Forums: Discussions for entrepreneurs and small business.

The Republican Party is my political affiliation of choice. I neither apologize to my liberal friends, nor do I pull punches with my fellow Republicans.

John Adams once wrote in a letter to Samuel Adams, dated October 18, 1789: "All good government is and must be republican...Are we not, my friend, in danger of rendering the word republican unpopular in this country by an indiscreet, indeterminate, and equivocal use of it? Whenever I use the word republic with approbation, I mean a government in which the people have collectively, or by representation, an essential share in the sovereignty...the republican forms in Poland and Venice are much worse, and those of Holland and Bern very little better, than the monarchical form in France before the late revolution".

Adams, of course was referring to our fledgling new nation and not to the Republican Party. But the statement can be applied to both the republican form of government and to the party with which I identify.

So where have all the Republicans gone? I am not talking about the R.I.N.O.S. (Republicans In Name Only), but the Republicans of the Grand ole Party. I am talking about the Reagan Republicans. I assure you those Republicans are out there. They are among us. Many of these Republicans are my friends and they are a major factor in why I appreciate and am proud of my party. But those Republicans on Capitol Hill who have placed power and politics before people and principles are not the Republicans who contributed to my political philosophies.

I have my share of criticisms for President Barack Obama and many of the leaders of today`s Democratic Party. This does not make my own party immune from my criticism. And I have a few.

The Republican Party lost its moorings as all man-created institutions do. Governments, political parties and even religions all are frail unless governed with principle and responsibility. This has been a great part of the problem.

Today, when one says "republican" the electorate immediately thinks "christian, conservative, right-wing". While these elements are present in the G.O.P., it does not do the party justice.

Our party has been strong on civil rights, dating all the way back to the founders of the N.A.A.C.P. and we have had a progressive record in that regard. We have been strong when it comes to the national defense and to less government. But we have slipped. The powers that be in the nation`s capital have lost touch with the "Party of Lincoln and Reagan", turning the G.O.P. into a political fraternity and a place where power and influence trump the principles of  what the party is suppose to represent.

The suggestion that the Republican Party is intolerant is also a myth created by those who can not reconcile that principles often trump personal interests for those affiliated with our platform. For example, former Vice-President Dick Cheney was attacked by media and liberal alike for his belief that marriage was between a man and a woman. How could he be so insensitive when his own daughter was openly gay?
The Bush administration was constantly attacked over this issue time and time again. During the presidential debates last year, that same question was posed by the moderator to then-Democratic candidate Barack Obama. Obama also said he did not support gay marriage and defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Where was the outcry? Where were the "advocates for tolerance" to call Mr. Obama `intolerant`?

Where the Republican Party lost its ground was in failing to articulate the very principles which set us apart from the Democratic Party. They failed to articulate the fact that we, as Republicans, recognize that America is diverse and that EVERY AMERICAN has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We recognize that all families are different and that the "Ozzie & Harriet" myth of how families really are IS rejected for the reality that people come from all walks of life. We are from different cultures and different experiences. There are republicans who are single mothers and some who are in a committed gay or lesbian relationship who are raising children. Republicans are black and white and represent every nationality on the planet. Some are rich and some are poor. Some are Christian and others are Jewish and Muslim and Buddhist and even athiest. Some are compassionate and others are intolerant and ultra-right in their thinking. Some are soldiers for human rights and others are racist and full of bigotry. The Republican Party is as diverse as the landscape of our country. We strive for lower taxation and call for fiscal responsibility.

So what defines the Republican Party? This is where we have failed and failed miserably. We have failed to articulate who we are.

The Republican Party believes in less government control over the lives of the American People. We believe in lower taxes, compassion for people of every background and we believe in the value of every citizen who is willing to support their country first and their Party second. We believe in family values, recognizing that all families are unique and different and that they are an integral part of our country. We believe in the separation of church and state, while recognizing that people of faith are the heart and soul of the United States, regardless of what faith they choose to observe. But we also recognize that the best government is that which governs from a secular vantage point, while the American people keep the heartbeat of faith alive.

For some of you, you do not recognize this definition as that of the Republican Party, and that is the fault of none other than the Republicans themselves. Not only have we failed to articulate who we are and why, but many of our own leadership have left the principles of the Party to the side while they grab for personal political profit and power inside the Washington beltway.

I take my daily swipes at our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle, but not without the realization that my own Party has failed it`s people and the country in a variety of ways.

This should not take anything away from the very vital fact that what I have just described is the Republican Party I identify with. To be fair, there are some Democrats on Capitol Hill who are more fiscally conservative and stronger when it comes to the national defense than some of our own Republican members there. So this brings us back full circle to a truth upon which we will all agree. We were never meant to place our faith and our destiny in the hands of any politician from any political party. They will disappoint you and they will, from time to time, fail you. And this will occur more often than not. We identify with one party or the other based upon a variety of factors, but first and foremost we should do so because we believe deeply in the principles that Party represents. Because I believe in that which I`ve outlined above, I am a Republican. I am also a Republican who is responsible for living up to those principles and not relying upon a Washington politician to do it for me. 

I will continue to work to make our party better and stronger. I will support those who represent the principles I believe best represents the Republican Party and will hold my Party to account when they are wrong.

The Republicans I know represent these principles. The future of the party rests in a new generation who will emerge to redfine and articulate who we are and do so without compromising our core values and beliefs, but also embracing our critics and  opposition alike in the common goal of doing that which is right for our nation first. This is where our allegience must remain...to America First.

The Republican Party is my party and, I`ll cry if I want to. But I will not cry without bringing solutions to the problems facing our party. As far as my friends in the Democratic Party, we`ll that`s your mess to clean up. We have our hands full with our own. You can`t worry about your neighbors family, when your own is in disarray. but that doesn`t mean I have to have you over for a BBQ either. Ah, what the hell, come on over and we`ll spend the day bickering about whose partisan family is more disfunctional.

Until then, let us remember the one fundamental obligation of both political parties...the obligation to put aside the Donkey and the Elephant when the Eagle is wounded and needs nursed back to health. Once the eagle is again soaring and free, then both parties can take pride in having put America First.

Will Griffith, Chairman
www.griffithcorp.com



-------------------------

Will Griffith
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL

Your vision of the republican party was what I thought I registered for back when I turned 18. Young, naive, and with textbook definitions of what the two parties basically represented. Small government, personal responsibility - it all sounded good to me. If I had to pick one of the two parties now, recognizing that registering/voting independent is as good as not registering/voting at all, I`d probably be democrat, because the reality of the republican party is a turnoff to me. I didn`t register as a fundamentalist christian. I don`t want the country to be led in that direction. I can`t find a party that really represents me though.

-------------------------

Making limitless possibilities much more limited.

What you`re seeing is that a political party, as with any group, is only a representation of an underlying philosophy. Or in this case, an ideology; something that isn`t as comprehensive as a philosophy.

A marriage is based on the underlying value and love, promises and vows. It isn`t just two people hanging out together saying they`re married. Likewise, no organization can really exist without there first being an underlying reason to exist.

The original Democrat and Republican parties were based on clear ideas----planks in a platform, to use political words. Those ideas were fairly simple in relation to the underlying philosophic principles of the US Constitution.

Over the past 50 years, academics (with an agenda) have tried to fundamentally change the nature of the United States. It`s been a plan, with the main line of attack being in semantics and language (modern linguistics and deconstructionism).

What`s happened is that we`re now facing a core, philosophic schism that goes to the most basic principles of America. The concepts under discussion include freedom, responsibility, morality, values, religion, reality, justice, family, marriage, majority, minority, representative government, and so forth.

We`re no longer in a condition where political parties can form. The critical problem right now is the fundamental philosophy at the foundation of the nation. It`s similar to the period leading up to the original American Revolution.

The probable-best words we can use to describe the "sides" of the discussion are conservative and liberal (or progressive). Given that neither term is properly defined, everyone is confused.

Until we have an acceptable definition of conservative and liberal, we`re going to just wander around in chaos. Just as we`re now doing.

But Republican and Democrat have become meaningless, now. Conservatives have almost nothing in common with today`s Republican political party. And the original Democrats are entirely separate from modern Democrats. Only the underlying philosophies matter at this point.

Matt, while I appreciate your frustration and fully sympathize with your disenchantment with the two party system, I would only like to address your last sentence.
"If they don`t represent anyone, what good are they?"

That is why I believe that we should not wait for any political party to represent us, we should represent the party. That is when it means something.

I often hear it said : "No party represents me". True enough. But that is usually because we seek more than simple representation. We often judge representation on self-interest, sometimes without knowing it. A lot of people in the Gay and Lesbian community affiliate with the Democratic party because the Democrats are more liberal on issues of concern to them personally.  The gays and lesbians who are members of the Republican Party are such because they set aside their personal self-interest for the greater interest of the country. For them, it is not about what is good for Gay Americans , but rather what is good for AMERICANS.

This is only an example. And I agree. We should have secular government without religious governance in any form, while protecting the religious freedoms outlined in the Constitution for the People. NO ONE FACTION should control the reigns of government, whether religious, political or philosophical. Otherwise, the interests of the American people are replaced with the will of a few over the WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

Like you Matt, I know what I believe and why I believe it. Therefore, I do not need a party to define my beliefs for me. I choose to look at the party that most reflects my beliefs and utilize that affiliation for purposes of contributing to the country and the policies which govern it. People define the party, and it should never be the other way around.

Will Griffith
www.griffithcorp.com



-------------------------

Will Griffith
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL

The problem with liberal and conservative is that the words can be used in different contexts: fiscally, socially, politically perhaps. They get mashed together as if a conservative is conservative in all aspects of life, and a liberal is liberal, etc. It`s possible to be a conservative spender with liberal social views, and vice versa. This is why I don`t think two parties are enough. However, I think the two party system is too entrenched to change now. It`d be better to try and fix it. In a perfect world, the social aspect of conservative and liberal wouldn`t be a government issue. The government is there to collect and distribute tax money, write/enforce the laws, and see to the national defense. Everything else is up to the private citizen. The government isn`t supposed to tell us how to live our lives. Abortion, gay marriage, drug use, prostitution: these sorts of issues shouldn`t involve the government. They do, and the fiscal conservative (me) has a lot of socially conservative baggage s/he doesn`t necessarily agree with. It`s a mess.

-------------------------

Making limitless possibilities much more limited.

As I said, neither word (conservative or liberal) is defined. From a conservative perspective there`s only one conservative. All the sub-categories are media creations meaning nothing.

One way or another, we`ll see this begin to work itself out. There used to be the Whigs, then came the Republicans. Perhaps we`ll have some new party that replaces one of the existing ones.

But what I see is that with something like 6 out of 10 people surveyed saying that they see nothing wrong with socialism, we`ve got a whole lot more trouble than what the Republican party may or may not stand for.

We do, indeed, have more trouble than partisan definitions. Though my blog was a natural reaction, as a Republican, who is irritated with his party for allowing the socialist agenda to be pushed through the policies of an opposition party that calls themselves Democrat and are in as much disarray as our Republican party.

Craig, those Americans who see nothing wrong with socialism are void of any sense or understanding of history. And that, my friend, is not something that can be corrected in midterm election or the revamping of partisan organizations.

Will Griffith



-------------------------

Will Griffith
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL

I wouldn`t say they`re void of a sense of history. They see it seeming to work in Europe. There`s a difference between socialism and communism. I think they just want to take what`s doing well elsewhere and apply it here. It`s smart. Not everything will work, of course, but we can`t be too proud of the American way to think someone else might not have a good idea now and then.

-------------------------

Making limitless possibilities much more limited.

Matt,
I think you`ll find that in the soon-to-arrive future, the EEC will have to face the problems with socialism.

But specific to this topic and this issue, it`s because so many people believe that socialism can work, and does work in Europe that we`re in the situation we`re facing.

Unfortunately, and tragically, when large groups of people completely disagree, then only reality working its way through the system will resolve anything at all.

And so we`re going to wait and see what happens. The trend is toward socialism now, and that`s what likely will be put into place on a global scale. That`ll mean the end of the US as a leading super-power, but that`s just the way the cookie crumbles, so to speak.

Seems like Marx was right. He thought there was a linear progression on the way to world communism - the last three phases being capitalism, socialism and then communism. It`d be ironic if the west thought it won the cold war when the USSR collapsed into capitalism. It seems like the developed world has had its fill of capitalism and is moving unified into socialism. Of course I don`t think anyone will adopt communism, but it`s kind of interesting to think about it. Will the proletariat revolution come from this economic disaster? We`re all but revolting against the upper crust of capitalist success right now.

-------------------------

Making limitless possibilities much more limited.