Factions in Republican Party

Factual Questions
1

Without getting idealogical, I’m curious if anyone knows of a good place for me to learn about different factions within the Republican party, specifically where the so called “Religious Right” differentiates itself from other groups. Are there issues about which the party is severly divided? How do different people within the party feel about issues which have arisen recently in the media (opinions on Trent Lott, Rick Santorum, or Roy Moore, for example)? Who opposes the war? Who supports universal health care?

I find it hard to believe that everyone is united behind Dubya. Unfortunatly, my Google searches are spiting out only conspiracy theories and religous doctrine.

Thanks in advance!
Aesth

2

The Log Cabin Rebuplicans do not have Thanksgiving Dinner at Ralph Reed’s house.

3

Well, the Republicans embody a number of disparate principles, and people tend to focus on a few of them. However, its innacurate to say that there are distinct factions. Rather, there is a sort of continuum between libertarian and conservative Christian ends. People on both ends probably hold many pinions from the other. Note that a lot of the high-profile preachers who talk a good game and pretend they repesent Christians in America have no real power. Fact is, most of the Conservative Christians who are often lambasted as fanatics by Democrats are just honest, everyday people who don’t neccessarily like some aspects of public morals, and often want the government to either conform to them or get out of the business altogether.

 The libertarianist segment revolves more about economic issues. They're after making us all rich as kings.  They are not really libertarians, for the most part, but contain some strong elements of that school. The Christian wing thinks about what makes a right and good society, and strongly favor canidates they see as honorable or decent.

Now, 'Publicans as a whole tend to be hawks, in the sense that we favor a strong military and an aggressive (not always military) engagement overseas. Some people feel uncomfortable with this, and favor pulling in our own borders more. There’s sometimes debate over which one will make us safer, but for now the externalist approach wins out.

There are not many groups within the party that opposed the war, and there are not many (maybe none) that think a UHC plan is a good idea.

By and large the opinion on Lott is that he was a boneheaded fool who deserved what he got. For all that, it was overblown, given the attitudes of such Democrat mainstays like Carol Mosely-Braun.

Not everyone likes the President, but most feel he’s done a good job doing what needed to be done, with the tools he had to work with. The lack of full-blown WMD development was not a major problem, since the real reason for the war was always to set up a secular but democratic society to, basically, make the entire Arab world eat its hat. And most importantly, we believe its something Gore would have botched completely.

4

It’s tough to talk about this without “getting ideological.” Smiling bandit obviously couldn’t do it. The bandit’s post would have you believe the GOPpers are one big happy family, that Lott was not embarassing. The bandit smilingly tells you (and hopes you don’t remember) that “the real reason for the war was to set up a secular but democratic society.” We are asked to believe that has happened, and that we’ve made “the entire Arab world eat its hat.” I’m sure it’s a pleasant, comfortable dream. Every morning’s paper says it’s just a dream.

5

…and as you see, AskNott cannot do anything but spread his own inappropriate propaganda.

6

Thread-rot has set in early I see…

7

Actually, Smiling Bandit seems to have done a good job. The Republicans aren’t all evil, warmongering idiots. :slight_smile:

8

Nope, not all of them.

9

Here’s a good place to learn about variants of American Conservatism:

http://www.publiceye.org/research/Chart_of_Sectors.htm

Eg:
Secular Right

Corporate Internationalists—Nations should control the flow of people across borders, but not the flow of goods, capital, and profit. Sometimes called the “Rockefeller Republicans.” Globalists.

Business Nationalists—Multinational corporations erode national sovereignty; nations should enforce borders for people, but also for goods, capital, and profit through trade restrictions. Enlists grassroots allies among Regressive Populists. Anti-Globalists.

Economic Libertarians—The state disrupts the perfect harmony of the free market system. Modern democracy is essentially congruent with capitalism.

National Security Militarists—Support US military supremacy and unilateral use of force to protect US national security interests around the world. A major component of Cold War anti-communism.

Neoconservatives—The egalitarian social liberation movements of the 1960s and 1970s undermined the national consensus. Intellectual oligarchies and political institutions preserve democracy from mob rule.

Those are the secular conservatives. Religious conservatives and the Xenophobic (Hard) Right get a different heading.

I hope this helps. Another interesting site chronicling the rise of the New Right is here: http://www.columbia.edu/~rr91/1052_2002/lectures_2002/rise_of_the_new_right.htm

Of course you asked about the Republican Party. To check out voting records, you can always have a look at http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm

10

Here’s another take:

" Republican Party (RNC) - … Leading Republicans fall into several different ideological factions: traditional conservatives (President George W. Bush, Denny Hastert, Bill Frist and the Club for Growth), the Religious Right (Trent Lott, John Ashcroft, the National Federation of Republican Assemblies and the Christian Coalition), the old Nixon/Rockefeller “centrist” or “moderate” wing (Colin Powell, George Pataki, the Republican Main Street Partnership, the Republican Leadership Council and the Republican Mainstream Committee), and libertarians (Ron Paul and the Republican Liberty Caucus). " http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm

McCain is in a category by himself, methinks.

Note that “Moderate” Republicans of 2004 are different than moderate Republicans of yore: the right-wing of the GOP successfully drummed out those such as Lowell Weiker who favored Universal Health Care and other principles unchallenged by Conservative majorities outside of the US. Other old-school moderate Republicans include Javits, Stafford, Dewey, Keating and of course Rockefeller.