Will Reagan's Passing Encourage A 3rd Party Conservative?

Battling for the mantle of "Heir to the Reagan Throne" ?

I could see Pat Buchanan doing it. I think that enough conservatives are pissed off at the neo-con hoodwinks of Bush, Inc. that Reagan's death will set off a chain reaction.

This could be the very thing that delivers a Diebold proof election to the Democrats.

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. Not a conservative. I think Arnold Swarznegger was being tapped for

the gig. However, I think the Enron tapes, which have mysteriously disappeared from the news since Reagan's death, may have quieted Arnie, if at least for the time being. I think the little deal that Arnold made in that energy agreement is still too fresh in Californian's minds.

4. Arnold can not run for the Presidency.

not under the current Constitution.

[union_maid]

2. I don't see why it would alter the political landscape

Reagan's passing is of concern only to his family in practical terms. For everyone else in the country it's a ceremonial event in that it's the death of a president and for those who like/loved/respected him it's the time to say good-bye. He's been gone for years. His own wife is the first to say that.

3. Never underestimate the power of symbolism

And Reagan is one of the Righties more potent symbols.

He was missing from the political landscape for a few years, but now his death will elevate his status from conservative icon to conservative saint.

He will be hailed as the leader of the revolution. While alive, out of respect, no one would push to claim themselves the heir apparent.

Now that Reagan has died, the jockeying will commence. Look at the turmoil that strikes a religious movement when the founder dies. That will be the future of conservative politics in America, I would bet my pants on that.

[no name no slogan]

7. Reagan bowed out of politics ten years ago

He has not been a "leader" of the party in recent years any more than Newt Gingrich has. 1998 was the last hurrah for the Reaganites, as Bill Clinton beat the impeachment rap (led by Gingrich, officiated over by Rhenquist). The "morality" politics don't play as well to the fundies in the sticks, and they're not the ones who are in charge of the party today.

The neo-cons are clearly in control of the GOP. They're calling the shots and making the big decisions. The fundies are still players, but they don't control the direction or agenda of the party. They may get the occassional bone tossed at them to keep them on board ("Gay Marriage" amendments and such), but they don't hold any real power anymore.

Most of the party has moved on, and so should we.

[Monte Carlo]

5. I really don't think so.

People didn't vote for Reagan for the specifics of his policies, people voted for him for his grand vision, his optimism, and all of those big things. If people paid attention to his policies, things might have been different.

Right now, among Republicans and the political right, I don't see anyone coming even close to George W. Bush in his grand visions, his optimism for the country, and his supposed decisive leadership.

6. Look at the turmoil that hits a religious movement when the founder dies

and Ronald Reagan is as close to a sainted leader as the conservative movement has to offer...

Factions arise to assume the leadership. What may seem like fine points of ideological differences to an outsider, become inflated stances, and great fractures are created within a philosophy.

Who knows where the division will begin. Perhaps it already has begun, with old school conservatives pushing for an ever smaller government and neo-conservatives coming on like Big Brother in 1984.

Regardless of the "how," I believe the divisions will begin, or deepen, and that the Dems should do nothing to interfere with the process.

Maybe we should give it a bit of a jumpstart :)