Mitch used to write in from time to time, and thank goodness he’s still out there. Yesterday, the Czar had to sum up the evolution from the Whigs to the 1860 Republican Party in a half-sentence. Not surprisingly, Mitch thought the explanation should have been a lot longer. Mind you, the Czar was there when the Republicans last rebranded effectively, and concurs this explanation was much more detailed:

The Republican Party was not a continuation of the Whig Party; it had as much common lineage with the Free Soil and American (aka “Know Nothing”) Parties as with the Whigs, with strong contribution from regional oddities like the ’48 expat German communists Schurz and Willich. The Republicans were just the most long-lived and successful of the numerous third parties of the 1850s. The Southern Whigs, for instance, upon the breakup of the national party passed through various Unionist regional rump parties into the Confederacy and then the survivors ended up mostly in the postwar Democratic Party.

The big differences between the antebellum Era of Third Parties and the 20th Century are structural, driven by the goo-goo institutionalization of the parties as part of the post-Gilded Age reforms, the passing from the scene of the party newspapers, the end of the spoils system, etc. Hell, in the Era of Third Parties, the parties *printed* the ballots. Their bosses bullied their pet politicians into appointing the postmasters who handled or hindered the distribution of party newspapers. Their loyal representatives franked the posting of said party newspapers and correspondence. And so forth.

The Czar voted Whig a few times—yes, we voted for Millard Fillmore, too—but was happy to see them fall apart. Frankly, the Czar detested their tolerance of slavery. Did you readers know the Czar was a staunch abolitionist? Probably.

Also, the Czar loathed Henry Clay to the point we voted for Polk. Yes, it is true: but Polk was a very different Democrat.

Anyway, Mitch has his history correct—but the Czar does not admit error. The Republicans were a one-issue party in 1854: they hated slavery and wanted it dead. It wasn’t until the Whigs began hating each other that they simply co-opted the Republicans. The Czar argues the Whig platform evolved into the Republican party until the remaining Whigs were no longer viable, but welcomes other interpretations. Maybe that’s all it takes to go from third party to second party status.

It is also essential to remember—unlike today’s non-party Tea Party—the Republicans were attracting Democrats from all over the place. So the Czar posits that the Republicans became a second party right from the get-go, and the Whigs became the Third Party. But let us not split hairs because nothing Mitch said is incorrect.

We should note that whether you think the Republicans were the third party or the Whigs were the third party with no second party competitor until 1854, the point is the same: the Democrats were given a near-total lock on power thanks to the Whig/Republican struggles siphoning votes from each other.

A lot of people—perhaps including many of our readers—are hopeful that the Tea Party could be a viable third party. Of course, the math says no—the percentage of Republicans who reject the Tea Party fundamentalism is still too high, even though many life-long Republicans probably would jump over if given a chance, provided they saw viability.

Unfortunately, the large majority of people pushing for Tea Party third-party status are those disenfranchised with the Libertarians who have a knack for finding fulsome, unappealing goofballs to run as candidates. Most small-l libertarians are tired and annoyed with capital-L Libertarians and would welcome someone who isn’t Ron Paul or, on the other hand, John McCain. We are sympathetic to this dilemma, but as ‘the Tea Party is more effective as a reform whip than a political party—and that we cannot undo decades of Republican sloppiness in just a couple stump speeches. It will take years of carefully vetting candidates and getting them in at the local level. Senator Ted Cruz is an example of what happens when you take an ostensibly Tea Party mentality and put him into a major Federal position—he pisses people off. And while we might enjoy seeing fatcats squirm, he will soon find himself involved less and less in important conversations.

Better to have them on a school board. Then a county position. Then a state rep. Then a state senator. Get the idea? The people see these folks aren’t scary and that they have produced positive results at every step.

If you want an example of this being done correctly, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has produced so many results there that even cheesehead independents are thinkin’ this Tea Party here, she might be a good idea.

Republicans and libertarians are making two other mistakes besides slingshooting Tea Party candidates up too fast:

First, stop rallying behind anyone who claims to be a Tea Partier. Tea Party candidates and voters are still apologizing for Todd Akin; but Akin wasn’t a Tea Party candidate. He was promoted that way by Democrats, who even funded a portion of his campaign. He was a plant, but no one checked his background because Tea Party folks were too busy popping champagne corks. Vet your candidates, kids.

Second, stop demonizing Republicans who might take a more subtle approach to their job. The Czar is no fan of the increasingly Left-leaning Sen. John McCain, and would be happy to see Lindsay Graham step aside for someone who represents his voters’s actual interests. But in the last six months, conservatives like Marco Rubio, Eric Cantor, and even Paul Ryan have been called RINOs simply because they are exploring bipartisan solutions to problems (yes) caused by Democrats in the first place. At this rate, the Republican party will run out of politicans to be called RINO by early 2014.

Blasting everyone in your party who doesn’t subserviantly endorse Ron Paul not only hurts Republican chances, but it actually strengthens Democrats’ ties with so-called independent voters. Stop it: no one can keep track of everyone you hate anymore.

Remember Reagan’s principle—who would be derided as a RINO today were he running—oppose the guy who disagrees with you 80% of the time, not the guy who agrees with you 60% of the time.

The Czar of Muscovy

Божію Поспѣшествующею Милостію Мы, Дима Грозный Императоръ и Самодержецъ Всероссiйскiй, цѣсарь Московскiй. The Czar was born in the steppes of Russia in 1267, and was cheated out of total control of all Russia upon the death of Boris Mikhailovich, who replaced Alexander Yaroslav Nevsky in 1263. However, in 1283, our Czar was passed over due to a clerical error and the rule of all Russia went to his second cousin Daniil (Даниил Александрович), whom Czar still resents. As a half-hearted apology, the Czar was awarded control over Muscovy, inconveniently located 5,000 miles away just outside Chicago. He now spends his time seething about this and writing about other stuff that bothers him.