Will The Republican Party Split In Two?

[Dragon]

Watching the interesting struggle within the Republican Party to decide on a nominee, and the acidic, highly divisive ideological issues coursing through the political biosphere, I am put in mind of another time when the nation was similarly divided along ideological lines, and when it was the Democratic Party, not the Republicans, that were so torn apart. I'm referring to the lead-up to the 1860 election.

At that time, although the issues were different, the dynamic was similar, in that a minority of the Democrats wanted an uncompromising, ideologically pure approach to the issue of slavery, while the majority (but not a big one) preferred a more moderate approach that would accept some compromise. When it became clear that a united party would nominate the moderate Stephen A. Douglas, the fire-eating Southern Democrats seceded from the party and nominated their own candidate, John C. Breckenridge.

The Democrats, by running two opposing candidates for president, threw the election to Abraham Lincoln, the nominee of the new Republican Party, and set the nation on the road to calamity.

Although the particulars differ, it seems to me that passions within the GOP are running as high today as they were within the Democrats in 1860. Will the Republicans unite behind a single candidate today? Or will the party split in two, as the Dems did on the brink of the Civil War?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I sure as hell hope not.

To me at this time removing Obama is far more important than ideology. We can iron out all the bullshit in the next election when there isn't so much at stake.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Full-Auto]

I sure as hell hope not.

To me at this time removing Obama is far more important than ideology. We can iron out all the bullshit in the next election when there isn't so much at stake.

Just my 2 cents.

The man has a piss poor memory.

Democrats flushed the blue dogs from their mists.

They even put those grass root members on buses to take out Lieberman.

stupid premise.

 

[Si modo]

Nope.

 

[Greenbeard]

Unlikely. By and large, the base will vote for who they're told to vote for.

 

[JoeB131]

Watching the interesting struggle within the Republican Party to decide on a nominee, and the acidic, highly divisive ideological issues coursing through the political biosphere, I am put in mind of another time when the nation was similarly divided along ideological lines, and when it was the Democratic Party, not the Republicans, that were so torn apart. I'm referring to the lead-up to the 1860 election.

At that time, although the issues were different, the dynamic was similar, in that a minority of the Democrats wanted an uncompromising, ideologically pure approach to the issue of slavery, while the majority (but not a big one) preferred a more moderate approach that would accept some compromise. When it became clear that a united party would nominate the moderate Stephen A. Douglas, the fire-eating Southern Democrats seceded from the party and nominated their own candidate, John C. Breckenridge.

The Democrats, by running two opposing candidates for president, threw the election to Abraham Lincoln, the nominee of the new Republican Party, and set the nation on the road to calamity.

Although the particulars differ, it seems to me that passions within the GOP are running as high today as they were within the Democrats in 1860. Will the Republicans unite behind a single candidate today? Or will the party split in two, as the Dems did on the brink of the Civil War?

Unlikely. The 1860 paralel isn't really valid, as political parties weren't as organized as they were now. Keep in mind, this split in the Democratic party echoed the split in the country. There really were two Democratic parties. The Whig party had died less than a decade before, and the Republican Party was relatively new, this being only its second national election.

(Irony of Ironies, the 1856 Republican Platform promised to ban the twin pillars of barbarism- Slavery and Polygamy. The 1856 GOP was ANTI-Mormon.)

There was also a Constitutionalist Union Party that won the border states between North and South that were slave states that stayed in the union.

I do think that if the GOP is undergoing a schism of a sort, between the working class/evangelical/TEA movement that doesn't like what is going on in Washington and Wall Street, and the GOP Establishment, that wants to conduct business as usual.

I also think that the Democrats have schism between their "business as usual" class and Occupiers...

But I suspect at the end of the day, all the Occupiers will get behind Obama and all the TeaPartiers will get behind Romney... and the can of fixing the real problems will get kicked down the road for four years as Obama struggles through his second lame-duck term.

 

[JoeB131]

I sure as hell hope not.

To me at this time removing Obama is far more important than ideology. We can iron out all the bullshit in the next election when there isn't so much at stake.

Just my 2 cents.

I don't want to see Obama get a second term, but no way in hell am I voting for Romney.

 

[Poli_Sigh]

You mean they haven't already? Actually whatever calls itself Republican today isn't. I was raised a Republican and haven't recognized anything familiar coming out of that camp in years.

The Party should split in two. Perhaps then, one side might have the opportunity to again embrace the true Republican ideals and political agendas it once advanced.

 

[JoeB131]

Sorry, meant to do this as thread...

Then again, in a Obama vs. Romney contest, The Donald would take on a whole new luster.

 

[1ManRev]

I sure as hell hope not.

To me at this time removing Obama is far more important than ideology. We can iron out all the bullshit in the next election when there isn't so much at stake.

Just my 2 cents.

If Mitt Romney gets the nomination, you won't have much of a choice. Both are moderates hand-picked by the establishment. It would be like the scenerio in Futurama when the two presidential candidates happen to be clones.

And to answer the OP, the split in the Big Business Party has existed for over 150 years; these factions are known as the Democratic and Republican parties. Every time a hero like Ross Perot comes around and actually gives you a different choice, the media trains you to dismiss or hate them.

 

[Stephanie]

How funny is it? we hear this same shit EVERY election..

 

[bripat9643]

You're confused. There is very little ideological division among Republicans. They are all united in the goal of defeating Obama, overturning Obamacare and reducing government spending.

The fact that the Obama media savages whichever candidate other than Romney who's doing well in the polls is not an indication of division among Republicans.

Watching the interesting struggle within the Republican Party to decide on a nominee, and the acidic, highly divisive ideological issues coursing through the political biosphere, I am put in mind of another time when the nation was similarly divided along ideological lines, and when it was the Democratic Party, not the Republicans, that were so torn apart. I'm referring to the lead-up to the 1860 election.

At that time, although the issues were different, the dynamic was similar, in that a minority of the Democrats wanted an uncompromising, ideologically pure approach to the issue of slavery, while the majority (but not a big one) preferred a more moderate approach that would accept some compromise. When it became clear that a united party would nominate the moderate Stephen A. Douglas, the fire-eating Southern Democrats seceded from the party and nominated their own candidate, John C. Breckenridge.

The Democrats, by running two opposing candidates for president, threw the election to Abraham Lincoln, the nominee of the new Republican Party, and set the nation on the road to calamity.

Although the particulars differ, it seems to me that passions within the GOP are running as high today as they were within the Democrats in 1860. Will the Republicans unite behind a single candidate today? Or will the party split in two, as the Dems did on the brink of the Civil War?

 

[bripat9643]

Unlikely. By and large, the base will vote for who they're told to vote for.

ROLF! Yeah, right, as if Democrats are going to vote for someone other than Obama.

When it comes to stupid knee-jerk statements, we can always count on you.

 

[bripat9643]

The sure sign of a faux Republican is their claim that they were Republican all their lives and only recently started voting Democrat.

You mean they haven't already? Actually whatever calls itself Republican today isn't. I was raised a Republican and haven't recognized anything familiar coming out of that camp in years.

The Party should split in two. Perhaps then, one side might have the opportunity to again embrace the true Republican ideals and political agendas it once advanced.

 

[geauxtohell]

Watching the interesting struggle within the Republican Party to decide on a nominee, and the acidic, highly divisive ideological issues coursing through the political biosphere, I am put in mind of another time when the nation was similarly divided along ideological lines, and when it was the Democratic Party, not the Republicans, that were so torn apart. I'm referring to the lead-up to the 1860 election.

At that time, although the issues were different, the dynamic was similar, in that a minority of the Democrats wanted an uncompromising, ideologically pure approach to the issue of slavery, while the majority (but not a big one) preferred a more moderate approach that would accept some compromise. When it became clear that a united party would nominate the moderate Stephen A. Douglas, the fire-eating Southern Democrats seceded from the party and nominated their own candidate, John C. Breckenridge.

The Democrats, by running two opposing candidates for president, threw the election to Abraham Lincoln, the nominee of the new Republican Party, and set the nation on the road to calamity.

Although the particulars differ, it seems to me that passions within the GOP are running as high today as they were within the Democrats in 1860. Will the Republicans unite behind a single candidate today? Or will the party split in two, as the Dems did on the brink of the Civil War?

The larger issue of how federalist vs. decentralized this nation was going to be was bound to happen. The Civil War was inevitable. Even if there were no slaves. As it stands the election of Lincoln ensured we came through the other side a better nation. A lessor president would have led to disaster. I don't consider it a calamity.

As for the GOP. They won't split. The "social conservatives" power in the party is vastly overstated. In the end, cold hard cash is the feul that powers the GOP and keeps everything ticking.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Will The Republican Party Split In Two?

No.

What many perceive as a ‘faction’ is actually the TPM and other radical rightists who get noisy during the ‘pre primaries.’ Once the rank and file weighs in we’ll see consensus: Romney. It could be over by the end of January, after Florida and Nevada.

 

[Flopper]

If there is no split, the Tea Party folks are not going get what they want. Romney is the only one that can win the presidency and they don't want him.

 

[Dot Com]

Watching the interesting struggle within the Republican Party to decide on a nominee, and the acidic, highly divisive ideological issues coursing through the political biosphere, I am put in mind of another time when the nation was similarly divided along ideological lines, and when it was the Democratic Party, not the Republicans, that were so torn apart. I'm referring to the lead-up to the 1860 election.

At that time, although the issues were different, the dynamic was similar, in that a minority of the Democrats wanted an uncompromising, ideologically pure approach to the issue of slavery, while the majority (but not a big one) preferred a more moderate approach that would accept some compromise. When it became clear that a united party would nominate the moderate Stephen A. Douglas, the fire-eating Southern Democrats seceded from the party and nominated their own candidate, John C. Breckenridge.

The Democrats, by running two opposing candidates for president, threw the election to Abraham Lincoln, the nominee of the new Republican Party, and set the nation on the road to calamity.

Although the particulars differ, it seems to me that passions within the GOP are running as high today as they were within the Democrats in 1860. Will the Republicans unite behind a single candidate today? Or will the party split in two, as the Dems did on the brink of the Civil War?

The larger issue of how federalist vs. decentralized this nation was going to be was bound to happen. The Civil War was inevitable. Even if there were no slaves. As it stands the election of Lincoln ensured we came through the other side a better nation. A lessor president would have led to disaster. I don't consider it a calamity.

As for the GOP. They won't split. The "social conservatives" power in the party is vastly overstated. In the end, cold hard cash is the feul that powers the GOP and keeps everything ticking.

Agreed. Its big business they serve and they merely pay lip-service to the soc cons, like putting forth marriage, gun, or flag legislation, to keep them happy & in the dark

 

[Dragon]

I don't want to see Obama get a second term, but no way in hell am I voting for Romney.

It's this kind of sentiment I'm talking about. Of course, I know in your case the opposition is because he's a Mormon, but there's broad opposition to Romney among hard-core ideological Republicans because he's too moderate, not because of his religion.

By the way, to the person who said above that Occupy members will unite behind Obama -- that may happen but it's not a foregone conclusion. Obama lost these people (who worked for his election in many cases in 2008) through no one's fault but his own, and he will have to earn them back. So yes, there are splits within the Democrats, too, and that perhaps does make this a different dynamic than 1860.

Granted that the parties are better organized and disciplined today and a literal split as in two GOP candidates running is unlikely. There was another split within the Republicans, though -- driven by ego rather than ideology -- in 1912, when Theodore Roosevelt lost the nomination to Taft and formed his own party, effectively throwing the election to Woodrow Wilson. A similar third-party run to appeal to those who would say the same thing you did above is a possibility, if Romney wins the nomination.

But yes, there are massive divisions all over the place, so a simple repeat of 1860 is not to be expected. Considering the aftermath, that's surely some comfort.

 

[bripat9643]

The larger issue of how federalist vs. decentralized this nation was going to be was bound to happen. The Civil War was inevitable. Even if there were no slaves. As it stands the election of Lincoln ensured we came through the other side a better nation. A lessor president would have led to disaster. I don't consider it a calamity.

It insured exactly the opposite. We can out a far worse nation as a result of the Civil War. Lincoln was a dictator and a tyrant. he showed the way for his successors Stalin and Hitler. Lincoln invented the concentration camp and total war against civilians. The economy of the Southern states was destroyed for 100 years. The Civil War was a disaster for this country.

Only a complete Lincoln sycophant would claim the Civil War was a good thing for this country.

As for the GOP. They won't split. The "social conservatives" power in the party is vastly overstated. In the end, cold hard cash is the feul that powers the GOP and keeps everything ticking.

The same goes for the Democrat party. That's simply a gratuitous insult.