Cruz’ Laughable History of Republican Courage »« Robertson Thinks Horror Movies Cause Demonic Possession

Barber Threatens Third Party Move

Bigot Matt Barber highlights perfectly the Scylla and Caribdis through which the Republican party must navigate as they try to appease their base while not scaring the living shit out of everyone else. He says if they don’t continue to be as anti-gay as they are, Christians will form their own third party.

Barber contends that if the Republican Party abandons its base, conservatives and people of faith, “then we will see Democrat rule in perpetuity at least for the next several decades.”

“This notion that the Republican Party every year can continue to pay lip service to what they pejoratively call the social issues, and then stick them back up in the attic after the elections are over, the conservative base, the Christian base is wise to this now,” says Barber.

Barber says he believes in the Ronald Reagan approach to take over the Republican Party and reform from within. But if the Republican Party continues on its current trajectory then “we’ll have no choice as Christians but to break away and form a third party.”

That split will mean Democrats will reign supreme for the long haul.

And the very same thing will happen if they continue to push the anti-gay stuff like they’ve been doing. They’ll continue to lose women and young people at a huge rate and they can’t win national elections that way. They have to build a new coalition, but that’s easier said than done.

Comments

  1. eamick says

    we will see Democrat rule in perpetuity at least for the next several decades

    Someone needs a refresher on the meaning of “in perpetuity”.

  2. corwyn says

    That split will mean Democrats will reign supreme for the long haul.

    This has never happened. No party ever has long term supremacy. If the entire Republican party went away tomorrow, another party would fill its place in short order. If ideological Republicans want a viable party away from the Christian-Right, they could simply join the Democrats, split into conservative-democrats, and soon become another party. Or they could bolster a currently small party into contention.

  3. raven says

    He says if they don’t continue to be as anti-gay as they are, Christians will form their own third party.

    Barber isn’t too bright.

    There are already Christian third parties. One of the kookier ones is the badly misnamed Constitution Party. It’s pure fundie xian Dominionism and run by wannabe dictators.

    They usually get less than 1% of the vote.

  4. says

    The problem that the Republican Party has is that they long ago joined in a Faustian pack. Monied interests would back the party financially, but there is a limit to how many votes you can buy. So they recruited the evangelicals as a group of motivated voters whom they could dupe into believing that they all wanted the same things. The problem is that core group of motivated voters are all they have left now. They’ve pushed the moderates out of the party.

  5. brucegee1962 says

    Typically it’s the large, majority party that splits, when its big tent gets a little bit too big. It would be pretty unprecedented for a smaller party to split.

    I read this as a “do what I say or it’s murder/suicide for both of us!” type of thing. And of course, totally blowing smoke — in the same way we progressives do when we grouse about Obama being too conservative. It isn’t really as if either end of the spectrum has a feasible way of breaking off under our system.

  6. says

    “in perpetuity at least for the next several decades”

    @eamick

    I think that’s rather that they think that in perpetuity Is only the next few decades: then The Rupture (or whatever they call it), Armageddon and THE EN…

  7. raven says

    wikipedia:

    The Constitution Party is a right-wing[1] and theocratic[2] political party in the United States.[3][4] The party asserts that the US is a Christian nation founded on the Bible and that US jurisprudence should be restored to what the party claims is its “Biblical foundations”.[5] The Constitution Party advocates a platform which reflects the Party’s understanding of the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, the Bible, and the Bill of Rights.

    The party supports the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment, which allows Congress to tax income, and the Seventeenth Amendment, which requires the direct (popular) election of Senators.[47] The party holds that each state’s membership in the Union is voluntary.[48] This stance is known as the Compact theory.

    The Constitution party is also a Confederate states party. They really hate the USA and democracy.

    They received .09% of the vote in the last Presidential election.

  8. bobcarroll says

    Kalli, pack =\= pact. More pertinently, if only they would… it would solve a lot of our current problems.

  9. chilidog99 says

    i think it is a great idea. They can call themselves the “People’s front of Judea”

  10. dogmeat says

    As a progressive I wouldn’t necessarily look at this as a good thing. We already have the situation where the “New” Democrats have moved to the right on a number of economic and foreign affairs issues. Obama’s business policies, while rhetorically different from the Republicans have been quite similar in their actual implementation. His foreign affairs policies amount to a 3rd term for Bush & Co. If the Republicans were to split, rather than leading to a good time for liberals and progressives, it would likely mean that the Democratic party would move more to the right on some issues to draw those weakened Republicans into their “big tent.” The process by which the Democrats have become the Republicans and the Republicans have become the batshit crazy party will be complete.

  11. D. C. Sessions says

    Whatever Barber thinks, the real tipping point will come when Wall Street decides that the Republicans can’t deliver on the Wall Street agenda and goes for second-best: buying the best deal they can from Democrats. We saw that in 2008, for instance: Wall Street money was pretty evenly split for the first time in a long time, and they got an astonishingly good deal: in the face of a near-repeat of the Great Depression, they got a remarkably one-sided political response.

    Think about it:
    * The bank bailout
    * Zero clawbacks, either on pay or mortgages
    * Neutered “financial reform”
    * The greatest reduction in deficits since WWII

    and in general an Administration far more concerned with the interests of the financial sector than almost anyone would have expected from a Democratic administration in a depression. But money talks, and Tim Geithner is its voice.

    And although the Koch Brothers and such may throw money at Quixotic campaigns to put Republicans in power (well, everyone needs a hobby) the more pragmatic money is going to shift to changing the policies of the Party that actually wins elections. I’m sure that people will see the shift in campaign money and the change in electoral outcomes and conclude that the money bought the elections — and of course, to an extent they’ll be right.

    But not entirely right. There’ll be a very large element of “the money saw which way the elections were headed and got out in front.” So when you see Wall Street sucking up to Democrats again, you’ll know that change is in the wind.

  12. John Pieret says

    D. C. Sessions:

    the real tipping point will come when Wall Street decides that the Republicans can’t deliver on the Wall Street agenda

    The big business faction is already fighting back. The Chamber of Commerce is spending money to defeat teabaggers across the country. If they win, the Republicans can move away from the toxic hatred of the religious right. But can they win elections without them?

  13. Christoph Burschka says

    perpetuity at least for the next several decades

    Perpetuity really is a lot shorter than it used to be.

  14. hunter says

    John Pieret: They’ll probably find it easier to win elections without the extremists dictating the platform. The problem will be for a sane candidate can win a Republican primary.

  15. D. C. Sessions says

    The big business faction is already fighting back. The Chamber of Commerce is spending money to defeat teabaggers across the country. If they win, the Republicans can move away from the toxic hatred of the religious right. But can they win elections without them?

    In an off-year, it’s worth trying to get the Religious Right back in harness. In fact, it’s worth spending double: try to break the RR while at the same time taking out insurance by buying Democrats too. That’s what happened in 2008, after all, and it paid off handsomely.

    But eventually splitting their bets just means bidding against themselves. I suspect the next couple of years are likely to be Interesting Times.

  16. dingojack says

    dogmeat (#14) – “If the Republicans were to split, rather than leading to a good time for liberals and progressives, it would likely mean that the Democratic party would move more to the right on some issues to draw those weakened Republicans into their “big tent.” The process by which the Democrats have become the Republicans and the Republicans have become the batshit crazy party will be complete.”

    You’re sure about that?

    Dingo

  17. freehand says

    YOB – Ye Olde Blacksmith is a Spocktopus cuddler:Aren’t the Tea Partiers trending towards splitting off already?
    .
    Yeah, but religious and political ideologues always do so, and pretty quickly. When purity of values and speech is paramount and there is no grounding in reality, every man (or woman) is his own prophet. Compare Protestant Christianity and its hundreds of denominations to science, with basically one theory* to each field, or the Democratic party, which is fairly inclusive.**
    .
    * Sometimes a few, but those are reduced as the data continues to accumulate.
    ** Anybody not a Republican.

  18. Michael Heath says

    dogmeat writes:

    [President Obama’s] foreign affairs policies amount to a 3rd term for Bush & Co.

    After Condi Rice took over that’s true, but the Obama’s administrations foreign affairs policies when Cheney ran the show are very different. Where Ms. Rice’s approach was consistent with prior administration’s including the Clinton and Carter presidencies.

    So yes, there was a seamless progression between the Bush and Obama administrations. But that’s only because of Rice winning a turf war inside the Bush Administration in 2004/2005.

  19. dingojack says

    I am hopeful the electoral oblivion of the Teabaggers (the modern equivalent of the No Nothing Party) will be well worth any negative consequences. Don’t believe me on the ‘electoral oblivion’ claim’? See here to see why this is possible.

    Dingo

  20. lpetrich says

    That was the American Party, which was vehemently opposed to Catholics and immigrants. Its members often answered questions with “I don’t know”, thus their nickname, the Know-Nothings.

    Third parties haven’t done well in the US because of first-past-the-post / plurality-voting elections. That’s Duverger’s Law, something worth studying. Sociologist Maurice Duverger noted a correlation between how many parties and the voting system, and noted why it happens. In FPTP systems, fear of wasting votes on candidates unlikely to win is what produces two-party systems. In proportional systems, a party does not need many votes in order to get some seats, so it’s easy to get a foot in the door. Two-ballot or delayed top-two runoffs produce an intermediate state.

    Here in the US, I notice that hardly any political commentators are willing to consider alternatives to FPTP. I find that depressing and disappointing. I also find unwillingness to consider multimember districts disappointing, because such districts would be less vulnerable to gerrymandering. Ed Brayton, could you please consider blogging on this issue?

  21. says

    ‘The problem that the Republican Party has is that they long ago joined in a Faustian pack.”

    As pointed out up-thread, it’s a pact. The pack that they’re in eats its own scat and bays at the moon.

    “Perpetuity really is a lot shorter than it used to be.’

    No, “Perpetuity”, with a upper case, “P” is still, well, perpetual. With the lower case “p” it has a half life of one election cycle.

    @24:

    Minor quibble. It was the “Know Nothing Party”. And the Teabaggistanians are not a modern equivalent, they are the descendants (in large part) of the idiots that started it.

  22. dingojack says

    Demo – wow! I thought I was a massive time-waster, but you – you’ve spent your time tracking down the genealogy of individual teabaggers*! That’s impressive time-wasting right there! (Have you considered Government employment?)
    Dingo
    ——–
    * how many, out of interest?

Leave a Reply