“,” so sez Mitt Romney.
This is a really profound misunderstanding of history, Liberalism, and Republicanism.
First, neither party existed during the American Revolution, so technically neither party is either.
Liberalism is fundamentally an opposition to monarchy. Liberalism is specifically about removing political power from the elite and putting it into the hands of the governed.
Republicanism is a form of Liberalism (when talking about US political history) that suggests that the culturally elite should be the people to whom the governed give political power.
So, both parties are parties of the revolution. No one in this country (except maybe the awesome (and conservative) ) is advocating a return to monarchy.
Republicanism, rooted in the idea that the economic and cultural elite are better suited for governing, are actually closer to the conservatives that supported the monarchy during the revolutionary period.
This confused idea of Republicanism is actually one of the problems with the current Republican party. The conservatism of William Buckley, Allan Bloom, and Leo Strauss, is radically different than the conservatism of Sarah Palin, Joe Wurzelbacher, and Sean Hannity.
Who knows where Republican resurgence will come from, but one possibility is that someone will be able to tie the different strands of conservative thought together in a way that’s palatable to the so-called Independents. As long as Mitt Romney is using 230-year-old taunts, it seems unlikely he will be that leader.
