"Since winning the White House, a few 'bones' have been thrown to the rank and file but little has been done to energize the base so badly needed by the party if it is to survive. "

(Back to Main Page)

What Is a Republican?

Republicans are people who have chosen to identify themselves with a particular political party. As with any group of people, there are those who are active in the group and those who are bystanders. This pamphlet will deal with those who are active to one degree or another.

A political party is meant to be an organization with a purpose, one defined by a 'party platform'. Ideally, the platform is a document detailing the concerns of the organization and how it would address those concerns. There are those who would say that in years gone by the foregoing statement were fairly accurate. In recent years, many would question the accuracy of that statement.

In recent years we have gotten to the point where each of the major parties 'steals' the issues of the opposing party and this makes it difficult to determine which party stands for what. Many would say that , at this point, there is very little difference between the major parties.

Each party still does have its 'platform' but just what does it mean?

In the '96 presidential election, immediately after winning the nomination, the Republican candidate made the statement that he had not read the party platform, had no intention to read it, nor pay any heed to it. In spite of this arrogance, party regulars urged one and all to rally around 'our leader'.

HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD ACTIVELY SUPPORT A POLITICAL ORGANIZATION WHERE THE LEADER HAD LITTLE OR NO INTEREST IN SUPPORTING THE IDEAS AGREED TO BY THOSE CHOSEN TO WRITE A PLATFORM WHICH THEY FELT WOULD RESULT IN THE ELECTION OF ITS CANDIDATE?

Most people in the party would support the positions expressed in the platform, but most of the leaders in the party take the same positions as the candidate with respect to the platform. Is there a better way to destroy an organization than to have leaders almost totally indifferent to the wishes of the majority of members?

The next example of indifference to the will of those expected to work to elect a party leader is what took place in Texas in 1998 when George W. Bush was campaigning for governor. Writing for The New American in the August 28, 2000 issue, Mr. John F. McManus writes the following: "Attended by 7,500 delegates, the Texas GOP produced a platform calling for the abolishing the EPA, BATF, HUD, the Dept. of Energy, and the IRS. Then they urged the U.S. To withdraw from the commitments to NATO, and conduct a thorough investigation of bother the CFR and the Trilateral Commission. Asked about this platform when it was fresh, Texas Gov. Bush said the he "runs on his own agenda."

Here again is a TOTAL repudiation of a platform which major party leaders felt would reflect the will of the people and would result in the election of their candidate. Isn't a candidate expected to promote the issues supported by the membership of the organization?

In the latest election probably the three most critical issues facing our county weren't even included in the debates because the candidates (as well as big business) agreed on these issues. They are immigration, loss of sovereignty, and our balance of payments. Trends in these areas cannot be in our best national interest but few of our leaders seem concerned. Who would vote for candidates who deny citizens the right to hear discussion of critical issues facing the county?

The Republicans did win the last election, but by how much? It has since been reported that about 6 million 'people of faith' stayed home for the last election There is good reason to believe that these people stayed home for reasons at least related to the lack of interest in promoting the traditional platform.

Since winning the White House, a few 'bones' have been thrown to the rank and file but little has been done to energize the base so badly needed by the party if it is to survive.

A tax bill has been passed that does very little until after the end of the current term of office.

An education bill is being promoted which adds more dollars to the DOE budget than the other party had recommended. Many in the party would support the elimination of the department.

We continue to support meddling in the affairs of other nations where we have no national interest? Our leaders are seriously considering granting citizen ship to illegal aliens of all nationalities. These are people who have ignored our laws and now we want to reward them with citizenship, giving them priority over those who respect our laws in their quest for entry into country.

Probably the most incomprehensible feature of the new administration (and Republican leaders from the previous administration) is their total lack of interest in holding the other party accountable for the multitude of misdeeds in the previous administration. What happened to the rule of law in our country when even the Attorney General (past and current) overlook so many criminal acts committed by many in the previous administration? With but few exceptions, the rule of law seems only to apply to those outside of government.

Republicans have even been participants in supporting laws which are nothing but a judgement of the MOTIVE behind a word or deed. NO ONE CAN ACCURATELY JUDGE THE MOTIVE OF ANOTHER PERSON. Laws dealing with hate crimes, racism, discrimination and harassment do nothing but polarize the citizens and deny us many of the basic freedoms established by our constitution. These laws can only INCREASE divisions among the citizens and further divided the people into competing groups Every law so described would be repealed IMMEDIATELY.

A careful analysis of trends in place for the past 30, or 40 years would suggest that both parties have little concern for the working people in our country. Both parties have supported tax advantages to companies that close plants in our country and move them oversees. They even passed laws to compensate major corporations when foreign nations take control of US manufacturers facilities. How can this be in the best interest of our country?

Two of the most damaging ideas responsible for putting us where we are today are the statement by former President Reagan that one should never speak ill of another Republican. If and when a Republican says or does something contrary to the best interests of our country, why should this not be discussed? The second one is that a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote. There is no better way to thwart the will of the voters than to convince them they should vote for 'second best'. We can never achieve our goals if we compromise our vote.

Leaders in both parties even hide important information from the citizens. CBO reports reveal that our GROSS FEDERAL DEBT keeps INCREASING year after year, but we are told we have a balanced budget. Two highly respected members of the congress are of the opinion that only 10 to 15% of our legislators really know that there is no balanced budget. What information is more important for the leaders of an organization to KNOW than its true financial condition?

It would be very difficult to imagine a better way to ruin an organization.

(Back to Main Page)