The Republican Party, Its Parts

I recently read a discussion of Dead Carl's "Trinity" Concept.♠  It made me think of the Republican Party.  For those of you who see no difference between the major parties, I do.  I also can taste the difference between Coke and Pepsi.  Sometimes, when I travel, I can tell the difference in Coke based on where it is bottle.  But, on to the discussion of the "Trinity" (On War, page 89 of the Howard/Paret translation), which comes out of Dead Carl's studies of the Napoleonic Wars.

War is thus more than a mere chameleon, because it changes its nature to some extent in each concrete case. It is also, however, when it is regarded as a whole and in relation to the tendencies that dominate within it, a fascinating trinity—composed of:

• primordial violence, hatred, and enmity, which are to be regarded as a blind natural force;
• the play of chance and probability, within which the creative spirit is free to roam; and
• its element of subordination, as an instrument of policy, which makes it subject to pure reason.

The first of these three aspects concerns more the people; the second, more the commander and his army; the third, more the government. The passions that are to blaze up in war must already be inherent in the people; the scope that the play of courage and talent will enjoy in the realm of probability and chance depends on the particular character of the commander and the army; but the political aims are the business of government alone.

These three tendencies are like three different codes of law, deep-rooted in their subject and yet variable in their relationship to one another. A theory that ignores any one of them or seeks to fix an arbitrary relationship among them would conflict with reality to such an extent that for this reason alone it would be totally useless.

The task, therefore, is to keep our theory [of war] floating among these three tendencies, as among three points of attraction.

So, what we have is a description of three groups, which in today's Republican Party are "The Grass Roots", "The Candidates" and the GOP Establishment, "The Party Apparatchiks".♥

There is no doubt the Grass Roots, the Tea Party for instance, brings "primordial violence, hatred, and enmity" to the game.  Just ask the current Vice President, who fears the Tea Parties more than Hell itself.  The fact that every Tea Party member I know is a pretty conservative and down to earth person, interested in the good of the Nation and keeping the rally site clean, would not change his mind.  And he is not the only person nervous about the Tea Parties.  Just look at the rule changes being pushed by the Party Apparatchiks at the most recent Republican Convention. 

Then there are the Candidates (and their advisors), who exploit "the play of chance and probability, within which the[ir] creative spirit is free to roam" and to achieve victory.  The Candidates aren't necessarily looking to do anything with the Grass Roots other than to get them to the polls, and get them to man phone banks and take lawn signs.  As for the Party Apparatchiks, they are usually not found with the humble candidates, about whom they have not the time nor money to support, but with the great men and women who will win prominent office.

Finally, there are the Party Apparatchiks, who keep the machine going between elections.  They want a nice, quiet time of it.  They shudder when the think of the Tea Parties and how those people will cause others to scream "racist" at the Republican Party.  If they could have Ike back they would be happy; at least they think they would be happy.

Here is the whole thing presented as a diagram.

Now, the Democrats, they are pretty much the same, except that the Clinton Machine (Candidate) thought it had taken over "The Party", but that is not a victory that has been consolidated.

The third call to the house this AM was from the Parish (the first two being "get out the vote" calls), and the woman on the other end said this election cycle was a terrible thing.  I agree, but even Kad Barma hasn't come up with a good alternative.  Yes, I know he says vote for independents and third party candidates, but they will just go to seed like everyone else.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  That would be the late General Carl von Clausewitz, author of On War.  I have linked to one of a number of translations.  This happens to be the one I read while a student at Army War College and the one I used as a text while a Professor at the National War College.  As for Dead Carl, he has been dead since 1831, when Andy Jackson was President.
♥  From my computer dictionary:  "derogatory or humorous word—an official in a large organization, typically a political one, e.g., Tory apparatchiks."  It is "chiefly historical, a member of a communist party apparat."