By Edwin Cooney
When one studies the rise and dominance of our political parties, Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR, Nixon, Reagan, and, finally, D. J. Trump all come to mind. Space for this commentary doesn't allow me to justify why I designate all of the above presidents as party movers and shakers, but I will now compare and contrast the following presidents as examples of what I'm driving at.
Early in the 1960’s, Republicans decided that because of their emphasis on states' rights and limited government, they would never be successful in attracting the "Negro vote." Thus, the party under its then national chairman William E. Miller (whom Barry Goldwater would select as his vice presidential running mate in 1964) adapted its "Southern strategy." By the time Richard Nixon was inaugurated in 1969, he began following the concepts of states' rights, limited government and a hawkish foreign policy which were a tradition of post World War II Republicanism appealing to Senator Goldwater's 1964 constituency. Almost as significant was the fact that the GOP positions on both domestic and foreign policies were counter to those of Lyndon B. Johnson — the president who had failed in Vietnam and whose civil rights programs increasingly irritated millions of northern middle class mainstream voters. Hence, throughout his presidency and beyond, Richard Nixon (who as vice president under Ike was largely regarded as a moderate mainstream politician) often called himself a conservative. .
Conservatism began to come into its own during the 1970’s. The 1976 candidacy and the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan brought conservatism out of the fringes of political thinking into the mainstream of American thought and existence. The most articulate and personable president since JFK, Mr. Reagan was a highly successful practitioner of conservatism rather than an elitist Intellectual. Even more powerful was a principle he had been stating since 1966 when he was elected governor of California. It was what he called the Eleventh Commandment: "Thou shall not speak ill of another Republican." One might openly oppose another Republican seeking the same office you were (such as Gerald Ford in 1976 and George H. W. Bush in 1980), but such disagreements were never to be about that Republican's honesty or his personal abilities.
President Reagan's appeal was wide and deep. It extended beyond ideology and attracted Independents and Democrats. That isn't to say that Mr. Reagan wasn't determined to prevail. (After all, Thomas M. DeFrank recorded in his book "Write it When I'm Gone” about Jerry Ford that the one thing that drew Ford and Jimmy Carter together was Ford's resentment of Reagan's attempt to deny him the presidential nomination in his own right in 1976.) However, from the beginning to the end of Mr. Reagan's political career, he was a good politician even through the rough spots in 1976 and 1980.
Until the nomination and election of Donald Trump, the Reagan legacy was at the soul of the Republican party. Now, something else has overshadowed it. Some call it a form of populism. Others insist that "Trumpism" is a prelude to autocracy. (Note that conservatives throughout the 1950’s, 60’s and 70’s used to warn about a “steady, deadly drift to the left.” However, Trumpism, as I see it, represents a steady, deadly rush to the autocratic right!)
What's baffling about the GOP since the election last month has more to do with the party than it has to do with the president himself. Historically, partisans in both parties have insisted that politics should "stop at the water's edge." Exactly where the land ends and the water begins in 2020 and on into 2021 (or perhaps as late as 2024) is the question. Presidents John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, Grover Cleveland, Benjamin Harrison, Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush and their contemporaries accepted their political defeats, for the most part, with grace and dignity.
Contrary to both tradition and plain old-fashioned patriotism, today GOP leaders, along with President Trump, appear to believe that the election of a very moderate and traditional Democrat poses a serious and permanent threat to our national well-being.
What does this tell us about today's GOP? What has Mr. Lincoln's party become? Is it still a political party capable of accommodating men and women of a kindred philosophy such as conservatism or liberalism while allowing differences of understanding or approaches to national issues? Should President Trump expect to remain its leader four years from now? Is it likely that possible GOP candidates can afford or would be willing to put their ambitions on hold to accommodate someone of the character of President Trump? Has the Republican Party truly become exclusively Mr. Trump's party? If so, how does that status differ from a social or religious cult?
As 2021 approaches, there are signs both ways. Republican governors such as Brian Kemp in Georgia, and Doug Ducey in Arizona along with election officials and Republican judges and even attorney General William Barr have publicly stated that there is no evidence of significant fraud in the 2020 election results. On the other hand, some pretty prominent Republican leaders are clearly more interested in the president's right to protest the results of the recent election than they are interested in a tranquil and helpful transition from one administration to another for the benefit of a free but vulnerable public during a national pandemic.
In order to belong to a cult, one must fully endorse and be accountable to a social or a religious philosophy or leader. It's difficult if not impossible to believe that the 21st Century Republican Party isn't rapidly becoming a cult. When political parties become cults they invariably become authoritarian rather than democratic. Anyone who defies the leader of a cult often risks his or her safety and sometimes even his or her life!
The most prominent nations to adopt such cults were led by men named Hitler and Stalin! While you may legitimately insist that President Trump is neither Hitler nor Stalin, he is pretty close to being a David Koresh or perhaps an L Ron Hubbard — neither of whom would be my idea of a president of the United States!
What say you?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
No comments:
Post a Comment