Changing the GOP from the inside

[John_James]

@vive la insurrection

Is it safe to say I can just go off this: […]

Yeah basically. Obviously there was a lot more conversation, but I guess that hits the main points.

Define “effective”,

For the purposes of this thread: concrete results from a non mainstream political position, groups, or aspirations adopted and / or accepted by the mainstream, particularly in relation to the two major parties

• Concrete Results: Verifiable results gained by the goals of the political platform of the political ideology in question. A secondary desirable trait would be the results would be associated with said political ideology.

…So basically you’re saying that as long as you get some “verifiable results” that are in line with the stated goals of the platform, it’s considered “effective”. I guess that’s a pretty straight-laced way of defining it, but I still wouldn’t consider being “effective” in the sense you describe here as necessarily being “effective” in a more meaningful sense…as in, the sense of actual consequence that we are discussing here…the sense of being effective at rolling back government. You’re just trying to argue effectiveness at being a “squeaky wheel”. Even if I grant you that, I don’t see why it even matters. I don’t consider a “squeaky wheel” very good at affecting change so much as just being a small nuisance that doesn’t even really need to be dealt with, and can easily be ignored, or silenced with just a little grease.

(That actually turned out to be a really good metaphor didn’t it?)

1) The libertarian message hasn’t been a part of the Republican platform since…well, ever. I don’t understand where you’re getting the idea that they are the same, and thus requiring a “split”.

Wether or not that is true isn’t my point at all. My point is Ron Paul is in the Republican Party and there are growing liberterian sentiments and sympathies in America in general - prehaps due to Paul’s location (as a major GOP canidate), and some other cultural factors there is now a (relative to the past) a strong (stronger) liberterian influence in the GOP.

I don’t know (meaning I have no clue) if that will hold or not - nor do I know if it will or will not split, or if a split is desirable. This is because, as I have already stated I am in no position to asess that situation. I am saying a split would not be surprising - and if it happened, I would imagine those involved would have enough sense to do it because it is their most obvious choice as the best and most practicle thing to do.

I see what you’re saying, but even so, I still just don’t see it happening that way and being as effective as if the GOP is taken over. The reason there is such backlash against Ron Paul from the establishment is because he threatens their power seats…and he does that because people who have been influenced by him in some way are threatening to take over all over the country and at every level. Again, check out the articles in the OP. If this were all occuring in a Libertarian Party or Reform Party, no one would give a shit because they know it wouldn’t amount to anything. (Again, check out Holland’s chart). They would easily be able to shut them out enough to make virtually all their efforts be for naught and essentially ineffective (in the sense of actually affecting change and derailing the power regime). The party structure is obviously geared to make that quite easy. But if it’s one of the two major parties that gets taken over…not only do these establishment people begin to lose their seats (and therefore their power), but there’s nothing they can really do to stop it. That’s why you see all this. They really are scared.

I do not see a split as “inevitable”, good, or bad - it is just to be a tool that can and has been used in the past by political outsiders. It isn’t inherently wrong, counter productive, or stupid. That’s it - I can’t defend it - just as I can’t defend “Hijack the Republican Party here and now” as the best option - as I have no qualification to do so (this was my first point). If the Republican Party is ripe for taking, it will probably be done in a way closer to what you are saying.

Again, I hear what you’re saying, and I don’t completely disagree…obviously we can’t know the future. I’m just saying based on what I know and what I see, 3rd party just doesn’t seem viable any time soon…let alone a better, more efficient method than continuing the path to taking over the GOP. Again, just look at the OP articles.

However, I can say as an interesting historical note: many of the more radical inner transformations of the two main political parties coincide after a start up third party gains some steam. I don’t see how this can not be ruled out as a complete non option.

Again, obviously you can’t “rule out” anything, but I’m just not at all persuaded by any of the 3rd party arguments. And I’d hate to say it, but this may actually be one instance where “this time it’s different”. There actually are a lot more barriers in place to having something like that happen again (the two major parties have basically made sure of it.) But at the same time, technology like the Internet has also enhanced the abilities of the opposing side…so it may be tough to tell. But as we saw with Ron Paul in the last election and this one, that Internet communication can only take you so far. As unfortunate as it may be, the old news media and televised debates still dominate the discourse…and again, if you’re not in the debates, you’re basically dead in the water…and I can almost guarantee you there is no way in hell a 3rd party candidate is getting in those televised debates. Ron Paul would be the only person who even has a shot…and even for him it would be a longshot. If I were a betting man, I’d say he would be kept out of at least a majority of them. They might let him in one. And then it would be done.