The Real Republicans: The Case for Moderates, Liberals, and Pragmatic Conservatives in Our Party
By HHR | May 21st, 2009 | Category: Featured, Opinion/Reviews |Many in the party, hard-line conservatives for the most part, are calling for a return to the roots of the Republican Party. Fair enough. I think that is precisely what we should do. And to do this, the facts that can be bothersome to some must be brought to the forefront of this internal debate.
by Martin Rybicki
I had been thinking through this for quite some time now, as for the last few weeks I had been too busy to put it into writing; the case for moderate and liberal republicans and their rightful place in our party. Then came along just a few weeks ago the defection of Arlen Specter, the moderate republican from Pennsylvania and one of the only 3 self proclaimed moderates from the northeast. Now there are two. There is no doubt among a majority of moderates in our party (what’s left of us) that this was a punch in our gut.
It really hurt, to say the least as each and every moderate that is lost is a major loss regardless of how we personally viewed him. Whether he was opportunistic and didn’t stand for principle or he was truly being pushed out of a party that he would have nicely fit in a few years back doesn’t matter as the moderate faction that he helped make up had taken numerical blow. A few weeks passing this occurrence with all that has come about as a result of this action, I nevertheless believed that now is the time to rally the remaining centrist republicans and to let them know why they not only have a place in the GOP but as I will also show, a leading role in our party.
In trying to find out who we should be as Republicans we must first look back in history to see what the party stood for. Many in the party, hard-line conservatives for the most part, are calling for a return to the roots of the Republican Party. Fair enough. I think that is precisely what we should do. And to do this, the facts that can be bothersome to some must be brought to the forefront of this internal debate. The roots of the party, of course, must be from the very beginning of its conception.
The Republican Party was formed in the late 1850’s in response to the democrats who supported the expansion of slavery into the new territories, which the new party was vehemently opposed to. The party was from the beginning, a progressive party and by no means a conservative one. It was a party that sought to modernize the country, not to keep the status quo especially if the status quo was not working for Americans. They sought to modernize the country by supporting higher education, free homesteads to farmers (a rather non-conservative thing to do), free soil policies against slavery, banking, railroads, industry and cities.
This was a party that not only was aiming for the rural vote via homesteads, but also one that had a heavy lean towards urban America. Again something that is not apparent with today’s conservative controlled Republican Party. It was a party that believed industry and free markets were superior to slave driven ones. These were the founding principles of the party and it is these principles that should define real republicanism instead of what has crept into the party over the last few decades. Taking into account these founding ideas must also include Abraham Lincoln himself who was a man of principle as well as pragmatism in being the first iconic leader of the Republican Party. Lincoln from his early years warned against the slave holding southerners continuing power growth of the government.
The Act has a… covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate it. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world - enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites - causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty - criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest.[
- October 16, 1854, “Peoria Speech” Abraham Lincoln
It is important to acknowledge both his idealism as well as pragmatism when it came to slavery. Some in today’s community have been seeking to draw a Lincoln that although gave the Emancipation Proclamation, did so only because of expediency and because it would be a useful tool and as a result basically seeking to diminish his role as a major leader of civil rights in America and one who stood for a party that strongly stood for civil rights. His above speech made years before he even became president and many others before and during his presidency show that he was indeed a man of principles in belief of slavery being a gruesome affront to Americanism.
This does not contradict at all with his statement years later about slavery when he stated that he would try to keep the Union intact by outlawing slavery or not. He realized that even in the north, slavery existed and while he believed it to be an abomination it was not something that could be done in a sloppy fashion without prudent forethought. Social changes need to take into account society’s current stance on the issue itself.
His delivery of the Emancipation Proclamation was perfectly timed to accomplish many things, one of which was to capitalize on the major Union victory of Gettysburg and the renewed sense that the war could be won. The president sensed the opportunity to get the ball rolling towards getting the public to support the war in trying to reunite the Union as well as using it as an opportunity to start leading the nation towards freedom and justice for all.
All of this is necessary so as to show how principles and pragmatic thinking can be intelligently intertwined to create a powerful voice of reason and justice. With Lincoln and his “pragmatic idealism” being at the beginning of the Republican Party’s creation, we can now look at how the party can return to its actual roots that we have slowly abandoned over the years and that we centrists as the “true” republicans must realize and stand up for.
The party was a party that stood against slavery because it easily recognized the obvious evil of human enslavement, but also easily recognized the potential of industry to transform the nation towards progress and to end the inefficient slave driven agriculture of the south. This would have the potential therefore, to not only do a great good for a people suffering injustice but also to possibly lead America down a path of modernization and prosperity never before seen before. This would be a prosperity that would be aimed towards all Americans and not merely a small segment of the population.
With Lincoln at the beginning and at the helm for those important years, he along with the other beginning Republicans set the stage for the party to drive this thrust for progress, prosperity and justice and the flexibility needed to accomplish this for many years to come.
Editor Note: The following is the first post of an essay by Martin Rybicki, a student at the University of Texas-San Antonio. In this essay, Rybicki is making the case that moderate and liberal Republicans have had a place in the GOP since it’s creation and argues that they belong in the party. Here is the first installment of, The Real Republicans: The Case for Moderates, Liberals, and Pragmatic Conservatives in Our Party.
Dear Mr. Rybicki;
Upon reading the first two paragraphs of your post, my head almost exploded … and not in a good way. Your lament for the loss of Arlen Specter is what did it for me. Arlen Specter openly admitted, to all the world, that he is a self serving man. His concerns over re-election was his main motivation for making the switch to the Democratic party. It is this self serving attitude that is ruining Washington on both sides of the isle. Far too many of today’s politicians serve themselves and their own self interests as opposed to serving the people who elected them in the first place.
The Republican Party (or any party for that matter) should jump for joy to be rid of such an loathsome individual, regardless of whether he swelled the ranks of moderates, conservatives or liberals of that party.
Regarding your comments on Lincoln, I don’t think Lincoln’s views of slavery were based on idealism and pragmatism. From the Peoria Speech you posted, I see Lincoln as someone who stood firmly on the principle of freedom and the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence. Standing firm on timeless principle and using those same principles to guide you through the issues of the day is the very definition of being conservative.
Building a party solely on pragmatism and idealism without the foundation of timeless core principles, only produces the very emptiness that is “Hope” and “Change“.
Clifton B.
Arlene Specter would not be the first political candidate that was “self serving”!! When Democrats switched parties the left said the same thing.
Good ridance to A. Specter….Now he is back with the party he started with….and they surely deserve him.
In a speech Lincoln delivered in 1858 in Charleston, Ill he said:
“I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races — that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equlity. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
Republicans often like to refer to Lincoln as a pivotal figure in the historic trajectory of black Americans from slaves to free citizens and so he was. But such hype should not be overdone. The above is a very sobering and clarifying statement of Lincoln’s thinking on the status of blacks politically and socially. Given this, its foolish for republicans to expound about the GOP as the party of Lincoln as a rhetorical proof that the GOP’s history should persuade blacks to flock to our banner. He was a great man, but in the matter of blacks, he was as small as most other men of his day. It is not his humanity that lifted him above his peers in making a historical impact on the lives of blacks, but rather his pragmatism in the pursuit of a goal to which he felt all others to be subservient, that of preserving the union. If the price of preserving the Union had meant leaving blacks in bondage for another 200 years, Lincoln would have done that, and he said so.
“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.”
The freedom of blacks was entirely incidental to Lincoln’s enterprise to save the Union. God be praised that the historical circumstances which shaped Lincoln’s decisions inured to the historical benefit of blacks.
I heard someone make a really valid point recently. Registered Democrats and Republicans are dropping, while registered Independents are climbing. Why? Is it that Independents, who sit ideologically dead center between full government control and no government control, don’t feel represented by either parties? Is that because these two major parties have both shifted left of center? We have always been a country whose beliefs have fallen typically right of center. Conservatives and folks like Powell are BOTH correct, but they aren’t seeing why. We need to get back to right of center. In doing so we represent more folks who are right of center and at the same time we are being more inclusive.
See, what no one gets is that Washington “thinks” America has moved left of center (or even further). We haven’t. Most Americans are still sitting somewhere around that healthy blend of liberal and conservative views. The party that recognizes where the actual “center” of American beliefs lies, will hit the jackpot.
Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Reagan
The Giants of the Republican Party, two Moderates, a Progressive, and a Conservative all of them expanded the size of the Republican Party, all of them Renewed our Declaration of Independence, and expanded liberty for all. The history of the Republican Party is one of ideological diversity, it is a history of Principle, Pragmatism, and contradiction. The party should never run away from this legacy, this history, it should not just become the party of the South, or of the Religious Right, it should be able to tolerate the views of a Lincoln Chafee, a Ron Paul, or a Colin Powell, without tryiing to kick anyone out or accuse anyone of being a RINO or a traitor. The party can’t run Jessie Helms in New York and expect to win, the party can’t embrace Limbaugh while flipping the bird to Crist, and Ridge then expect to maintain a Center-Right coalition. There is a reason why it is called a Center-Right coalition because it includes the center, but if moderates, libertarians, and some liberals are excluded then the big tent might as well be a dog house.
“My advice for you all is to understand that unity for our nation doesn’t require uniformity or unanimity; it does require putting the good of our people ahead of what’s good for mere political or personal advantage.
The party of Lincoln, (i.e., the GOP), needs to rethink and revisit its historic roots as a party of emancipation, liberation, civil rights and equality of opportunity for all. On the other hand, the party of Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy and now Obama must put forth an agenda that understands that getting American growing again will require both Keynesian and classical incentive-oriented (supply-side) economic ideas.”
- Jack Kemp
Arlene Specter would not be the first political candidate that was “self serving”!! When Democrats switched parties the left said the same thing.
<>
I’m a fiscal conservative and don’t believe in god. Thus, I’m an independent since I’m not welcome in either party.
[...] colaition buidling and interst coming together to better the nation. Martin Rybicki in his article The Real Republicans: The Case for Moderates, Liberals, and Pragmatic Conservatives in Our Party argues the historical fallacies in the Rhino Hunters pursist arguments. In trying to find [...]
Thanks for posting! Standard conservative Republican, here. Have reservations about your description of the homestead act as “not conservative”. It encouraged citizens to extend the dominant agrarian lifestyle across the continent. And it did so at no cost to the taxpayer.
But we are no longer an agrarian nation. So I wholeheartedly endorse your idea of Republicans needing to get back into the cities. We’re not even on the ticket in urban districts.
[...] GOP since it’s creation and argues that they belong in the party. Here is the first essay of, The Real Republicans: The Case for Moderates, Liberals, and Pragmatic Conservatives in Our Party below are the rest. Share [...]
[...] is the first essay of, The Real Republicans: The Case for Moderates, Liberals, and Pragmatic Conservatives in Our Party below are the [...]