search
top

Northeast Republican Fossil

This guy should be put in a museum, because if you looked up “Northeastern Republican” in the dictionary, I think you’d find a picture of this fossil.  In this he claims that Republican Party is becoming a regional party of the South.  While to some degree that’s true, I think guys like this are a big part of the reason the GOP has virtually lost all of the Northeast, including the Philadelphia Suburbs.  The nature of their environment changed, and they were unable to adapt.  We know how that worked out for the dinosaurs, and so it seems to have worked out for Northeastern Republicans.

11 Responses to “Northeast Republican Fossil”

  1. Jessup says:

    I think if you listen more closely to Batchelor, and not just concentrate on his “party of the South” comments, you’ll find he makes a couple key points, even if he does go off the track (IMO) from time to time. At least twice he observed that the Republican Party is supposed to be about “liberty.” I don’t remember if he used the word “instead,” but I will. Instead, what it has come to be about are a laundry list of what Batchelor calls “wedge issues,” that if anything are anti-liberty. About the only two issues that the Republican Party uses — mainly for talking points — that are at all liberty-related are gun rights and taxes. The rest are hot-button social conservative issues that implicitly would require bigger and more intrusive government to carry out their program, and are probably only justified as “conservative” on the basis that they are somehow “traditional.” There is some degree of truth in the assertion that “the northeast” is socially “liberal” and economically “conservative,” while “the south” is more simplistically “traditional.” That largely explains why, when the Republican Party strays from its anti-tax issues and identifies strongly with its social conservative issues, it loses big in the Northeast and most suburban population centers. It is unfortunate that when it does, its only liberty related issue lose with it.

  2. Jim W says:

    FYI, the republicans largely came to power as a reaction to the democrats overreaching on social issues.

    What passes for “conservative” in NYC (where this guy is) isn’t going to understand this or he’ll outright reject it.

  3. Weer'd Beard says:

    There are certainly some very conservative Democrats here in Mass, our Republicans are all over the map. As for Maine, it appears that it’s Republicans are also dinos as well.

    Still the Free State movement in New Hampshire will hopefully inject some new light into the smaller government politics in the North East

    • Bitter says:

      Weer’d Beard, explain to me how the Free State movement is making New Hampshire an experiment in smaller government. Granted, I haven’t lived a stone’s throw from the border in many years, but a cursory observation indicates that they are no more closer to a smaller government before. In fact, it would seem (and maybe this is bias based on the kinds of news sources I tend to read) that they actually fight more big government legislation than they did before. If there is success you would point to in terms of overall trends toward actual smaller government, please share because I haven’t followed as closely. I would like to see positive signs instead of what I can see from down here which is more and more blue.

  4. Sebastian says:

    I agree the GOP being the party of social conservatism has hurt them, but being upset over a lot of the legitimate anger that people are showing over the Democrats attempting to turn the country into a European social welfare state that I find rather appalling. There’s not a chance to change things until 2010. In the mean time, letting the politicians know people are pissed and mobilized might give enough pause to prevent serious damage until them.

    I might agree that some tactics the tea party/town hall protesters use is disagreeable, but to denounce the whole movement as unserious and damaging I think is evidence of the attitude of Republican complacency that’s caused their downfall.

  5. emdfl says:

    This guy is a perfect example of the old (and might I say pretty-much DEAD) Rockerfeller republican party mind-set. He would be much happier over there with the other dimos, but he can’t figure how to get there and still be invited to all the great parties that his rino friends in the northeast keep throwing. Nobody(except the dimmis) will miss either him or his friends when they all disappear.

  6. Ken says:

    News flash for John Batchelor: the Tea Parties and the town hall protesters aren’t specifically Republican, and they aren’t there to help his vision of what the Republican party should be. He has no more right to determine the policies of the Tea Party than Mike Castle has to determine the policies of the NRA.

    Besides, he even talks like a stereotypical GOP country-club sissy. Are you sure this guy isn’t really just Joe Mantegna in disguise?

  7. RAH says:

    There are a lot of Democrats that are capitalists and don’t like the socialist trend. They want gov’t protection but not imposed control. There are a lot of people who went conservative because of 9/11 and just want to see a strong pro America defense posture. Many of those people are still very socially liberal. Charles of LGF seems to fit that mold.

    There are also the agnostics and anti religious who are philosophically libertarian but hate religion.

    Many GOP and center America are socially conservative and do not approve of the moral destruction of sexual mores and decency. They do not want marriage redefined and the uncommon to become common. Or the perverted to become the norm.

    Remember Reagan saw the socialistic trend of health care and the social destruction with welfare dependency.

    The sexual revolution destroyed more of the urban poor family structure by allowing sex without cost to the male; Welfare just substituted for the male and encouraged more bastards with differing fathers. These policies had moral destruction components that traditionalists and religious minded feared and the fears came true.

    The funny thing about the bible is that is full of lessons (parables) on how to structure a life and how to have parents bring up decent children and the rules children should have for parents.

    The mistakes the current period have been repeated many times in history. The Bible addresses licentiousness and moral decay. So religion is just a method to impose good social codes of conducts.

    People who hate control have trouble understanding that narcissistic behavior is a result of no social code of behavior.

    Most libertarians have already absorbed through their upbringing good social codes of behavior and are at less risk with a lack of societal control that religion provides. Those who have no internal controls often seek a theology that imposes control, like Islam. Thus the rise of the black Muslims. Christianity is too soft for them. It allows the sins and wickedness to flourish and only punishes in the so-called afterlife. Christianity is more of a self-imposed control at least in the Protestant version.

    So libertarians failed to see that their policies might work for them but not for marginal populations.

    This NE fossil is the old guard GOP and they are not part of the conservative reformation of Reagan and current Tea parties types.

    There are many common causes for liberals who are devoted to the ideals of the Constitution and conservatives.

    It seems that the historical definition of liberal may be reclaimed since progressives seems to apply to the socialists types that litter the Obama and Pelosi landscape. I wonder how many old fashion liberals are seeing how they have been dragged into socialism when they are not really socialist.

    If the GOP does not take advantage of the rise of the Tea Parties types then a new political party may form with greater strength then other minor political parties.

    Historically 3rd parties fail so I support the GOP even if they do drift and accommodate too much. At least they do not rush to doom like Obama is doing.

    Many of the moderate GOP and conservatives are like Batchelor and if there is little difference between them and the Democrats then they will not excite the passions of conservatives. Like McCain was before he picked Palin.

  8. MicroBalrog says:

    It’s a bit unfair to criticise the FSP for anything when the FSP members are not in New HAmpshire yet.

    • Bitter says:

      Almost a thousand people have already gone up there as part of the Free State Project, and I don’t exactly see the beginnings of a political revolution. Based on my limited observations, I’ve only seen it get worse. I wasn’t criticizing either, I was asking legitimate questions. If the answer is that they aren’t all there yet, then how has the plan been revised since then to reflect changing demographics against liberty?

      I mean they hit the 5,000 mark 6 years ago and still haven’t been able to turn that 10,000, much less the 20,000 they hope to reach. Given that the population has grown by at least 6.5% since 2000, their initial plan would have made them about 1.6% of the population. Based on current estimates, they would be about 1.5% if everyone lived there now. Assuming it takes another 10 years to reach their goal of 20,000, and then allowing the 5 years for people to move there, the percentage of the population will likely continue to drop.

      I would love to see it succeed. I really would. Unfortunately, I just haven’t seen much in the way of positive changes. I admit that I haven’t looked closely, so if there is evidence, feel free to share. If they have revised their goals, let me know. I was going off information from a cursory search and it may have been based on changes they have already made. If that’s the case, I’m not exactly hopeful, but I’ll concede that they are looking at political reality with real concern. If they are considering changes, I’d be curious to know about those as well.

  9. MrAmerica says:

    Re: Sebastian Said:

    The GOP has not been hurt for “being the party of social conservatism,” they have suffered for not being anything but the opposing party to the Democrats. In other words, the GOP does not really exist for anything except TALK! If the GOP was serious, it would expand on Gingrich’s “Contract with America” approach, then stand by those principles and let the Democrat oppose them.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Snowflakes in Hell » Blog Archive » Why is it that speaking out … - [...] … against extremists and the paranoid, suddenly gets you labeled as fearful of losing control over a movement, and…
top