Vote: The new conservative party’s name

New Party Name

This is the most recent email update for our new conservative party. It’s an important one as it’s the vote for our official name. With our post-election launch approaching, the excitement level has been going up dramatically. Please fill out the form at the bottom if you’d like to receive these updates directly.

New Party Exposure

We’ll keep this update even more brief than the last one because there’s important business to focus on: the party’s name. Before we get to that, let’s look at some of the exposure we’ve been getting around the web the last couple of days. The number of media outlets contacting us has gone up since we moved to the top on Google for “new conservative party.” Clearly, there are plenty of people searching for ways to save the nation:

After you’ve read through those, it’s time to get down to business.

Party Name Vote

BEFORE you jump straight to the list of names, please read this important information first. We broke the 400-name threshold as far as recommendations from you guys. Many were great. We believe there are certain criteria to be met when making this important decision:

  • We must be able to control the web presence. While it would be nice to simply be the “Patriot Party” or any of a handful of good suggestions, having no control over the domains or social media presence of those names would prove to be a major challenge. How many people went to
  • The name must allow for individual identity. In other words, it must allow members of the party to identify easily. Members of the Democratic party are… Democrats. This meant that a couple of the most highly recommended names were excluded such as “Freedom Party.” It’s challenging to identify as a “freedomite” or a “freedomitarian.”
  • Purely symbolic names were excluded. While the “Get Off My Lawn Party” or “Declaration of Independence Party” might have symbolic meaning, the name has to invoke a clear and predictable response that holds true to our beliefs in Constitutional conservatism.
  • Multi-word names were excluded. A handful of advisers and one psychologist told us of the pitfalls of having more than one word to invoke our presence. We own constitutionalconservativesparty dot com, for example, and while that might exemplify us perfectly, it creates other challenges due to length, identity, and appeal.
  • We must have a unique identity. “Liberty Party” was recommended by many, for example, but we would have to distinguish ourselves over and over again from the Libertarian Party.

With those criteria understood, here’s the list of names in no particular order. We either own the domains for them or believe we can acquire the domains if the name is chosen. I’ll give my brief thoughts on pros and cons, but otherwise the vote is yours to make.

  • Originalist Party – Pros: Originalist interpretations of the Constitution and Bill of Rights are righteous. Cons: The stigma of originalism may be too difficult to overcome, plus the concept is normally associated with the judiciary.
  • Foundation (or Foundationalist) Party – Pros: Foundationalism goes back to Aristitle and Descartes. Our foundation politically is the Constitution and socially is the Bible. Cons: It might not have the right appeal as a name.
  • Conscience Party – Pros: It allows for us to operate from the highest standards of personal voting and liberty. Cons: No easy personal identity. Consciencitarians?
  • Federalist Party – Pros: The original party that fought for equal state and federal checks and balances exemplifies where we want to take the country in the 21st century. It’s also a wonderful irony that their opposition was the Democratic-Republican Party. Cons: Branding of conservative philosophies would have to be rock-solid to make it work.
  • Commonwealth Party – Pros: It gives a clear distinction as a parallel to the Republican Party. Cons: Commonwealthers?
  • Americana Party – Pros: Americana invokes heritage and nostalgia which would allow us to hearken to days past that can be brought to the halls of government again today. Cons: Much of what is considered Americana can be a turnoff to two of our most important voting blocks: millennials and minorities.
  • Founders Party – Pros: The primacy established by our founding fathers has been lost. The Founders Party can be the force that brings the values of the past into play with modern society. Cons: As with the Originalist Party, “founders” may create an unintended stigma to overcome.
  • Principles Party – Pros: If the party stays true to our God-given principles above all else, we can guide the country back from the brink. Cons: “Principlism” would need to be redefined and essentially hijacked as the obscure concept has ties to social justice.

We are going to vote via email once again. Simpy reply to this with your votes. It’s not ideal, but we want you to have the opportunity to give us more than just voting feedback. Also, we need to be able to track when votes are duplicated; we don’t want a Drudge-like poll that can be easily manipulated. Are there multiple names that you like? Are there some that you strongly oppose? If you are inclined, please expand on your votes with reasons, though that’s not required.

This would be a great time to have friends and family sign up for updates as well. If you want to forward this email to them and have them raise their hand to receive party updates, they can vote in the message section of the form.

With the election coming very soon, most of our attention is focused on the important races that will be decided in barely over a week. This is a scary and exciting time for America. It’s scary because we are seeing liberalism expand its grip on government. It’s exciting because it’s giving conservatives an opening to build something better from the ground up. We’re so happy that you’re on board with those efforts.

Thank you and God Bless,

JD Rucker

Please be sure to follow the party on Facebook. If you’d like to follow me on Twitter as well, I’ll try not to disappoint.

If you want to receive updates about the new conservative party of if you have questions, email me – [email protected] – or fill out the form below.

[gravityform id=”1″ title=”true” description=”true” ajax=”true”]

JD Rucker

JD Rucker is Editor of this site as well as Soshable, a Federalist Christian Blog. He is a Christian, a husband, a father, and co-founder of the Federalist Party. Find him on Twitter or Facebook.

  1. Nice job on this, JD. I vote for the Americana Party. It’s catchy without being perceived as divisive and could easily encompass voters on both sides of the aisle who can agree on principles. Being able to attract social liberals (i.e. libertarians) and fiscal conservatives without being pigeon holed into “just another Republican party” in the minds of voters is imperative to the rise of a third party. Individual liberty and small government is not a principle owned by the Republicans or Democrats – it’s an American principle from the beginning and one both major parties have violated.

    Therefore, the Americana Party, in my view, would have the broadest attraction and isn’t already defined in the minds of voters into one political corner or the other.

  2. CCP Constitutional Conservative Party Founding Principles Party Constitutional Framers Party

    Please put the Constitution in there somewhere, so we can focus on upholding it! Without it, it won’t matter if we’re conservative or liberal. There is no guideline.

    1. Maybe we should just join the Constitution Party instead of starting another party to further split the constitutional conservative vote…

      1. We’re working on doing something with the Constitution Party, but it will not be to join them. They lack the organization as well as the gumption to make an impact. Infusing them with a couple hundred thousand new members won’t help. This year, with the worst major party candidates in modern history, they were unable to organize 55 people to make Darrell Castle a write in vote in California. In case that wasn’t clear, I’ll restate: They needed to find 55 people to register as electors. 55 people among the entire voting population of California needed to fill out a form, and they couldn’t organize that. I spoke to a former national party chair tonight about working with them, but we will not be handing over our resources to be squandered.

          1. Taking over, joining, and unions with existing parties are fraught with numerous challenges.

            For example, look at the vicious in-fighting that took place in the Reform Party in the 2000 cycle. After 1996, the RP had an organization in every state with ballot access. In less than 4 years, they were torn apart into multiple factions with petty personality fights and legal battles over various pieces of the infrastructure. A big factor was ‘outsiders’ like Buchanan, Trump, and David Duke trying to take over the party. Few people know it, but the RP is running a presidential candidate this year and has a reasonable chance of picking up a congressional seat in New York.

            There is another risk with unification of an existing party: we accept all of their baggage. If you search for “Cody Quirk” and CP, you will find several articles making disturbing allegations about the founding of the CP (not against Castle personally). I think the articles are unfair (I met Howard Philipps a few times), but even if there is only a shred of truth to them, the black cloud would give plenty of ammunition to those wanting to characterize the new party in the worst possible light.

            Finally, there might be some significant policy differences. I honestly don’t know JD Rucker’s positions on foreign policy and national security. There are other positions I don’t know. I am not too worried, and even if I disagreed I think I (along with everyone else) will have the chance to make their case. If that is my only disagreement, I can probably live with it.

            Still, if the policy is somewhere around a “Ted Cruz” position, say half-way between a “Marco Rubio” and a “Rand Paul”, the new party will have broad appeal to everyone from both sides. If, on the other hand, the policy is closer to one end or the other of the spectrum, I think the appeal will be greatly reduced.

            One of the reasons the CP has done poorly is their foreign policy positions are considered by many to be too isolationist. Another reason is several leaders within the CP (in their convention speeches) tend toward borderline conspiracy theories.

            I know I would not be interested in joining the CP. Despite Evan McMullin being more liberal than Darrell Castle, I voted for McMullin and eliminated Castle as an option after the CP convention. As much as I disagree with Johnson (religious liberty, foreign policy, pro-life, global warming, etc.), I would have voted for him before Castle. Granted, that is only anecdotal.

            In fairness, that is a risk with the new party too. If I don’t like the direction, I just won’t join.

            If we get bogged down in policy minutiae now, the new party strength will be sapped of energy before we begin. That is not my intent, but I do think this is another reason to avoid joining with an existing party — policy position baggage.

            Later on, based on our success, we can welcome state and local organizations to re-affiliate with the new party, but we need to establish our own identity first.

            Just my unsolicited 2 cents.

          2. Pretty much everything that Brian TC said, I agree with completely. We won’t be taking them over, but I can imagine a lopsided coordination in the future. There’s no way to know what that would look like so speculation is futile, but we will never sacrifice our principles to add more names to the hat.

          3. I think the American people as a whole are swinging isolationist, and that’s one of the appeals of Libertarianism right now. Not only can we not afford financially to be the world police we once were, but I’m not even sure that our politicians have any clue how to make the world better or safer using our military. It looks to me like when we don’t use it but retain the capacitiy to do so, the threat of force does much good. But once we commit and actually start using the force, things seem to often go wrong.

            Also, rejecting something by labeling it a conspiracy theory isn’t an intellectually rigorous thing to do – especially in the age of wikileaks when we are coming to find out that there are major conspiracies – by Soros, by Clinton, etc. Warmongering American presidents have often relied on creating tragic attacks to bring us into war.


  3. Federalist Party. ” Cons: Branding of conservative philosophies would have to be rock-solid to make it work.” I don’t see that as a “con”. Isn’t that what we’re wanting here? We either “go big or go home.”

    1. Good point.

      Whether you choose Federalist for the Federalist Papers or Federalist for John Adams philosophy as detailed in his tome A Defence of Constitutions of the Governments of the United States, we are on very solid ground and aligned with the greatest philosopher-statesman of the American experiment. John Adams is the original Federalist — he published his book before the Constitutional Convention (he was overseas and did not attend). Adams already had experience drafting the Massachusetts Constitution and assisted with other Constitutions.

      Granted, Hamilton is a separate issue. Unlike Adams, I doubt Hamilton saw any benefits to limiting centralized power, but Hamilton was not a philosopher. Adams is the cornerstone of American Federalism and if we embrace this founder — the only founder to never own, profit from, or sell slaves — we will be in excellent company.

  4. I would like to suggest the name of “American Freedom Party”. We have freedom from tyranny, despotism, dictatorship and slavery based on our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Demonrats: beware!

    1. We need to be very careful about choosing names that might send the wrong signal. Unfortunately, the “Freedom Party” is the national socialist sympathizing party in Austria and other countries. Sure, we are not in Europe, but we don’t want to make it easy for the media to tag us with loose links to disreputable groups.

  5. My name vote is for Federalist Party. A very strong name and the noun is likewise strong (“I’m a Federalist”) … Plus it will re-ignite thought about the merits of limited government and balance of powers absent the term “states’ rights,” which unfortunately for many has been tainted in people’s minds after it was used as a defense of slavery, etc. States’ rights are a good thing even though slavery was not a good thing, so we need a term that will refocus us on the principle without getting us bogged down in the term.

    So, a thumbs-up from me for “Federalist.”

    Great job, J.D., and Godspeed.

  6. Common Sense Patriots. I know it breaks the “one word” rule, but it has many advantages. For one, it portrays conservatism as what everyone should believe – it pulls the perceived “center” back in the right direction. It also has a strong connection to Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” which was a formative pamphlet in creating America, so we would have the opportunity to release “Common Sense” – second edition for the 21st century. It also builds on Bill Whittle’s “Common Sense Resistance” ideas – you could approach him – at present he’s a Republican but you might at least get some buy in from him… Don’t call yourself a party. Democrats are a party. Republicans are a party. Be something different. Be Commoners. Be Patriots.

  7. Otherwise, go with Constitution Party. Sure they have been on the fringe, but I suspect they will get more votes this year than any other third party except the libertarians. It’s one of the best names, and it will be seen as a more viable party after the election.

  8. Although frankly, I’d like to see a “party” that is more explicitly Christian. The Christian Freedom Party. Christian Patriots. Christian Optimists. Christian Shalom. Christian Peace. No King but Jesus. Christ our King. Christian Republic. Christian Foundation.
    That’s a good one. Christian Foundation. Christ is the cornerstone. Our nation has a Christian Foundation. I don’t know much about Aristotle and Descarte. But I do know that Isaac Asimov had a science fiction book series in which “The Foundation” was a fringe group that grew over time from which civilization was restarted after a significant societal collapse. So that’s kind of a neat concept for a group like this.

  9. The term ‘Federalist’ conveys a specific meaning: a supporter of a system of government where power is distributed between a central and several state governments. The key is political power is divided, shared, and balanced because that is the surest way to ensure liberty under the law.

    While there are many other examples of federal systems and federations, ‘Federalist’ and ‘federalism’ are uniquely American terms.

    Admittedly, any party name will be subject to mischaracterization and demonization. Launching a new party requires a massive effort to educate voters about the party and the principles the party espouses. The Federalist label puts us in very good company – John Adams, James Madison, and George Washington.

    There are good reasons to name a party dedicated to restoring constitutional authority the Federalist Party.
    – There is a deep, supporting philosophy for the Federalist Party.
    o Federalism was the philosophy of the Framers and they believed a federal system was the best guarantor for liberty.
    o John Adams, although not part of the Constitutional Convention, wrote a multi-volume treatise on the advantages of federalism before the convention.
    o Federalism includes a well-developed, informed, and consistent world-view.
    – Federalism looks forward to establishing balanced political power, not rearward.
    – Federalism is an antidote to the corruption and duplicity in politics.
    – The core element of the Federalist platform is easily explained and understood by those with limited knowledge or interest in the founding.

    Our situation is perilous and our liberty hangs in the balance. Still, the US Constitution remains the most effective system of representative self-government ever devised for securing liberty under the law.

    Unfortunately, over many decades, our system was slowly compromised. The carefully balanced powers providing checks on abuses were disrupted and the constraints were worn away by corruption. The federal government encroached and usurped state government authority in almost every aspect of business and life. Congress created large bureaucracies and then shirked their responsibility to legislate by granting authority to the bureaucrats to regulate by proclamation with the full force of law. The executive skirted ratification requirements by calling treaties agreements, circumvented Congress by taking presidential “actions”, and used political pressure to suborn a Supreme Court decision.

    The concentration of power and corruption in the federal government threatens our liberty, security, and prosperity. This view is shared by more than a small group of politicos, 75% of Americans believe there is widespread corruption in government. Even more, 79%, believe politicians are “out-of-touch” with average Americans. Adults under age 40 are even more jaded by the deceit, chicanery, and unscrupulous behavior of those claiming to be leaders.

    The remedy is to divide, disperse, and establish a proper equilibrium between the federal and state power, between the branches of federal government, and subordinate the bureaucratic leviathan to elected officials – in short, to re-establish federalism.

    Anybody paying even scant attention recognizes the truth in Lord Acton’s admonition ‘power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely’ and they recognize it in our politics. Distributing and offsetting political power is an easy sell as a solution.

    Adopting the Federalist label aids us in advancing our agenda.

    The other names offer some advantages and are worthy of consideration. Originalist, Foundation, and Founders seem to be too narrow though and all have the disadvantage of being rearward looking, rather than future oriented. Americana, Conscience, and Principles depend greatly on the audience – the terms are defined radically differently by people with opposing views. Those are not terms we can define for our party. Commonwealth is not an apt description of our goals or our desired system of government.

    For those still weighing the advantages, read Chapter 3 of Russell Kirk’s “The Conservative Mind”. Kirk does an excellent job of explaining John Adams’ unique Federalist philosophy. The more you learn about Adams and his ideas, the more likely you will grow to embrace the moniker “Federalist”.

  10. Federalist Party works for me. It has a good sound and good meaning. I think is sounds authoritative or perhaps serious is the better word. You want an identifier that ties us to the foundations of our nation but can easily project into the future. Seems like “Federalist” kind of fits that criteria. Just my opinion. I’m good with anything that doesn’t have an R or D associated with it. Seems like you would have a wide selection of logos to go with Federalist too.

    1. I asked my millennial, nonwhite, liberal friends which names on the list they found least offputting, and they voted for Federalist, Americana, and Commonwealth. They thought Conscience in particular was offensive. For what it’s worth. I asked because I think we can bring them to our point of view one day, but you know, we youngsters are easily offended!

  11. Here are the names I’m okay with:
    Foundation Party: I like this name a lot because of our Biblical and Constitutional foundations.
    Federalist Party: I don’t have much of an opinion about this name other than the fact that I’m okay with it.
    Commonwealth Party: Again, I don’t have much of an opinion here. I don’t feel strongly positive nor strongly negative. “Commonwealthers” sounds fine to me.

    Mixed feelings:
    Conscience Party: This name is special because it reminds me of the Republican delegates who tried to stop Trump. Also Ted Cruz used the word in his convention speech. I like this name for those reasons. This name makes a lot of sense to me. On the other hand this special meaning may not mean much to people outside the party. It may not make sense for other people who aren’t familiar with the anti-Trump “vote your conscience” movement and all that.
    Americana Party: I like the way it sounds! I really like the meaning of this name, although it’s true that some people might misinterpret it to be like “we want to take America back to the 1950’s with racism and sexism” or something.

    Here are the names I think should be eliminated:
    Originalist Party: I feel like people will misunderstand and say something like “The original Constitution allowed for slavery” or something like that. I am not sure. Well anyway I don’t think this is the best name.
    Founders Party: This is my least favorite name. I definitely don’t want this one. People can easily criticize the Founding Fathers. “They were all men! They owned slaves! They weren’t really Christian!” etc. I feel like choosing this name opens the party up to a lot of criticism. Whatever you do, please don’t choose this name.
    Principles Party: This sounds arrogant, like people who are not members of our party do not have principles.

  12. The problem is, there already was a Federalist Party, so we need to be more original to avoid confusion, and have a name of our own. My vote is for Foundation.

    1. You are correct, but I see that as a good thing. The Federalist Party was a conservative party. The only Federalist president was John Adams, the philosopher ‘father’ of conservatism in America. The name and worldview of the Federalist Party fit well with what we are trying to achieve: re-balance power and restore federalism.

      I encourage you to read Russell Kirk’s “The Conservative Mind”. In chapter 3, he discusses John Adams and his philosophy.

      Your point is well taken though, as there is a downside to it. Hamilton, although popular at the moment, advocated for a much more powerful, centralized state. Some other Federalist policies could likewise prove difficult if we have to start answering for the 1808 or 1812 party platforms (chosen at random, I doubt there is anything bad in there).

      Adams, his son, and many other Federalists were ardently opposed to slavery. Representing mostly northern merchants, they generally supported freer trade. They also opposed the War of 1812 and their foreign policy was engagement to secure shipping and trade, but skeptical of adventurism — a prudent balance between extremes of isolationism and jingoism.

      Still, the original federalist (writing his A Defence of Constitutions of Government in the US — before the Constitutional Convention) is John Adams. He argued for balance between the federal government and the states. He did not agree with Hamilton, nor did he agree with Jefferson or Randolph. Regardless of the name, I hope the new party adheres closely to the philosophy of John Adams.

      In fact, I would actually embrace this as the “relaunch” of the Federalist Party complete with homages to John Adams, and open the first convention by symbolically accepting the the notes of the previous convention in 1824. We should adopt new colors, but if our message is re-establish the rule of law, establish the proper balance of power between the federal and state governments, establish the proper balance of power between the branches of government, and establish the proper, limited role of government, then we are Federalists in terms of platform, even if not in name.

      Marketing is JD’s area of expertise though, so maybe embracing the “relaunch” idea doesn’t fit with his vision.

      1. I see your point, but it could come across as old fashioned, and could be a turn off and perceived as a long dead party that is trying to make a comeback with their out of date views. See what I mean? That’s why I like Foundation, it goes back to our Christian heritage, while still being original while avoiding being seen as attempting to bring back a long dead party with ideals that don’t fit modern times.

        1. I understand and I think you raise a valid concern. Actually, I see the same issue with several of the names (Founders, Foundation, Heritage) they all point back to where we’ve been. As you explained, resuscitating a previous party name has a similar issue.

          That is why messaging, image, and definition will be important. Your point is also why my idea of a “relaunch” could actually be counter-productive — duly noted.

          In my comment to you above, and my earlier initial post, I was careful to say “establish” and not “re-establish” in reference to balancing power. I agree with you, we need to be forward looking.

          Federalism, like most “isms” or democracy, is a model of government and, in this case, a philosophy too. The philosophy in short hand is rights come from God, man is fallible (even prone to do bad), power is corrupting, power must be divided and dispersed to counteract the predisposition of man, laws must be established to ensure power is divided and dispersed, and this results in liberty under the law.

          The concept is timeless and some of the aspects are inarguable (e.g. power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely; dividing power stifles corruption). Given the attitude of citizens under 40 — they are especially upset at deceit and corruption they see everywhere — I think this is an easy sell.

          An article I am working on talks about “home rule” rather than federalism, because many people have no idea what federalism means. The goal is to compare it favorable to Uber and Lyft. Decentralized power gives them greater influence, more freedom of control, and more direct interaction with decision makers governing their life. At the end, the article ties back to how you get home rule: federalism, home rule is a function of a government with balanced, separated powers, and we call that form of government federalist.

          A similar article follows the same line of argument going after cronyism, influence peddling, and corruption. In the end, the antidote is to disperse power. The form of government where power is divided and dispersed is called federalism. In this way, I can educate readers who have no concept of federalism, describing an agenda or position they find agreeable, and then tell them it has a name: federalism.

          That is probably much more than you wanted to know, but that is the direction I am moving.

          Regardless, I appreciate we can have a respectful discussion with differing views. That is a very nice change from other forums.


  13. I like Foundationalist, Commonwealth, and Federalist

    Foundationalist – emphasizes the importance of foundational principals. Problem is the name doesn’t make obvious what the foundations are.

    Commonwealth – The parallelism with Republican might be a little too cute, but a great name.

    Federalist – I love this name. I was probably leaning toward Commonwealth before reading the comments, but the connection to the Federalist Papers and to John Adams swayed me toward Federalist. I think the name would provoke discussions of history, which would provide opportunities for education.

  14. The Federalist Party: It conveys Constitutionalist without actually saying Constitution. It also allows us to divide the issues of local and federal policies. And it has the historical reference.

    I still have a feeling we’re tilting at windmills here, though.

    1. I have long maintained that the way to rightly do a conservative 3rd “party” is to not actually run any candidates but just to serve to vet Republican (and potentially Democrat, if you could find any) candidates in primary elections and find the one most closely aligned with Christian and conservative values and endorse them prior to the Republican primary. Imagine if in this most recent Republican primary there had been a conservative organization with a good enough reputation and loud enough voice to vet the Republican candidates and endorse (for instance) Ted Cruz before the first Republican primary took place. Then all of the Federalist (or Foundationist or Commoner or whatever) voters would vote for that candidate, and when we got big enough to decide most primary elections then we would be able to have a substantial influence over the political process.

      1. In a recent podcast, Ben Domenech talked about creating a dedicated issue party. His idea was to create a pro-life party. They would only focus on running against pro-abortion Republicans and democrats in targeted districts, say 15-25. Even if they failed to win a single seat, in many cases they would take away enough votes to defeat the Republican candidate. Eventually, the Republican party would need to co-opt the issue to stop losing elections.

        The example he gave was the Prohibitionist Party (which still exists and is running a presidential candidate in 4 or 5 states). After the GOP lost 2 winnable presidential elections, they realized they needed to endorse prohibition and take the issue for themselves.

        While that logically should work, I don’t think the core GOP establishment cares. As I stated elsewhere, I think the establishment are really policy and philosophy agnostic, they just want power and the money that comes with it. They have to spout the limited government line, and they appear as feckless and weak when fighting democrats, but they really prefer to be in the minority. They are most powerful as the leaders of a losing minority when the majority is successfully centralizing and amassing power. So, within limits, they don’t care if they lose seats, they are still at the power table for a far more powerful leviathan.

        The model you describe is probably closest to the NRA on the successful side, and closest to the Right-to-Life organizations on the failing side. The NRA principally passes judgement on candidates. They are imperfect, but the NRA is very effective at advancing policy, stopping bad legislation, and electing sympathetic legislators.

        The RTL organizations seem to be the polar opposite of the NRA: ineffective, unable to advance policy — they can’t even stop federal funding of baby chop shops — and the ‘pro-life’ candidates are weak, at best.

        Those are single issue models though, so look at Iowa. The trifecta endorsement of Bob Vander Plaatz, Rep. Steve King, and Steve Deace was supposed to solidify the right behind a single candidate. Cruz did win Iowa, but the media coverage was of Marco Rubio. In fact, Cruz’s wins on Super Tuesday outside of Texas, and then his wins in Colorado and Wisconsin were practically ignored by the media.

        In one of JD’s articles, he alludes to the need to reach a tipping point or critical mass. A cadre of supporters creates an outsized impact bringing along many more times the number of people through momentum and the cultural current. Leaders within the GOP control floodgates to prevent that sort of breakout. In fact, they nearly succeeded in 1980 until Reagan took control in a New Hampshire debate and the dam burst.

        In other eras, with GOP leaders who wanted to win, with better rival media outlets, with a more engaged and better educated electorate, there were more opportunities to influence or assume control of the GOP. In this era, not so much.

    2. The attempts to homogenize America, to make policies that are “one size fits nobody” contributes to the division, rancor, and friction. Trying to force a rancher in Wyoming to live by the micromanaging rules of somebody in inner-city New York, or making family in the suburbs of Houston abide by the prerogatives of people from West Hollywood in California breeds resentment.

      I think your point is excellent — the national party should focus on national issues, and a Federalist party would allow Illinois to be Illinois, Florida to be Florida, and Arizona to be Arizona. There needs to be common underlying philosophy, and federalism allows states and communities to have policies tailored to their values and unique situation.

      As for windmills, I agreed until this cycle. I always reasoned taking over a party was easier than starting a new party. Therefore, if we failed (over 30 years) to take over a party, what hope would we have for starting a new party?

      The entrenched and corrupt establishment are not conservative and do not really believe in small government, or a federal government with limited and enumerated powers. The reason they continually cave and fail to win even when numbers are on our side is because they are not really fighting, they don’t really believe in the ideas they claim to support. They want bigger, centralized government because even as a losing minority, they will have more power and wealth than if we were actually successful at implementing our ideas to reduce the size of government.

      So, where I saw them as feckless and weak — all true when they oppose democrats — they are tenacious, conniving, and fierce when fighting conservatives. The process is skewed to favor their candidates. The organization brazenly supports their preferred candidates. They actively sabotage candidates they don’t want. Look at Cleveland — Preibus had union style thugs walking around threatening and browbeating delegates to get them to back down on a rules vote. Since when are RNC employees Bubba and Guido supposed to “persuade” delegates while carrying a proverbial baseball bat or billy club? Does the party belong to the delegates, or to Priebus and his torpedoes?

      There is no home for conservatives in the GOP. Reagan was a black swan event and they are now doing pre-natal screening to make sure they can abort any attempt to repeat Reagan.

      Will we be successful? I have no idea. I know we will fail if we don’t try and I know there is zero chance of every taking over the GOP — the organization is hard-wired against conservatives.

  15. New idea. The Reverence Party. Rev’s for short. 🙂 We reverence the “Founding Fathers” and the original documents that defined our country at beginning.

  16. My vote is for the Federalist Party. A strong tradition that can be easily understood by many Americans. We will have to fight to make it a reality, but it is a banner that I can get behind enthusiastically.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

© 2017 The New Americana