI contest judges for awards, in part, underwritten by Laureate International Universities — a for-profit education company I report on in the book. Bill Clinton was on its payroll until his recent resignation.

Obviously, Stephanopoulos has favorable feelings toward Hillary and Bill Clinton; he gives their foundation his money and his time. Big-time news media personalities have one thing in very short supply — time. Regular participation in Clinton Foundation events shows a deeper commitment to the Clintons than just the donations.
Perhaps if Stephanopoulos weren’t so close to the subject of my book, he might have asked me about my reporting on Hillary Clinton’s brother, Tony Rodham, serving on the board of a company that scored a coveted and rare gold mining permit in Haiti as the Clintons directed the flow of U.S. Agency for International Development dollars. (As The Washington Post reported, Rodham met those mining executives at a CGI meeting.)

Indeed, Stephanopoulos could have pounded away at all the book’s news. He chose not to. Instead, he made sure to highlight the four months I wrote speeches for President George W. Bush and my long past financial supporters, all while keeping quiet about his deep and longstanding involvement in the Clintons’ foundation, and the three annual checks for $25,000 that he wrote.

What ABC News’ top anchor has done is far different than the “honest mistake” ABC called it in a statement earlier this week.

I asked ABC News about the fact that this information was yet to be disclosed to ABC viewers, and mostly they avoided my questions, releasing a statement that reads in full, “Yes, George made us aware that he was moderating these panels and that is absolutely within our guidelines. We know that he would be listed as a member — as all moderators are. He is in good company of scores of other journalists that have moderated these panels.”

That, however, is not at all what the Clinton Foundation website says about CGI membership. Read for yourself. Whether ABC News will ultimately punish Stephanopoulos is unclear.

What is certain is that Stephanopoulos’ ethical malpractice and hidden-hand journalism have done further injury to an essential, if beleaguered, institution, one already battling to preserve legitimacy.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 5/9/2016 @ 3:38 am
Unless a miracle occurs before November and the existing primaries don’t pull up Trump.

We have Satin or Biff to vote for

At least Biff may buy 4 hears and Fire Satin
jrt (bc7456) — 5/9/2016 @ 5:09 am
Gary Johnson would force bakers to make cakes whether they agree with the message or not.

That’s as anti-libertarian as it gets. Some libertarians seem to believe opposing religious people and being an atheist are libertarian principles.

But voting third party in this election isn’t really about the candidate, it’s just a way of saying “none of the above”.
Gerald A (945582) — 5/9/2016 @ 5:48 am
Its a coalition party like the original had abolitionists, Whigs and knownothings, capisce.
narciso (1b4366) — 5/9/2016 @ 6:01 am
Hugh Hewitt wrote this recently:

“…It is Trump’s choice. I’ve never been #NeverTrump and am not now. I am committed to support the party’s nominee. But just like Donald Trump’s “pledge,” that commitment was premised on mutual commitments, the most basic of which is that the nominee would try to win and bring GOP majorities along with him in order to govern. If in fact he does not intend to win, but to wreck, all bets all over the country will be off….”

Now, I have said it before, and I will say it again. If Trump is serious about wanting to become President, he shouldn’t be openly trying to troll other people. He should reassure and demonstrate that he is a capable leader.

He is not. It’s his choice, and he chooses to act in a fashion that works against his own interests, if he wishes to be President. But it does work in his interests if he is trying to get HRC elected.

This is why I believe, to be honest, that he is a stealth candidate to get HRC elected.

Or, the candidate for people who want the system to burn down, no matter the cost.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 5/9/2016 @ 7:05 am
Seems as though Steve McCann at American Thinker may be a candidate for Patterico’s new effort:

If Trump loses in the general election, the recriminations and turmoil within the Republican Party will be volcanic. As the titular head of the party, Trump will lash out at everyone regardless of the long term impact on the party. The brunt of the blame and the scapegoat for the loss will be the conservative movement and its offshoot the Tea Party, as Trump and his allies will claim they were insufficiently enthusiastic about the party’s nominee and too insistent on the importance of social issues and the Constitution. The party elites and Trump will persist in marginalizing conservatism as being arcane, extreme and unworkable. Under the influence of Donald Trump, the Party, as it veers further to the left, will lose its mooring and begin a long slide into oblivion.

Over the past three decades conservatives have been loyal to and have worked tirelessly within the Party, whether at the grass roots level turning out the vote for the mid-term election cycles or dutifully voting for moderate presidential candidates. However, regardless of whether Trump wins or loses in November, the 2016 primary season and the nomination of Donald Trump will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, as a vast number of conservatives are coming to the realization that it is time for the conservative movement to stop being the battered spouse. The heroic campaign of Ted Cruz against overwhelming odds and grotesque personal attacks is the last hurrah for conservatism within the Republican Party.

Conservatism is not dead or dying. It is alive and well in the hearts of a vast plurality of men and women who know that constitutional conservatism can and will rescue this nation and place it again on a path of individual freedom, limited government and prosperity. But it has become painfully clear that it can only do so as a viable independent political entity. The oft expressed stratagem of working within the party to promote conservatism and assume leadership is no longer even remotely doable.

The time has come to convene a meeting or convention of prominent conservative elected politicians, academics and pundits from around the country and begin the process of forming a new conservative party rather than rush headfirst into a suicidal third party candidacy to oppose Trump this November. A tactic that would cause the conservative movement to lose an enormous amount of credibility.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/05/trump_the_republican_party_and_the_future_of_conservatism.html#ixzz48AXveIJZ
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Rev. Hoagie ™ (734193) — 5/9/2016 @ 7:33 am
Yeah, let’s not fight the enemy because he will blame us for losing.
nk (dbc370) — 5/9/2016 @ 7:37 am
You guys are missing the whole point. When “progressive” fell into disrepute the left changed its nomenclature to “liberal”. After a time liberal went down the crapper so they switched back to progressive. The left has spent 70 years indoctrinating our kids, manipulating the news and TV shows and using Hollywood and the media to marginalize the word “conservative”. They have succeeded. So let’s do what they do, let’s change the name. Find an attractive adjective we can turn into a noun. I’m being nutty here but The Pretty Party. If you’re not Pretty then you must be ugly. Like they do with progressive. What’s the opposite of progressive? Regressive. So conservatives must be regressive.
Rev. Hoagie ™ (734193) — 5/9/2016 @ 7:47 am
Whatever name that a right-leaning political entity has in the US, from here on out it’s going to be an increasingly uphill battle based on opinion polls that show a larger percentage of younger Americans than in the past are enthralled with socialism instead of capitalism. Throw in how that same crowd, in tandem with other Americans in general, are either delighted with or complacent about increasingly leftist social-cultural trends, and I’d say the one name of a political party that will ping the nonsensical consciousness of too much of the populace is “Leftwing Party.”

I’ve sometimes wondered whether “Republican” sounds too vague or dowdy in this era of hip and trendy, that maybe a name like “Common Sense Party” that contains self-explanatory qualities would be helpful. But I look at Mexico where their version of the Republican Party, or the “National Action Party” (PAN), has remained no less marginalized through the decades in competition with Mexico’s counterpart to the US’s Democrat Party, or “Institutional Revolution Party” (PRI), and I realize even a liberal entity called the “Stuck on Stupid Party” won’t phase many voters sympathetic towards lazy compassion and cheap, greedy do-gooder ideas.
Mark (b2a63a) — 5/9/2016 @ 7:53 am
These guys have a point that Tiny Donnie will shift the blame. He always shifts the blame. But better to excise the cancer and then take the heat for the scarring caused by the operation.
nk (dbc370) — 5/9/2016 @ 7:56 am
The Conservative Party is not organized here in Colorado. Colorado is one of the easiest states to organize in. So it could be started here. You can organize as a Qualified Political Organization just by filing paperwork. It takes 1,000 registered electors to become a Minor Party. I’m a registered Libertarian, have been since 1984. See also ballot-access.org. It’s run by Richard Winger, probably the nation’s best expert on ballot access.
David Aitken (e0d788) — 5/9/2016 @ 8:08 am
If there’s anything we’ve learned about “conservativism” over the last twenty years, it’s that however you define it, the voters are in general not for it.

Free trade and free enterprise, for example, is a minority viewpoint even in this little community, it’s not popular with voters at all. And limited government, as much as people commenting here favor it, is not what the broader population wants either, since they keep voting for people who deliver its opposite.
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 5/9/2016 @ 8:21 am
Those perfectly fine GOP party members are acting and governing in direct opposition to the quite explicitly stated Republican party platform principles

Platforms change. The GOP of 2012 was not the GOP of 1972, which was not the GOP of 1932, etc.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 5/9/2016 @ 10:21 am
There will be at lest an attempt to avoid Trump at the Convention. Someone will move to free the delegates, on the basis of this being too important a decision to leave to robovoting. I think it will fail, but it has to happen, and if the state party rules on binding are overridden, it may still become an open convention.

Too many people are threatened by Trump, never mind ideology. Particularly evangelicals.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 5/9/2016 @ 10:27 am
some are, some are not, it’s a little like the captain america film,

http://www.wsj.com/articles/acela-vs-trump-train-1462813426
narciso (732bc0) — 5/9/2016 @ 10:32 am
I know you’ll have the torches out,

http://www.wsj.com/articles/im-voting-trump-warts-and-all-1462739009?mod=djemMER
narciso (732bc0) — 5/9/2016 @ 10:44 am
David Horowitz just published an appalling article slamming the never Trump movement. Here is an interesting nugget:

The anti-Trump crowd seems most concerned about the personal insults that Trump used successfully to defeat his formidable and more experienced rivals. Perhaps they are forgetting the hundred million dollars worth of personal insults and attacks that were directed at Rubio and Trump by Bush’s PAC, which the candidate himself never repudiated.

I am not a fan of Karl Rove (by a long shot) but this PAC he had posted anything remotely equivalent to Trump’s morally repugnant tweet about Heidi Cruz I am sure I would have heard about it.
Tony (ff2fe4) — 5/9/2016 @ 12:26 pm
@Kevin M:Particularly evangelicals.

Like the ones who voted for him in SC?
Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 5/9/2016 @ 12:30 pm
Like the ones who voted for him in SC?

They voted for him for other reasons.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 5/9/2016 @ 12:49 pm
morally repugnant tweet

amoral trashbag liz mair started it by sending her colelction of melania porn to the sister-wives of utah
happyfeet (831175) — 5/9/2016 @ 12:54 pm
*collection* of melania porn i mean
happyfeet (831175) — 5/9/2016 @ 12:54 pm
well liz mair of baku’s pac might as have been hired by trump, for it’s over all impact, as it turns out, it was funded by don sherwood, the josh brolin of top men,
narciso (732bc0) — 5/9/2016 @ 1:01 pm
don sherwood was a big fan of the slimiest sleaziest lowest-class republican of all time arlen specter

plus meghan’s coward daddy too

ugh

i don’t think he’s a very good person, this don sherwood
happyfeet (831175) — 5/9/2016 @ 1:08 pm
I’ve made this point in various places including I believe here. The Republican Party while historically the more conservative of the two major parties over the last 90 years (and based on some metrics back to its founding) is not required by the U.S. Constitution to be “conservative”.
Mark Johnson (af5fe5) — 5/9/2016 @ 3:33 pm
you’ve clearly been brainwashed by a predatory bathroom tranny

nice try
happyfeet (831175) — 5/9/2016 @ 4:01 pm
Simon at #14 is looking more and more correct. Frightening to me, as I never believe in conspiracies.

Now, I have said it before, and I will say it again. If Trump is serious about wanting to become President, he shouldn’t be openly trying to troll other people. He should reassure and demonstrate that he is a capable leader.

He is not. It’s his choice, and he chooses to act in a fashion that works against his own interests, if he wishes to be President. But it does work in his interests if he is trying to get HRC elected.

This is why I believe, to be honest, that he is a stealth candidate to get HRC elected.

Or, the candidate for people who want the system to burn down, no matter the cost.

Simon Jester (c8876d) — 5/9/2016 @ 7:05 am
Steve Malynn (1d7837) — 5/9/2016 @ 4:19 pm
‘feets, I for one will be happy when your tourettes’ act goes away.
Steve Malynn (1d7837) — 5/9/2016 @ 4:21 pm
The WaPo is now noticing that “Trump is effectively running to the left of Clinton on many issues”

Again, I have to ask the GOP what the F do they think they are doing? They do NOT have to nominate Trump. The delegate bindings can be broken by a majority vote at the Convention, and individual state parties can change their own rules. HE OBVIOUSLY LIED about his “evolution” in the primaries to fool the chumps, and the Convention does not have to be a suicide pact.

At a campaign rally here in one of the most liberal towns in America, Donald Trump offered praise for an unusual party: avowed democratic socialist Bernie Sanders.

“Now, I’m no fan of Bernie Sanders, but he is 100 percent right,” Trump told a crowd here this weekend. “He is 100 percent right: Hillary Clinton is totally controlled by the people that put up her money. She’s totally controlled by Wall Street.”

That’s not the only area where the presumptive Republican nominee sounds like Sanders, who is challenging Clinton for the Democratic nomination. On a series of issues, including free trade and foreign military intervention, Trump is effectively running to the left not only of his own party but also of Clinton.

For weeks, Trump has openly praised Sanders, crediting the senator from Vermont for raising questions about the former secretary of state’s judgment on campaign finance, trade and foreign policy. He has also pointed to Sanders’s questioning of Clinton’s qualifications as a sign that the topic is fair game.

“NAFTA has been one of the great economic disasters. Who signed it? Clinton. Clinton,” Trump said Saturday at a rally in Lynden, Wash. He was referring to the North American Free Trade Agreement, which was actually signed by George H.W. Bush but was implemented through legislation signed by Bill Clinton.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-donald-trump-is-running-to-the-left-of-hillary-clinton/2016/05/09/ebde82da-147c-11e6-8967-7ac733c56f12_story.html
Kevin M (25bbee) — 5/9/2016 @ 9:01 pm
‘feets, I for one will be happy when your tourettes’ act goes away.

Failing that …
Kevin M (25bbee) — 5/9/2016 @ 9:04 pm
The WaPo is now noticing that “Trump is effectively running to the left of Clinton on many issues”

I’m always leery of people of liberal orientation, such as those working at the Washington Post — but in the media in general — categorizing who or what is left, right or center. Liberals are generally ass-backwards or disingenuous about the good and bad in people and situations, often transposing the two, so they’re therefore also more liable to be the same way in judging ideology and people’s political orientation.

In this case, saying that a person who agrees with a leftist like Sanders for berating Hillary for being beholden to her fundraisers, which is pretty much a given, doesn’t make that person a leftist — or somehow even left of Hillary — too.

In regards to subjects like NAFTA, they occupy an ideologically nebulous area, in which I can see a variety of either staunch liberals or staunch conservatives coming down on either side of such matters.

I will say that a person has to be fairly liberal or leftwing to observe the squish-squish squishiness of Trump and nonetheless flinch at him the way they’d flinch at a rock-ribbed conservative. That’s why people who have a soft spot in their heart for Hillary — due to her, in their mind, wondrous liberalism and beautiful compassion — but who feel the opposite way towards Trump — because of his (in their eyes) perceived big-meanie rightism — are quite viscerally, emotionally, mindlessly leftwing.
Mark (b2a63a) — 5/9/2016 @ 9:32 pm

5/8/2016

Trump: The Republican Party Is Not Called the Conservative Party

39 Responses to “Trump: The Republican Party Is Not Called the Conservative Party”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out