My Op-Ed in The Hill: Only Kasich nomination can save the GOP

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

For those who wish to read it, today The Hill published my op-ed in support of Kasich.  Here is the opening paragraph:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/presidential-campaign/271525-only-kasich-nomination-can-save-the-gop

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Inks,

  Great article by the way cool to see an article by a forum member published in The Hill. But, Kasich is too boring and not conservative enough for most republicans.

Thanks.  I've actually had decent luck with The Hill.  I'm 2/2 publication-wise with them (my first being a letter in support of Hagel's confirmation).

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'm sorry, Inks. While I'm impressed you've published your op-ed it's still a wishful thinking.

I don't necessarily disagree. If I had to put money on it, I'd say Trump will be the nominee. But the sane Republicans at least have to try.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Nathan, nothing will save the GOP from itself this election cycle. TRUMP is a mainstream Republican because he represents exactly the sort of unfocused angry voters the Republican Party has become addicted to these last few years in its quest for electoral victory at any cost. Until the GOP is able to at least climb the first of the twelve steps of recovery, I won't be enabling it at all with my votes. That is why I recently changed my long time independent avatar to a Democratic avatar. By focusing upon the candidates the GOP selects rather than the voters the party reaches out to, it's clear that you personally have not yet accepted the fact that your party has an addiction. Not that you are alone in your failure. I have yet to hear any Republican who has taken that first step. No doubt there are a few, but they certainly aren't getting heard. There are plenty like yourself who can see the consequences of the party's addiction and who deplore those consequences. But also like yourself, they seek to treat the symptoms rather than come to grips with the cancerous addiction that eats at the party and is destroying its long term prospects as a presidential party.

At least TRUMP is not delusional about the types of voters the Republican Party has become addicted to. The problem with him is that he embraces that addiction and feeds it to his own benefit just as he has with other addictions other people he has taken for a ride have had.

I have acknowledged that though, and I touched on this in the piece. Your point is exactly what I was talking about when I said, "For years elected Republican officials have increasingly pandered to a small minority of extremely conservative voters—all in an effort to gain votes." Pushing the party to the right to gain support of Tea Party voters was the worst decision elected GOP officials made in years; this is something I've been saying for years.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

You touched upon it, but it didn't come across as the focus of your piece. You focused upon which candidate could present Republican positions positively without concerning yourself over why those positions have tended to appeal principally to the angry white male vote. It's not as simple as the pandering you wish were the problem; if that were the problem then the angry white male voters would never have come to identify themselves as Republican in the first place.

That's true as to the piece, but that has no bearing on your allegation that I have not accepted that my party has an addiction. 750 words is pretty short, and the focus here was to do what I can in the present moment. I've advocated for stopping Trump by any means necessary, even if that means a last-minute rules change that makes the crazies leave the party; I don't want the crazies in the party. But putting that in an op-ed right before Super Tuesday doesn't really accomplish much. At least this had the opportunity--granted it's a longshot--of doing something.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It's not the rules, it's the message. Your problem with TRUMP appears to be that he's clearly articulating the parts of the Republican message that until now major figures in the party have chosen to say in coded language. At least with TRUMP there is no need for a secret decoder ring which is a large part of his appeal. You say you don't want the crazies in the party but you haven't said how you'd do that other than procedurally.

At this point, I don't know that it feasibly can be done (or rather undone). You need elected officials to start saying, "I don't care if I get primaried. I'm not going to spout extremist stances so that I can win a primary." The problem is that it's a positive feedback cycle. People who previously weren't political decided to get involved in politics, and while both sides have radicals, the radicals at issue now joined to GOP--not because there was anything wrong with the GOP at that time, but because that party more closely aligned with those radicals' views. Some officials decided to tap into those new supporters and pandered to them. This made people inside the party shift right as well; I'm not sure what the reason for that was. I've seen people completely reverse positions and become more radical, and these people are not elected people, just party participants. I don't know if it's because they want to stay in what they feel is the "majority" opinion-wise or what the reason is. But as the grassroots shifted right, this caused elected officials to shift right in order to stay in office. This in turn brought in new radicals and caused former sane party participants to also shift right.

I can tell you how to avoid it: don't pander, and when the bad apples come in in the first place, make it known that their radical ideas aren't welcome. But we're past that now. I don't know how you undo that without pissing off the radicals in order to drive them from the party.