#rockefeller republican

[hale-my-nathan]

Trump Weird News - Pre-Trump Republican Beliefs

[hale-my-nathan]

Cannot convince me a DNC staffer isn't behind this blog.

As I told you I am a Rockefeller Republican, but thanks for the suggestion, I will submit my Bill to the DNC.

[arlingtonpark]

George Pataki (Who?) Drops Out.

George Pataki has dropped out of the race, joining Graham, Walker, and Perry in the “historical footnote” column of people who ran for President in 2016. 

The interesting thing about Pataki isn’t the person himself, but rather what he represents. What does he represent? Well, let’s just say that the fact that he was a historical footnote really speaks to how much the Republican Party has changed in the last 40 years. 

Huddle around the camp fire because I’m about to spin a little tale:

We all know the way things are today: The Democratic Party is the party of liberalism and the Republican Party is the party of conservatism. This, however, was not always the case. A lot of people point to how the North used to be Republican while the south used to be Democratic and say that the parties have switched places on the political spectrum over time. This is not entirely true: 40 years ago, both parties had both a liberal and a conservative faction to them. There were conservative democrats, and liberal republicans (AKA Rockefeller Republicans). 

From the 1940s to the 1970s the liberal republicans, led by their namesake, Nelson Rockefeller, who was Governor of New York from 1959-1973 and then Vice President from 1974-1977, were the dominant faction of the GOP. They were centrist on economic issues, supporting a safety net for the poor and were willing to raise taxes in the name of balancing the budget. On social issues they were mostly centrist and sometimes even liberal. Rockefeller Republican and New York Senator Jacob Javits, for example, supported anti-discrimination legislation throughout his career, including the Voting Rights Act. 

So what happened to them? Well, Reagan happened to them. The biggest rival with the Rockefeller Republicans for dominance in the GOP was the Conservative faction. This faction went through a number of iterations between the 1930s and the 1970s, each one being more conservative than the last. 

The first iteration, called the Old Right, was most prominently led by Senator Robert Taft of Ohio. (Taft was the son of former President William Howard Taft.) They were conservative on social and economic issues, but were dovish on foreign policy. The Old Right was supplanted by the New Right in the 1960s. The New Righters were led by Barry Goldwater and they were noticeably more hawkish on foreign policy than the Old Righters.  The 1970s saw the rise of the third and current iteration of the New Right, AKA movement conservatism, led by Ronald Reagan. This third iteration added in a strong religious element to the mix. The Reaganites won out and have been the dominant faction of the Republican Party since the late 1970s. The liberal Republican politicians were ultimately replaced by Democrats, much in the same way that conservative Democrats were replaced by Republicans. 

Pataki was one of only two people in the race who could claim to be a Rockefeller Republican, or at least to be in the mold of one. The other candidate is New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Christie is more conservative than Pataki, but nonetheless, he is now the most moderate candidate in the GOP race, and therefore is the closest thing to a Rockefeller Republican in the race. He has a shot at winning the support of the GOP establishment, and from there he would have a good chance of winning the nomination. If nominated, he would be the most moderate nominee in over 60 years, at least. However, the current favorite to win establishment support is Marco Rubio, who is actually just as conservative as Ted Cruz is. It’s just that, unlike Cruz, Rubio isn’t a jackass so they support him over Cruz even though they’re ideologically similar. If nominated, Rubio would be the most conservative nominee since Barry Goldwater over 50 years ago. The same is true for Ted Cruz. 

The Rockefeller Republicans have been down for some time, but there is still a glimmer of hope for them yet. 

This is entirely speculative, and it’s still far to early to tell, but if Ted Cruz wins the GOP nomination, I wouldn’t be surprised if he ends up being looked back on as the new Barry Goldwater. Not just because he would lose in a land-slide, but because, like Goldwater, he might herald the rise of a fourth iteration of the GOP’s conservative faction. It’ll be interesting to see if this actually happens. 

[kinginmyownmind]

While this isn't a new sentiment by Dr. West, his latest assessment on the election results have garnered more attention on this growing divide. The divide isn't necessarily in Black America as it has long been divide. The divide seems to be more concentrated in what was once the epicenter of the Black Intellectual Movement. This is truly a sad state to be in.

Growing up I received my own intellectual birth, of sorts, watching Dr. West, Dr. Dyson, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Angela Glover Blackwell, Rev Farrakhan, Dr. Julianne Malveaux and quite a few other experts in their field moderated by both Tavis Smiley and Tom Joyner...It was an amazing sight for my young eyes and nascent intellectual sensibilities. I clung to these symposiums and watched them relentlessly repeatedly. My desire to be informed and integrated into the understanding of what truly was/is the Black Condition in the United States of America.

They didn't just put on a show in the tradition of the Black Church where you charge admission hoot holler and profit off the spiritual uplift in the moment then just move on...they took that Black tradition of call and response, spiritual uplift, and added some depth to it. They came armed with facts, statistics, a history of actions and inaction with the resulting consequence. EVEN bigger they took it a step further and used their collection of brilliant minds, not just preachers and activist, but professors, economist, lawyers, business minds along with grassroots activism and constructed A Plan! This was supposed to be a transformative act. And it was...for a while...while the access across the table was the same at least while the Bush Administration was in office.

The Black agenda was held up by all at the table...was contributed to by all at the table...this was a type of unification of thought into real actionable steps that has never been as localized and publicized in history. Then Barack Obama made a splash at the DNC...conversations around race in America started to change a bit. The tone was more hopeful...this talk of Change started to gain momentum.In short order The Chicago Senator a proud and vocal African-American that lifted up his white mother and grandmother's love and efforts in raising him was the prime candidate of Change in America.

Early on there wasn't the 90+ percent support by African Americans, but then his message started to get more traction all over and he landed Iowa, then his brilliant run took off. That wasn't all that took off as expectations and heartfelt hope was soaring at an all-time high. Finally a person has emerged to fulfill the implied or imagined prophecy that "The Dream" shall be realized. President Obama is the change 'We' have been waiting on...

I lay all that out to paint the source of this seeming discontent from the West/Smiley "faction" to which ideologically I am aligned, but going the way of ugly which in effect muddies the dialogue I am not party to. I get the frustration that lies in a mix of disappointment and feeling duped by your own disillusion. But to muddy the dialogue with ugliness only works to overshadow the issues, which should always be the priority. Cool, you think President is a "Rockefeller Republican" (moderate/center-right) in disguise...fine, but why Blackface? That doesn't add or even apply to what the dialogue should be about...it makes the response personal therefore petty...

Dr. West is better than that and the people he represent should expect better. We don't need to tear each other down to lift up our community.I don't think it will change in such a way that the two sides will join hands and have meaningful and needed dialogue on the issues around prison profiteering and providing greater paths out of poverty (financial and environmental). This seems to be another example of where the elders are not being mindful of where they should be the examples of putting ego to the side to elevate the agenda. Leaving the youth one less stable place to get their bearings.

There are too many leaks to plug to be using a free finger to point at what the next man is or isn't doing.

Do Better ~

[monstarr]

lol @ the idea that obama is a 'radical left wing socialist'

he's actually the best republican we've had in years

[dissiderata-blog]

From a Bygone Era

"Over his 18 years in the Senate, Mr. Percy averaged a 52 percent rating from the liberal Americans for Democratic Action and only 30 percent from the American Conservative Union. With the party having moved steadily to the right since then, it was a rating few if any Republicans would receive today."  [SOURCE]

On former Republican Senator Charles Percy of Illinois, September 27, 1919 – September 17, 2011.

And one more note.  A great quote from his NYTimes obituary.

“Percy’s passing reminds us that today’s Republican Party is not your mother’s Republican Party.”

Thomas C. Mann, a Congressional scholar at the Brookings Institution [SOURCE]

This quote from Mann, is phenomenal. 

Percy was not the average Republican of his day.  But a party that did not expel (attempt to execute is probably more appropriate...) him on sight is indeed a very different type of party!  It must be noted however, that there were lots of Republicans in the 1960s and 1970s who accused his type of not being real Republicans because of their moderate political views.