Tuesday, 13 August 2013

GOP: What's in an acronym?

The acronym "GOP" has stood for decades as the "grand old party". That's because of the party's historical roots, its tradition of being … well … traditionalist.

But today's GOP is hardly that. It's far more radical — radical in the sense that its young progenitors want to reverse-revolutionize America — that is, the new GOP wants the U.S. to return to a bygone era of closet racism, closet sexism, closet religiosity, and closet … er … closetness, except for expanding U.S. presence abroad under the not-so-subtle philosophy of American exceptionalism.

Republicans — the GOP — did not exist at the founding of this country. In fact, their roots tap from both parties at that time: John Adams's Federalists and Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans. Today's GOP activists draw from the Federalists for a strong U.S. presence abroad and from the the Democratic-Republicans for a weak central government at home (except for their special issues: abortion, immigration, voting rights, etc. — i.e., the limitation of all of the above.)

What they don't understand is that the democratic process in this country has been based on compromise. The Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, the original Amendments were all the products of compromise. While political campaigns were often dirty — just as ours are today — the decision-making in Congress and between Congress and the Presidency was predicated on finding common ground.

Today's GOP has rejected compromise, the result being a political party appealing only in a negative sense. Too bad. Because GOP history is replete with many compromises that have created positive steps forward for this country: The end of slavery, the establishment of our National Parks and protected lands, protection for the environment, just to name a few milestones.

The Whigs, by their embracing outmoded ideas and philosophies, became irrelevant in the mid-19th century. But political realities were different then: Money was not such a big player.

Given all the ideological realities, the GOP of today should be as irrelevant as the Whigs in the mid-19th century. Yet because of money and the intellectual stupidity of a large number of the American populace,  today's GOP is being propped up to a position far greater than it deserves.

In short, instead of "grand old party", "GOP" should stand instead of some other moniker. Here are a few suggestions:
  • gone overboard presently
  • gifted omniscient putzes
  • grating omnipresent prattlers
  • gullible opinionated polemicists
  • goofy obstinate partisans
Oh heck! We could have a lot of fun with this. Does anyone have any suggestions?

— LP

Related Posts:

  • Bob McDonnell's stunning fall from graceBy: Alexander Burns, Politico.comJuly 12, 2013 05:01 AM EDTIn 2010, the political world pegged Bob McDonnell as a president in the making. Last year, they put him on every VP list. As recently as May, they called the popular … Read More
  • The Charade of Darrell IssaBy TIMOTHY EGAN, NYT So, this guy who made a stink-pile of money in the car alarm business, and had some youthful trouble with the law over auto-related liberties, gets the break he’s been waiting for after Republicans win c… Read More
  • Recent Posts Widget For Blogger With ThumbnailsOn my previous posts I've shared a lot of blogger widgets that can can help in keeping your readers to stay longer in your blog. And today am bringing to you the most used widget in the blog-o-sphere known as recent posts wid… Read More
  • Senators Introduce Bill to Separate Trading Activities From Big BanksBy PETER EAVIS, NYT11:32 a.m. | Updated Senator Elizabeth Warren on Thursday introduced an aggressive piece of legislation that intends to take the financial industry back to an era when there was a strict divide between trad… Read More
  • Harry Reid on nuclear option: 'I ate sh--' on nomineesBy: Manu Raju and John Bresnahan and Burgess Everett, Politico.comJuly 11, 2013 07:19 PM EDTSenate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s threat to change filibuster rules is supposed to narrowly focus on presidential nominees to the e… Read More

0 comments:

Post a Comment