fbpx

I am de facto a Republican and a conservative. I have through the years expressed much disdain with what an imperfect vehicle, the Grand Old Party, is in American politics. When the party was founded in the 1860s, the GOP party ringleaders marched through my home state, the Commonwealth of Virginia, plundering, pillaging, and setting fire to its domiciles and farms. History’s irony is that that the party of such anti-republican nationalism carries the name republican. I have often made the Republican Party an object of derision as much as the corrupt, machine-ridden Democratic Party, if not more so. So why muster an objection to third parties? Simply put, the present-day cultural crisis, presented by the secular élites of the Democratic Party intelligentsia fundamentally threaten the American way of life with their agenda of abortion-on-demand, crass cosmopolitanism, globalism, identity politics, mass-Third World immigration, open borders, and their politics of dispossession that regards Americans as interchangeable cogs with every alien with a bleeding heart story that happens to wash up on the shores of these United States.

      James Burnham offered some practical wisdom in The Machiavellians. Therein, Burnham writes, “It is the habit of utopians, of those who, like Dante, interpret politics as a wish, not of scientists, to confuse their desires with what is going to happen.” This is why I won’t waste time with third party activism, such as the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party, which I flirted with in my youth, between periods of non-participation, alienation and apathy. When I was a youthful, idealistic teenager, I had the luxury of such naivety. I understand the purpose of politics now. That the Republican Party’s legislators often deviate from constitutional norms and are apt to reflect poor policy prerogatives is granted, and yet it doesn’t change the fact the political Left needs a viable political opposition from the Right. Moreover, the Democratic Party and the political Left simply needs an opposition to thwart their aims and goals, as it stands athwart my cherished values about Christianity, conservatism, and the Constitution. Voting on the basis of idealism served up by third parties aimed at protecting the Constitution or Liberty is nothing more than politics based on idealized wish fulfillment. This course of action ignores the imperative need to protect the polity, and embrace the vote as a practical expedient to thwart Democratic Party ascendancy to power given their numerical preponderance and relative unity. As James Burnham posited:

“The Machiavellians are the only ones who have told us the full truth about power. . . the primary object, in practice, of all rulers is to serve their own interest, to maintain their own power and privilege. . . No theory, no promises, no morality, no amount of good will, no religion will restrain power. Neither priests nor soldiers, neither labor leaders nor businessmen, neither bureaucrats nor feudal lords will differ from each other in the basic use which they will seek to make of power […] Only power restrains power. That restraining power is expressed in the existence and activity of oppositions. […] When all opposition is destroyed, there is no longer any limit to what power may do. A despotism, any kind of despotism, can be benevolent only by accident.”

James Burnham, The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom (Chicago, IL: Henry Regnery Co., 1963), 246-47.

      The Yellowstone television series on Paramount Network is telling enough. There the son of John Dutton, the Montana rancher, who owns a multi-generational ranch the size of Rhode Island, declares that the landed free-holder interest in essence is superior to the urban interests; therefore, it must assert itself to protect its families, farms, and way of life against “hope and change.” Jamie declares:

“You know, I gotta be honest with you. I’m not an idealist. I don’t want you to think my goal is changing the world. [My goal is] power. I want more. [My goal is to] protect my family and families like it, (and) stop the hemorrhaging of Montana’s resources to other states. My goal is the opposite of change.”

      As Thomas Jefferson said, “The mobs of great cities add just so much to the support of pure government, as sores do to the strength of the human body.” Hence today as the Democratic Party’s base is largely reduced to urban constituencies — the combination of the welfare underclass, first-generation immigrants from abroad, and the limousine liberals in media, government, finance, investment banks, and state-connected oligopolies — and they generally stand athwart the values and interests of the ‘Great American Middle,’ and they need opposition.

      Comparable analogy can be found in the dichotomy presented in Cato’s Letters by Gordon and Trenchard of the Court Party and the Country Party. Earlier Henry St John, 1st Viscount Bolingbroke posited the need for a systematic parliamentary opposition to the established “court party.” The court party concerned itself with surrounding the halls of political power, finance, and partaking of political patronage and spoils of “the court” and often tended towards the corruption of the polity. Such an opposition Bolingbroke dubbed “the country party” which stood opposed to “the court party.” Liberty (and by implication, the traditional liberties of a polity’s constitution) could only be safeguarded by an opposition party that used “constitutional methods and a legal course of opposition to the excesses of legal and ministerial power. . .” Bolingbroke instructed the opposition party to “Wrest the power of government, if you can, out of the hands that employed it weakly and wickedly.” This work could be done only by a homogeneous party “. . . because such a party alone will submit to a drudgery of this kind.” It did not suffice to be eager to speak, keen to act. “They who affect to head an opposition, . . . , must be equal, at least, to those whom they oppose. . .” Today, the Republican Party is the object of derision of the liberal mass-media for being a “white party,” yet it innately belongs to the original founding stock among Americans to identify with “the Country Party.” As Iowa Congressman, Steve King stated, “Culture and demographics are our destiny. We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies.” It takes a fertility rate of 2.1 children per household to sustain a cultural at a replacement level.

      John Jay noted how cultural homogeneity lends stability to a civil society in Federalist No. 2: “With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence. This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.” The “the country party” is a throwback to the stabilizing elements manifest in the original America, and its also the cultural core of the American middle class. Americans in the ‘Great American Middle’ have a cultural and economic interest in putting the brakes on mass-Third World immigration, and they need to understand that culture, historical experience, and their economic and political interests all align to this end.

     

Join the Conversation

1 Comment

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *