The Republican Party Has Left Me

I am completely done with the Republican Party at large. The corruption, the deceit, the cronyism, I am done. This was not a random or sudden turn of events though. It was over a long period of time of seeing complacency, inter-fighting, cronyism, and utter apathy in some cases. Yet despite all of these things, I still want to call myself a Republican, in the traditional sense of the party platform, but I realize that in order to maintain my integrity of conscience, I can no longer do so.

The issue does not lie on my side, it lies with the corrupt political class that has swarmed both parties and one by one rooted out good men. I can only come to one conclusion with the gradual degeneration of the former Grand Old Party.

I have not left the Republican Party, it has left me.

As I previously stated, this was a compilation of small tidbits over a period of years, until it came to one point where I realize that I could no longer consider myself a part of this Republican Party that we have now. This Republican Party is not a bulwark of liberty, a champion of the middle class, nor the people’s best friend. No, they have joined across the aisle in one of the greatest acts of bipartisanship in creating a de facto one party system, one of the features of a tyranny.

I’ll provide just three recent examples as to why I can no longer affiliate myself with the Republican Party. First was the primary race between Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and challenger Matt Bevin.

Bevin presented himself as a part of the larger solution to combat the cronyism and corruption in Washington. Enter McConnell.

When asked about the upcoming midterm elections, and how the Tea Party would fare, he said the following: “I think we are going to crush them everywhere,” McConnell said. “I don’t think they are going to have a single nominee anywhere in the country.”

Here’s something that I think many people missed about McConnell’s statement. He said “we are going to crush them.” Not “I am going to crush him,” but a collective “we” that implied the establishment versus the small government, pro-liberty caucus. He even went as far to say that people like Ted Cruz are “traitors.” Excuse me Mitch?

While I personally don’t agree with Cruz on every policy issue, I can recognize the fact that he is more willing to work to shrink the scope and power of the federal government, whereas McConnell seems to like things the way they are. A weak Republican Party, a nice amount of cash on hand, crushing small government proponents; yep, all the tell-tale signs of one who has been thrust themselves into the cesspool, only to start wallowing in its contents, and to be rather proud of it.

Next, I move to dynamic duo of John McCain and Lindsey Graham, the warhawks of the Republican Party. The most recent examples have been in the rise of the Islamic State in the Middle East, where both have been consistently calling for more war in a region already trashed by more than a decade of war and destruction. Now one can argue that the Islamic State must be stopped, and that is not being contested here; this bloodthirsty group of scum must be stopped, but the United States can’t do so unilaterally because it’s simply impossible.

We don’t always have to go to war to fix problems in the world, but that seems to be the first thing that these two think of when issues arise around the globe. Here’s one specific example. In 2013, Senator Graham suggested that the U.S. be prepared to go into direct war with Iran over the nuclear program being developed by Tehran, but just this past June he suggested working with those same people to fight the Islamic State in Iraq.

In 2008, John McCain hit on the idea that we would constantly be in a state of war in the Middle East, Iraq in particular. A video compilation from the 2008 election season shows just a few instances of McCain’s preference for war as the ultimate solution.

Some of my conservative friends may ask what the problem is with war. Well, war is the government’s growth hormone, and a nation constantly at war will never be able to have freedom at home. War is a prerogative for governments to take more from the economy and the people to supply its efforts in fighting an enemy, whether real or fabricated. Party leaders such as McCain and Graham cannot be representing a party of freedom and limited government. War is the platform of champions of unlimited government.

Thirdly, the Senate primary race between Thad Cochran and Chris McDaniel; this was the straw that finally broke the camel’s back for me. Thad Cochran has been in the Senate for 36 years, likely to be 42 after November 4 elections. If that’s not reason enough to retire a Senator, I don’t know what is.

The first primary election resulted in McDaniel and Cochran being the top two in voting percentage, but no candidate reached the 50% threshold required to officially win the nomination. A runoff was forced a few weeks later between Cochran and McDaniel. During that time, Cochran went on full offensive against McDaniel and even went as far as to court the left into voting for him during the primary, the Republican primary.

McDaniel filed a lawsuit, which was thrown out, about the thousands of anomalies in the second primary election, a tell-tale sign of massive election fraud. To put it in the words of Daniel Horowitz in an article on Breitbart, “This is Treachery.”

Horowitz hits the nail on the head. The party establishment has explicitly decided to alienate itself from its largest base, the traditional American conservatives, and opt for low-blow tactics that utilize likely election fraud and innumerable ad hominem attacks on their fellow party members. Within the Republican Party itself, there are two parties: the establishment, and the real Republicans, those who truly stand for what the party used to stand for, but no longer does.

These were the three most prominent examples that came to mind for reasons why I cannot call myself a Republican anymore. I could have talked about Eric Cantor and John Boehner being lobbyists’ best friends in Congress, or about how the party at large simply refuses to stand up for the simple things like the rule of law. These are issues that plague the party at large, and must be addressed if the party is going to survive, which it may not at the rate that it is going.

democratic party left me

This was not easy for me to say, but I think that it had to be done. Just as Ronald Reagan stated all those decades ago, about how the Democratic Party had left him, I am in the same boat. But unlike Reagan, there is no national group with the power and influence of either of the two parties that I could throw my support behind. No, we are far past that. Support will simply have to be on a case by case basis. Three names that come to mind are Justin Amash, Rand Paul, and Thomas Massie. All Republicans yes, but fed up with the corruption, which is more important.

If the party is going to survive, I think that more voters will have to take the case by case approach. Voting for Republicans is simply not going to cut it anymore, because there is essentially no difference between the two parties, and that is probably one of the saddest admissions that I have to make in order to keep my dedication to intellectual honesty. The bottom line is that I can’t support a party that will not support the Constitution that they swear to uphold. Is that so much to ask? Apparently so.

Follow Seth on Twitter: @sconnell1776

2 thoughts on “The Republican Party Has Left Me

  1. Please understand the context in which Senator McCain made those statements in 2008. He was running against a candidate who was advocating a “cut and run” policy in Iraq and promising an end to all US military action there within his first year in office.

    In contrast to this, McCain thought we should stick around and put the work in since we’d already invested in ousting Hussein and bringing democracy to Iraq. Note that the rise of the Islamic State is almost a direct result of our having abandoned the proper security measures which were previously implemented to prevent such an insurrection.

    1. Context is important yes, but since then he still has not backed off from his war hawk approach. More war is not the answer to the problems of the world, in fact it simply exacerbates them. It was not our business to establish a regime that was doomed to fail from the start once our support was withdrawn, as it necessarily must. We simply cannot afford to prop up regimes around the world while people here at home suffer to pay for it, and future generations of Americans are enslaved by war debt.

      The rise of the Islamic State has been due to the lack of stability in the region, not simply because the US withdrew, but because there was not a strong authority in the region. While under Saddam, there was stability, one has to recognize. Sure, he was a bad guy no question, but there were not bloodthirsty maniac terrorist groups indiscriminately slaughtering people across the region. Saddam, and even Assad, despite their human rights violations and evil actions, were actually important to maintaining a balance of power in the region. Ridding them has enabled what we see today. Again, more war does not mean that problems are going to be fixed, and those problems that exist are not necessarily our responsibility to fix, People must fight for themselves, because if they don’t nothing that we do will make a shred of difference, and will only hurt Americans at home.


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s