Pitchforkers, True Believers, and RINOs

With Donald J. Trump leading in the Republican Presidential Primary and Senator Ted Cruz a strong second some observers have wondered what has happened to the Grand Old Party.  Is there an anti-establishment insurgency going on?  Where is the "base?"  It would appear the Republican Party is in disarray.

For as long as I can remember there has always been some division in the Republican Party.  Yes, there were some fundamental tenets that held us together under the big tent: small government, fiscal conservatism, and a strong defense.  For many of my politically-active years there has been a tension between social conservatives and the more moderate Republicans.  Radicals versus RINOs, Hicks versus Country Club, if you will.

At the risk of over-simplifying I suggest for a couple of decades the conservatives, mostly defined by social conservatives, have been the grass roots of the Party.  If the Republican nominee was going to succeed they needed this "base."  Without this support we had losses with Dole, McCain and Romney.  Supposedly, millions of the base stayed home in 2012 because they were not confident in Romney's conservative bona fides.

To add more confusion, recall the rumor that the Bush campaign had a way to the nomination without the base?  Well, he definitely got his wish of running without the base.  However, he found it hard to find support from any sizable segment.  His establishment support and successful fundraising were clearly insufficient in this weird primary season.  His campaign was working from a playbook out of sync with the times.

The attraction of anti-establishment candidates like Trump, Cruz, and Carson has caused a lot of discussion about the so-called Republican base.  Commentators resort to calling Trump an anti-establishment candidate or a populist. Then Cruz is said to be the social conservative candidate or the choice of evangelicals.  With the field shrinking Rubio is characterized as the moderate or establishment candidate.  Kasich has some small piece of the moderate vote.

Of course there are problems with the above generalizations.  Trump is attracting a pretty broad coalition of angry voters, including some evangelicals and social conservatives (huh?).  This is the case even though before his campaign he was buddies with the establishment.  Cruz has been such a strong second that his appeal, while certainly great among social conservatives, has touched other blocs. And remember, Rubio won his last election as a Tea Party candidate; hardly a moderate Republican.

The rise of the Tea Party during the Obama Administration and a great dissatisfaction with business as usual in the national capital has fractured the old paradigm of social conservatives versus moderates.  The anger from many factions in the big tent can be seen in fragmented votes in this primary season so far.  Trump has been the consistent leader, but he has not been able to develop a band wagon and his support may top out at 35 percent. The truth has been that most of the Republican party has not been for Trump. Can he win the nomination with that?


The times clearly require a candidate that is seen as an outsider.  The old Republican Party paradigm will not work. As a matter of fact, I think trying to decipher this strange primary season with the old paradigm will only lead to more confusion.  The old Republican Party and its co-existing segments is now history. I would even say there is no longer a "base."  Forget about a base.  The new paradigm is factions.  I would suggest the new paradigm might include 3 factions of approximately equal size. The three factions are The Pitchforkers, The True Believers, and The RINOs.

The Pitchforkers are like an angry mob.  Just like the peasants of yore they have legitimate grievances.  The authorities have either ignored them or stepped all over them.  They feel like their cares and concerns have not been addressed.  They are riled up by a tough talking leader who plays on their fears.  He makes promises of making things right and they pick up their pitchforks and torches to storm the castle.

Our Republican Pitchforkers have significant numbers of people who have been involved in the Tea Party.  Fed up with Obama and his "transforming" of government they rose up demanding a halt to growing government and unconstitutional laws and executive orders.  They believed the Republican Party was going to have their back and they were let down.  They now feel like the tough talking, outsider Trump will make things right.

True Believers are serious believers in the Constitution; are fiscally and socially conservative; and are supporters of a strong defense.  They have been offended by Obama ignoring the Constitution and fed up with the Republican Congress allowing him to get away with it.  They consist of traditional conservatives, idealogues and politically active Christians.  What about the "evangelicals" that are supporting Trump you ask?  The term is fairly meaningless now.  So many have claimed to be evangelical, especially in the South, that it has lost its distinctiveness. (Exit polling shows that Trump supporters are not concerned about values...conservative Christians are appalled at Trump's immorality.) 

Cruz is finding support with True Believers.  They relate to his efforts to call out Republican leaders for not taking on Obama, his consistent conservative record, and his faith. Sure, True Believers want a winner, but elect-ability is less of a concern than is principle with True Believers.  This being the case, if Trump wins the nomination expect the True Believers to sit out the general election.

The RINOs - Republican in Name Only - are ticked off with the rebels trying to take over their party!  The Pitchforkers scare them and the True Believers embarrass them.  They are the old guard and blue bloods.  They are serious about governing and service.  They will "reach across the aisle" and creatively offer an alternative to the Democrats' craziest ideas that doesn't go quite so far. They are committed to the party and are all about winning...and the power.

In this outsider primary season most of their potential candidates didn't make the cut.  After Bush they seemed to have settled for Rubio.  As mentioned above, Rubio got elected to the Senate as a Tea Party favorite.  However, he early showed his willingness - okay, with good intentions - to make deals.  He now appears to have taken the RINOs' orders to attack Trump and attempt to derail the crazy train.  If push comes to shove they can live with Trump.  Trump is a deal maker and they can see making deals to maintain some power.  What the RINOs cannot tolerate is the totally inflexible (principled) Cruz.  He'll just ruin...their party.

The real question for me is the future with this new paradigm.  Can the Republican Party survive these factions?  Especially if this results in President Hillary Clinton?  Or are we witnessing not disarray, but disintegration of the Republican Party? Perhaps the Republican Party has outlived its usefulness.  Political parties are not sacred. When it comes down to it, I am more concerned about America than I am about the Republican Party.

Republicans Choose Wrong Tactic on Supreme Court Nomination

Since the hours after the passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Republican Presidential candidates and Senators have been warning President Obama not to bother with naming a nominee for the court.  This is a mistake.

Sure, we have every reason to believe that Obama will name someone who will tip the balance on the court to the Left.  Look at who he has already placed on the court (Judge Sonia Sotomayor and Solicitor General Elena Kagan) and you understand he'll want the biggest liberal he can find.  I wouldn't be surprised if his staff is trying to find a handicapped, black, Muslim, illegal alien transexual to nominate!


It is very hard and unusual to write something that isn't terribly negative about Obama and constitutional rights, but here goes.  Obama has a constitutional right and duty to nominate someone.  It wouldn't seem possible with Obama's record of trampling all over the constitution, but Republicans have given Obama the high road on constitutional principles.  The Presidential candidates and Republican Senators are making a tactical mistake with their obstruction.

Of course the Democrats supporting Obama's constitutional duty to nominate a justice are complete hypocrites.  From Biden to Schumer they all have attempted or wished they could have obstructed Republican presidents from making nominations; not to mention their vicious attacks on past Republican nominees.  Now they talk of the Constitution and delineated powers.  Give me a break.

I personally want to see another constitutionalist like Scalia.  However, you know the saying: elections have consequences.  The people elected the most liberal president in history and he is now going to (attempt to) nominate his third appointee. And I think if another liberal is seated on the court it would be a complete disaster for our country.

What is the Senate's duty? Well, the President nominates, but has this power only“by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.”  It has been the fashion in recent years for the Congress to acquiesce to the Executive.  They haven't yet - Democrats or Republicans - given up their authority in "advice and consent" on Supreme Court Justices. Thank goodness.

Now here is the critical thing.  The Senate can and should do its duty, and they are not obligated to confirm. Their obligation is to fulfill the "advice and consent" role.  So Obama nominates a liberal -who disdains the constraints of the Constitution - and the Senate can then consider if such a nominee should be approved. They vote such a nominee down and fulfill there duty.

Wouldn't this be obstruction, or more grid lock you ask?  No, obstruction is the current tactic. And yes, this is grid lock - just as the Framers of the Constitution intended.  I don't know if they had the same phrase back then, but they most definitely hardwired this sort of situation. By the careful wording of the President "shall nominate" and the Senate "advice and consent" the Framers constructed a system where large differences (ideological, political, or other) would lead to stalemates.  This is much better than one branch running roughshod over the other.

We have a huge divide in vision for the country between the President and Congress right now.  It's probably a good representation of the differences that exist in the country.  I trust the Constitution to handle the grid lock.

Now, if I could only trust the Republicans in the Senate.

Trump Popularity Tells Us About the Republican Party

Donald Trump's standing in the polls tells us more about the Republican voters than it does about The Donald, I am afraid.  We all know the bombastic, real estate mogul, reality TV star, politically incorrect politician.  There is no mystery.  After struggling for months to try to figure out his popularity it has occurred to me what we really should be examining are his supporters.  I have come to the conclusion that Trump's popularity reveals the shallow thinking and even ignorance of a sizable percentage of Republicans.

Republicans are generally recognized as conservatives; to the right of the political spectrum.  Trump's life and rhetoric certainly do not represent the traditional conservative positions. So how could he lead in the polls with the "conservative" party?  It's because of this bloc of Republican voters - who may even call themselves conservative - but who are not committed to Republicanism.  That would be defined as fiscally conservative, socially conservative, supporters of a strong defense and a small government, and grounded in the Constitution. Traditional Republicanism was most recently best represented by Ronald Reagan and that is one of the reasons he is most revered among the "base." 

The thing about these principles is that it takes some thinking to arrive at them.  They are not driven by feelings or unthinking "compassion" or class warfare or a dream of Big Government solving all of our problems.  These principles do not cater to winds of populism.  They are indeed principles and they are grounded in our Constitution.

Dr. R.B.A. DiMuccio, a guest commentator for Grove City's Center for Vision and Values, recently wrote about Trump's supporters.  He quotes a YouGov poll that shows only 13% of them describe themselves as very conservative, and 20% describe themselves as liberal or moderate.  Only 30% identify with the Tea Party.  Conclusion: by and large, Trump supporters aren't the traditional conservative Republicans.  I am not saying they are illegitimate.  I am pointing out that this big bloc of Republican voters represent something outside conservatism.

I personally think the Trump supporters are mostly ignorant.  They represent a large swath of America who are unfortunate products of our public schools.  They didn't learn about the Constitution. They don't understand history and America's legacy in bringing liberty and opportunity to the world.  They are the result of a liberal media bias that has worn down and eroded traditional American values.

The Trump voter is mad and not going to take it anymore.  Trump offers a few simple solutions (I'll build a tremendous wall! It will be good!) and plays to the populist fever.  It is as if the Reality TV star has taken his show live on the road.  And the dumbed-down audience hoots and hollers as Trump calls his opponents names.

It is disheartening that this makes up such a large percentage of the active Republican voter today (is it really 40%?).  It used to be - and I have been part of this battle - the conservative base versus the country club Republicans.  Now it appears we have populism versus conservatism.  Where are the country club Republicans? The talk is they have reluctantly thrown in with Trump because they feel they can make deals with him.  And let's face it - they really dislike the hard core conservative.

What to do?  Conservatives must be committed to principles and they must effectively make the case.  Educate, promote, broadcast the truth.  Speak up and stand for liberty and Constitutional principles.  I hope this little blog will be part of that effort.