Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Republican Party’

VC Note:  To follow is a letter Morton Blackwell wrote concerning the rules changes that took place at the Republican Convention in Tampa, FL.  Although it has already been posted on RedState, I thought that it would be of interest to many activists in Virginia, especially considering the questionable tactics employed against our delegates.

Dated September 2nd, 2012

Dear Fellow RNC Member,

Now that the national convention is over, many delegates and others have asked me to sum up my views on the controversy at the convention regarding The Rules of the Republican Party and where we should go from here.

What happened regarding the party rules in Tampa was a totally unnecessary – but largely successful attempt – to concentrate and centralize more power at the top of the party and restrict or shut off opportunities for power in the party to flow from the bottom up.

The effort was led by Ben Ginsberg, a member of the Convention Rules Committee from Washington, D.C., who represented himself as the spokesman for Mitt Romney’s Presidential Campaign.

Earlier this year, Mr. Ginsberg worked for the Presidential Campaign of Michele Bachmann.  In Tampa, he led the effort to make major changes in the party rules strongly opposed by Congresswoman Bachmann.

Mr. Ginsberg is simply a man unencumbered by principles.

For four years, the Republican National Committee’s Standing Committee on Rules carefully reviewed The Rules of the Republican Party and adopted changes to propose for adoption by the national convention.

Then the Republican National Committee voted unanimously to approve the new rules proposed by its Standing Committee on Rules and sent them on to the Convention Rules Committee.

Enter Ben Ginsberg.

At the Convention Rules Committee meeting, he proceeded to introduce and support many amendments to the newly-revised rules which had been approved the previous day by the RNC.

The changes he proposed shared a common theme:  to concentrate and centralize more power at the top of the party, and to shut off opportunities for power in the party to flow from the bottom up.

Since these rules changes would go into effect for the 2016 presidential election cycle, none of Mr. Ginsberg’s power grabs would in any way help us elect Mitt Romney and defeat President Barack Obama in November.

And I’m sure you agree defeating Obama should be our top priority this Election Year.

But Ben Ginsberg’s efforts predictably enraged conservative Republicans who treasure the protections long incorporated in our national party rules.

The record will show that during the Conventions Rules Committee meeting, as a member of that Committee from Virginia, I repeatedly warned Mr. Ginsberg that his power grabs would hurt the Romney campaign by outraging grassroots conservative and libertarian activists whom we want to support our candidates this year.

Unfortunately, Mr. Ginsberg continued on his path.

There are some folks who, if you give them a fur coat, think they’re King Kong.

As anyone with relevant experience should have foreseen, when the Rules Committee report was presented for consideration to the National Convention, a thunderous “NO!” vote arose from the convention floor.

Most of the news media and those of us in the convention hall agree that the vote on adopting the Rules was obviously close. Some believe the “NO” vote was louder, but Speaker Boehner ruled that the “ayes” had it.

I was the youngest elected Goldwater delegate at the 1964 national convention.  I have attended every national convention since, and I’ve represented Virginia on the RNC since 1988.

Nothing like this has ever happened before in living memory at a Republican National Convention.

When they were presumptive Presidential nominees – and when they were Presidents of the United States – neither George H.W. Bush nor George W. Bush ever attempted to undermine the means by which power within the Republican Party structure can rise from the bottom up.

The operatives whom the Romney campaign put in charge of Rules matters seem to want the power to rule the national Republican Party, as Nelson Rockefeller used to run the New York State Republican Party.

These operatives should be repudiated – and it’s not too late to do so.

Later in this email, I’ll discuss some of the awful changes Mr. Ginsberg supported.

But first, it’s necessary to stress how important I believe it is to elect Mitt Romney and defeat Barack Obama in November.

My wife and I have supported Republican candidates every year in our 40-year marriage.  This year, my wife and I have contributed at least five times as much money to Romney Victory, Inc. as we have ever given to any other campaign.

Four years ago, I predicted in a posting which still can be seen on the website RedState, how bad a President Barack Obama would be.

He has been even worse than I predicted.

Barack Obama is a leftist ideologue who has filled his Administration with other leftist ideologues, and their policies are bankrupting our country and destroying many of our liberties.

Mitt Romney strongly supports conservative principles – and he would undo the damage Obama has done.

He would end the slide into national bankruptcy, restore threatened liberties, and put our country on the path toward economic growth and more job opportunities.

It’s little short of tragic that some of his operatives blundered by setting up an entirely unnecessary, major controversy with grassroots Republicans at our national convention.

Undoubtedly, the worst power grab initiated by Mr. Ginsberg was his ramming through a change in the Rules of the Republican Party, a new Rule 12, which permits the Republican National Committee to change national rules between conventions.

The Democrats have had such a rule for years, and those in power in their party spend the periods between their national conventions fighting in their national committee over rules changes to benefit this or that faction, or this or that potential presidential nominee.

We Republicans have avoided that by prohibiting changes in the rules between our national conventions.

The office of the RNC Chairman is – and has to be – very powerful.  A National Committee of 168 members, which meets for a few hours two or three times a year, can’t micro-manage the RNC.

The RNC Chairman has the immense power of the purse and a large staff to influence the decisions of the RNC, so an RNC Chairman can get the votes of a super-majority of the RNC for just about anything he or she desires.

But until now, the fact that the RNC Chairman must abide by stable party rules has served as the main protection for input by grassroots conservatives and libertarians.

For practical purposes, the new Rule 12 adds to the power of the RNC Chairman (or to the White House when there’s a Republican President) the ability to change party rules at will.

Over a number of election cycles, our party has struggled to avoid the front-loading of our delegate selection process, moving us closer and closer to a single national primary as states race to the head of the line to hold their primaries.

Yet prudence dictates that there should be a reasonably long nomination process in order to properly vet all of our candidates.

After special studies and much consultation, many serious party leaders finally came up with a workable solution.  Party rules were changed in this cycle to prohibit winner-take-all primaries in March of presidential election years.  March primaries had to in some way allocate delegate votes proportionally to the popular vote.

The new system worked, and Mitt Romney is a better presidential candidate because of that experience.

Mr. Ginsberg gutted the hard-won reform by ramming through a change in the rules to permit winner-take-all primaries in March.

When I asked him why he did this, he replied to me, “It wasn’t our idea.  We did it as a favor for some friends.”

That’s a far cry from a process in which the best interests of our party are carefully discussed and considered.

I have innumerable times over the years recruited new participants into the Republican Party by stressing the fairness, openness, and stability of our Republican rules compared to those of the Democratic Party.

The way to treat newcomers to our party is fairly, politely, and even cordially.

That’s what we do in Virginia. And that’s how to build and sustain a majority party.

Among the many still-not-publicized rules changes rammed through the Convention Rules Committee by Mr. Ginsberg was one to raise from five to eight the number of states a presidential candidate would have to win in the nomination contests in order to have his or her name formally placed in nomination before the convention.

Raising the bar was a gratuitous slap at prospective new participants in our nomination process.

Despite his success in recruiting new volunteers, Congressman Ron Paul won a majority of the delegate votes in nowhere near five states this year.

To discuss all the power grabs the rules suffered this year would be tedious in a letter, so let me mention only some of them, including the one which resulted in a “compromise.”

Mr. Ginsberg got the Convention Rules Committee to pass a rule change which would allow presidential candidates to remove national convention delegates who were legally elected under the party rules and laws of the respective states.  This caused such a furor that a Minority Report to the Rules Committee Report seemed certain.

That would have forced a debate on the convention floor and a vote of the entire convention body.

A valid Minority Report required the support of 28 members – or 25% – of the Convention Rules Committee.  Well over 35 signatures were certain, despite all available arm-twisting of Mr. Ginsberg and those who supported him on everything else.

State parties, including Virginia’s, fiercely defended their right to elect their own delegates.  The “compromise” was for Mr. Ginsberg to agree to take out the provision which would have given candidates the power to disavow and remove legally elected delegates.

In place of that obnoxious provision was inserted a guarantee that delegate votes would go to candidates who won those delegate votes in binding presidential primaries, a matter which would have been routinely enforced under the existing rules.

Conservatives continued to mount efforts to file two Minority Reports, but in the end, enough Rules Committee members were persuaded not to sign them or to remove their signatures.

Neither had the required 28 signatures and one wound up with 27 valid signatures.

Therefore no Minority Reports reached the convention floor.

I should mention that Mr. Ginsberg moved one rules change which would have required the signatures of 40% of future Convention Rules Committees for a Minority Report to be considered on the convention floor.

That would have rendered future Minority Reports virtually impossible because the signatures would have to be obtained and the Minority Report filed within one hour of the adjournment of the Convention Rules Committee.

The opposition to this attempted power grab was so intense that Mr. Ginsberg withdrew his motion.

There circulated in the media coverage of the Tampa convention a report that a late and wayward bus deliberately prevented the Virginia Delegates from arriving at the convention hall in time for me to take part in the final (usually pro-forma) meeting of the Convention Rules Committee held as the convention began.

It is true that our Virginia bus got our delegation to the convention hall after the Convention Rules Committee meeting adjourned.  But I never for a minute believed our bus had been deliberately delayed.

One should not attribute to conspiracy what can adequately be explained by incompetence.  You will recall that staggeringly bad transportation arrangements inconvenienced most of the states’ delegations that day.

All in all, in most ways our 2012 convention was a roaring success.

We presented great speeches by Mitt Romney and his brilliant choice for running mate, Paul Ryan.  Other great speeches by Anne Romney, Marco Rubio, and a galaxy of others put our party’s best feet forward.  The 2012 Republican Platform clearly expressed our conservative and liberty-loving principles.

My strong advice is for all of us to work tirelessly and give generously to our national campaign.  Everything is on the line this year.

And there’s another reason for solid conservatives to contribute more time and money now.

I believe we shall win this election, and then there’s the important matter of staffing a new Administration.

I worked full-time in the Presidential Personnel Office of President-elect Ronald Reagan and then for three years on his White House staff.

Personnel is policy.

An incoming administration tends to hire people who contributed significantly to winning the election.

If we expect a new President to hire a lot of principled conservatives and libertarians, we should maximize the number of principled conservatives and libertarians who have credentialed themselves by taking part in the Mitt Romney campaign.

And then, in 2016 we can work to repeal the current Rule 12 – and reverse the other mistakes incorporated in the new rules last week.

Cordially,

Morton Blackwell
National Committeeman, Virginia

Read Full Post »

For many Americans, the Fourth of July is a day filled with cookouts and family gatherings capped off by a night filled with a colorful fireworks display.  However, given that the date serves as the commemoration for the birth of the nation, it is also steeped in politics.

On Wednesday afternoon, the city of Harrisonburg, Virginia held its annual parade to celebrate the day.  The weather was quite hot and sunny, a marked difference from last year when a virtual monsoon threatened to cancel the affair.

The parade boasted the usual assortment of floats and vehicles: musicians, fire and rescue teams, antique cars, and, of course, political groups.  This year, there were four different sets of folks who entered: the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the Tea Party, and Abe Shearer for City Council.

Overall, the candidate who could claim the largest number of visible supporters in the parade had to be Representative Bob Goodlatte (VA-6).  There was a veritable sea of matching blue Goodlatte shirts among the Republicans.  Other Republican candidates were promoted as well including: Mitt Romney, George Allen, Mark Obenshain, and the various City Council hopefuls.

The Democratic Party had an impressive showing as well.  They waved signs in favor of Barack Obama, Tim Kaine, Andy Schmookler, and two City Council candidates. I spoke with Deb Fitzgerald, one of the Democratic candidates running, to ask if the Democratic Party only fielded two folks for the three seats up in November.  I discovered that although Kai Degner is running for re-election, he apparently had no signs printed to be used in the parade.

Running as an independent for City Council, Abe Shearer also made his presence known.  Even though some might be tempted to disregard independents, recent elections have shown that they offer beat the two party candidates for this particular office.  The outcome for this race will hinge heavily upon the battle between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama at the top of the ticket and the strength of the campaigns of each of the council candidates.

During the trip down Main Street, I walked alongside the Tea Party float handing out copies of the Constitution.  In general, the crowd was very receptive and so I ran out of materials a good distance from the end of the route.

Given that the Fourth is now five days passed, you might find it odd that it has taken me so long to write about it here.  Well, I’m afraid that I didn’t feel much like writing on the evening of the event.  On the drive back to the parking lot, I decided to catch a ride on the Tea Party float.  As we turned onto a side street, the mast holding the tea party sign struck a low-hanging branch and came loose.  Unfortunately, I happened to be in the path of the heavy wooden board as it fell to the ground.  Although it was only a glancing blow, the plank did graze the side of my head and collided with my shoulder.  At the time, I was worried about the severity of the injury, and, as a result of the pain, did very little for the rest of that evening.  However, I’m pleased to say that several days later, only a yellowish bruise and a bit of residual soreness seem to be the only lingering effects.

I suppose that one could see a bit of irony in the idea of a person who opposes the idea of government-run health insurance and also does not presently have health insurance due to the tremendous cost involved, becoming injured himself and possibly in need of assistance.  Nevertheless, if a person does find him or herself in such a state of need, should one demand that the government redress this problem?  Although freely given charity is laudable, the idea of a person compelling his or her neighbors to care for his or her needs through either force or coercion seems to completely reject the basic political tenets of liberty and freedom under which this country was supposedly founded.

Anyway, to sum up, except for the surprise accident at the end, I would say that the parade was a rousing success for all of the parties who choose to participate.  Speaking specifically of the tea party, I hope that I’ll see a few new faces at our meeting later this month.

Read Full Post »

With another debate under our belts, I’ve been wondering what will be the schedule of the 2012 Republican Presidential primaries.  Regardless of their vote totals, states are typically rated in importance according to how early they vote in the process.  Each early victory builds momentum for the candidates and most campaigns dissolve after the first several contests.  That’s why so many people pay attention to the relatively small states of Iowa and New Hampshire.

Four years ago, Virginia was pretty late in the process.  Unfortunately, that meant that not many folks paid attention to the state.  By February 12th, there were only three candidates left in a race shrunk from an earlier field of eight.  This time around, it should be different.  Currently Virginia holds a spot of prominence, as it is a part of the Super Tuesday primaries on March 6th.  Hopefully, that means that both candidates and campaigns will take an effort to educate and impress the citizens of the Old Dominion State.

Getting back to the larger picture at hand, last week I called the RNC asking for a schedule of the 2012 Republican Presidential primaries and caucuses.  It seems that didn’t have much information and therefore recommended contacting the Republican Parties of each state for information.  So, I did; here are the results I have thus far.  Please note that all dates are subject to change.  This list is not complete and I plan to add more information as it becomes available.

Unofficial Dates for Primaries, Caucuses, and Conventions for the 2012 Republican Presidential Contest

Feb 6: Iowa

Feb 14: New Hampshire

Feb 18: Nevada

Feb 28: South Carolina, Michigan (tentative)

The latter half of Feb: Maine (dates vary by county)

Mar 3: Washington

Mar 6: Super Tuesday Virginia, Vermont, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Alaska, Texas, Idaho, Massachusetts

Mar 6-10: Wyoming (by county.  Statewide event to follow on Mar 14)

Mar 10: Kansas

Mar 13: Alabama

Mar 20: Illinois

Mar 24: Louisiana

Apr 3: Maryland

Apr 14: Colorado

Apr 24: New York, Delaware, Connecticut (tentative), Rhode Island

May 8: West Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana

May 14: Nebraska

May 22: Kentucky, Arkansas

Jun 5: California, Montana, New Mexico

Jun 26: Utah

Read Full Post »

When I talk to Republicans about Ron Paul these days, I often get the response, “well, I like him…except for his foreign policy.”  Fortunately, it is true that Ron Paul is gaining more acceptance and respect in Republican circles these days.  Of course, it wasn’t so long ago that they were extremely hostile.  Back in 2007-08 when I worked for Rep. Paul, some Republicans stated that they strongly disliked Dr. Paul strictly based on his foreign policy.

But are Ron Paul’s foreign policy positions really that farfetched?  For the record, he supports a humble foreign policy, which includes opposing: nation-building, wars that are undeclared, ill-defined, and/or humanitarian, spreading our troops thinly around the globe, and using our military as the world’s policemen.  I’m sure that every Republican, with the exception of the zealous neoconservative, could agree with at least part of his stance.

I’ll admit it.  Back in the 2000 elections, foreign policy was not the most important issue to me.  After all, we had (and still have) dire domestic concerns that require our attention.  What people X do in country Y is of little importance…so long as the lives, liberty, and property of American citizens is not directly harmed.  I believed then, as I still believe today, that the purpose of our government and our military is to protect our people, not to “liberate”, “depose”, or “make the world safe for democracy”.

Nevertheless, I did oppose Clinton’s actions in Somalia, Bosnia, and elsewhere.  So too did a majority of Republicans, including future President George W. Bush.  Think back to the words of George Bush during the 2000 campaign.

It is strange.  George Bush could speak against nation building back in 2000 and just about every Republican would applaud.  Ron Paul uses many of the same words today as Bush did then, and some of the same people would boo.  Did the words some how change their meaning?  Or has the GOP I remember abandoned its principles?

What happened to this President?  What happened to the Republican Party?  Regrettably, it seems that both George Bush and the GOP became casualties of the attacks of 9-11, morphing into something scarcely recognizable.

I say that it is time to reclaim the limited government advocating, Constitution supporting, humble foreign policy promoting GOP of 2000.  Of all of the candidates running or rumored to be running for president, there is only one who has a proven track record of supporting these principles tempered with a commitment to protect the unborn and guarding our borders.  That person, like George Bush, is a fellow Texan; Representative Ron Paul.

I want a return to the GOP I remember.  Heck, I want a return to the nation I remember before little old ladies and children were molested at airports in the name of security.  Let me tell you that if you liked the foreign policy principles of 2000 George W. Bush, chances are you’ll love Ron Paul.  Now don’t think that Ron Paul can change our country overnight; after all, a President is restrained by the Constitution.  Nevertheless, he can get it heading in the right direction again.  I hope you’ll join me in supporting him.

Ron Paul 2012!

Special thanks to Nick for sharing the above video.

Read Full Post »

While at the Cato Institute, I picked up an interesting article entitled, “The Libertarian Vote in the Age of Obama”.  Not only does it explain and predict libertarian voter trends, it also shows the number of libertarian voters is much higher than one would expect (small “l”, not necessarily members of the Libertarian Party).  They estimate the percentage of libertarian voters is at least 14%.  Now by libertarian, they mean folks who are economically conservative and socially liberal.  The most interesting part of the piece for me was a segment on Ron Paul voters.  Not surprisingly, libertarians strongly supported Paul.  But, they discovered that only 38% of folks who voted for Representative Paul in the primary voted for John McCain in the general election, with 24% going with Obama and 33% to someone else.  In general, “the more a voter liked Paul, the less likely he was to vote Republican in the general election.”  This trend should not come as some great shock given that McCain and Paul had diametrically opposing viewpoints on many key issues.  With that information in mind, how can the GOP increase its share of the libertarian vote?

Let me start off by saying I have mixed feelings about libertarians.  I confess, in the early days of my political involvement, I held a rather dim view of libertarians.  Then again, like so many things we don’t understand and, as a result, hate, I didn’t know too much about them.  I thought that they were merely politically amoral.  Although we could agree on many fiscal issues, I didn’t like the fact that they many were socially liberal, that they would not promote our Judeo-Christian values in the government.  In addition, some of their theories sounded downright bizarre and when one of them refused to say the pledge of allegiance at a meeting, I was completely miffed.  Are libertarians anti-patriotic, anti-American?  (After reading more, I understand a bit better now).

On the one hand, I appreciate that libertarians continually hold firm to their anti-federal government stance even when some Republican leaders forget things like the Constitution and the 10th Amendment.  On the other, in general, libertarians either don’t seem to be able to instill their ideals into the heart and mind of John Q. Public, or don’t have the interest in doing so.  This deficiency likely springs from a lack of major party representation.

Given that the Democratic Party is largely liberal both economically and socially, while the Republican Party is largely conservative in the same areas, how will the economically conservative but socially liberal libertarians vote?  Obviously some will vote for the Libertarian Party, the fifth largest party by registered voters, but, given that Libertarian candidates are not always available, coupled with our first past-the-post system of elections, a large percentage will vote either Republican or Democrat.  So how can the GOP successfully court the libertarian vote? A better question is, why should libertarians vote for Republicans?  After all, in recent times Republicans haven’t even promoted their shared economic conservatism.  They exploded the national debt and eroded civil liberties through both the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security.  We (that is the GOP) must reclaim its principles, and it must do so now!  Don’t both libertarians and supposedly conservatives want a smaller, more efficient, more constitutionally limited government?  The national party should take a cue from the Republican Party of Virginia whose creed states: “That the Federal Government must preserve individual liberty by observing Constitutional limitations.”

Although I have been called a libertarian on many occasions, I assure you that I am about as socially conservative as they come.  I just believe that we must act within the confines of the Constitution.  Now, I know that as a social conservative, we sometimes toy with the appeal to promote our agenda in the nation’s capital regardless of the issue of constitutional restraint, but we mustn’t surrender to this temptation.  To do so would trample not only our own principles, but also the principles under which this country was founded.  It is the mark of the fascist, not the constitutional conservative.  After all, wasn’t it Ronald Reagan who said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help”?  D.C. has become an open grave for countless conservative ideals and politicians.

The Republican Party should never abandon their social conservative stance in order to woo the libertarians into their camp, but conversely, if we faithfully observed Constitutional limitations, I would expect libertarians would find many aspects of Republican politics to be far more appealing than Democratic ones.  With a sizable percentage of that 14% libertarian vote in our corner, Republicans both at the state and national level will find greater electoral success.  For far too long, the Republicans and the Democrats in D.C. have fought tooth and nail to see which can expand more entitlements, inflate bureaucracies, and increase meddlesome overregulation.  I don’t want to belabor the point, but the answer is simple:  Like Paul, we must advocate and implement policies that actually shrink the size and scope of the government.  Then we, that is the GOP, will be able to successfully court the libertarian vote.

Read Full Post »

As an avid read of the blog would know, one of my major concerns has been to wrest control of the Republican Party away from the neo-conservatives who dominated policy during the presidency of George W. Bush.  I’m pleased to say that we are moving in the right direction.  With each passing day as a result of the legacy of Bush and the quagmire of Obama, more and more Americans reject the philosophy of the nanny state, government interference in the private sector, preemptive war, and the burden of military occupation while clamoring for more federalism and states rights.

Last night, the Southern Avenger posted a video that eloquently addresses the current ideological struggle and I encourage you to watch it.

What surprised me is that so many conservatives who despised the foreign policy of Woodrow Wilson were so quick to embrace his progressive agenda once the neo-conservatives offered a repackaging of basically the same philosophy.  I’ve been stating and restating that point on this blog almost since day one when I tied neo-conservatism to Wilsonianism back in June 30 of 2008.

Worry not fellow lovers of liberty.  With your help, we will once again have a major party that consistently and boldly advocates the policies of personal responsibility and limited, constitutional government.  Not only can we reclaim the Republican Party, we are winning!

Read Full Post »

The politics of color identification continue to grow in this country.  Now by color identification, I’m not referring to anything racial, but rather the “red state blue state” mentality that is becoming more widespread.  For example, in the world of political blogging and activism, we have folks like RedState and RedStormPAC on the right and Blue Virginia and Blue Commonwealth on the left.  Although not really conservative, as they hail from the “red state” of Tennessee, there is also the satirical Red State Update.

The notion of identifying the color red with the Republican Party/conservatives and the color blue with the Democratic Party/liberals is a relatively new concept arising out of the 2000 Presidential Election where states won by George W. Bush were labeled in red and states won by Al Gore were labeled in blue.  Prior to that time, there was no uniform color scheme to identify the parties.  Some years the Republicans were blue, some years they were red.  It should be noted that, so far, neither party has officially adopted their assigned color.

Personally I dislike the system and believe it would make far more sense if the colors were reversed.  Like Thomas Nast’s elephant and donkey, the colors, in my mind, serve as a criticism for both.  The Republicans should be blue as their critics claim that their tax cutting plans and trickle down economics benefit the rich, the well connected, the elites, the blue bloods.  The Democrats on the other hand promote nationalization and expanded government power like you would see in a communist or “red” country.  But don’t just take my word for it.  Painting the right-wing party blue and the left-wing party red is a fairly universal concept outside our borders.  For example, if we examine the rest of North America, in Canada the Conservative Party’s color is blue and the Liberal Party is red.  So too is it for Mexico where the PAN is blue and the PRI is red (and also green).  Moving across the pond (as the British like to say) we find Europe in much the same color plan.  In the United Kingdom, the Conservatives are blue and Labour is red.  Need more proof?  In Germany, France, Spain, Poland, Norway, and Austria, the CSU, Union for a Popular Movement, PP, Civic Platform, Høyre, and FPÖ parties are all right-wing and use the color blue while the left-wing SPD, Socialist, PSOE, SLD, Labour, and SPÖ parties have all chosen or been assigned the color red.  One can even see similar trends in Asia where in Japan the LPD’s colors are blue and orange and the DPJ is red and black.  In South Korea the GNP is blue and the DP is green (OK, it isn’t a perfect system).  Although not every party lines up with blue for right-wing and red for left-wing, especially in multiparty countries, it is a fairly accepted norm.

Thinking back to our own colors and perceived negatives about the parties, I guess you could say that the Republican Party is now red due to the zeal for war and the resulting bloodshed, but what really ties the Democrats to blue?  I think the blue Republican and red Democrat make far more sense.  After all, if the Democrats are blue, isn’t calling conservative Democrats “blue dog” redundant? Although I am certain it won’t happen, given that Republicans “hate the poor”, I say that we should salvage our elitist blue and leave red for those “commie” Democrats.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: