Of Trial Separations And Divorce
By haystack Posted in Republicans — Comments (74) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I've been thinking (since all the snoopy dances of late about Thompson's poor showing thus far) that in many ways this primary season has brought us the reality that the Divorce between the Republican Party and Conservatism has been finalized...the final Divorce decree if you will. For people who have so flippantly insisted they are Conservatives, finding an opportunity to cheer and rejoice at Thompson's demise strikes me as more than a little disingenuous. And I doubt they are any more "Conservative" than the candidate they want to lay claim to having helped get elected...with little or no regard for any of the things they'll do to further destroy the meaning of Conservatism once they're sworn in.
Everywhere we've been these past 3 months, all we hear is expert after expert suggesting Thompson is the lone true Conservative...and yet he's losing to the likes of Ron Paul. How can this be, when every candidate has tried to claim title to the "lone true Conservative" label while only Thompson is getting traction with it? Simply put, it's because the term itself - Conservative - has been usurped by the political opportunism of Party politics.
Conservatism has become "Not Democrat" and frankly it cheapens both Democrats AND Republicans. It's become some silly little game. The media has used the term Conservatism as a can to kick on quiet news days, and the Left (as is their wont to do) has used it as the backdrop for showing their own superiority in the ways of American Governance. Of course, Dems never talk about their "Liberalism," in part perhaps because the shirt-tearing screamers that throw money at them hand over fist can't even SPELL ideology, let alone espouse one...satisfied to just be MAD at everyone that sees things differently than they do.
Those who might consider themselves purists are being vilified by other factions in the GOP for being the cause of breaking up the coalition; apparently an unwillingness to compromise away the things you believe in one plank at a time is now stubborn, unproductive, and not conducive to being a member of the team. Can I ask a question? If I joined a baseball team, and they all decided to play volleyball instead...would I be expected to shut up and do it because everyone else is? Am I in the Twilight Zone? Shouldn't I be able to move on over to a team that's playing baseball? What if I don't LIKE volleyball?
Look, it's been clear for quite some time that both the DNC and the RNC has played with, manipulated, and gamed the system as as to prevent any and all comers to the party game. There's no room at the Inn for third parties, and in fact, if ever there were times when bipartisanship ran amok in this country it has been when they've pooled their resources to make sure no legitimate challenge could ever be brought to bear against their monopoly status, and God forbid anyone come between the Party machines and those who might continue filling their coffers.
To the Democrats' credit, they at least have admitted their primary goal is to regain power and are willing to do or say ANYTHING to make that a reality. The GOP, on the other hand, keeps trying to pat us on the head and convince us their only concern is our well-being and best interests. Sorry - I ain't buying.
Many suggested, in the aftermath of the 2006 election bloodbath, that the GOP lost because of its departure from Conservative first principles. I call this the beginning of the trial separation; they promised they'd regain majority status by getting back to these Reagan-era principles and would redouble their efforts to rebuild the trust of we Conservatives...they had learned their painful but necessary lesson.
Enter the 2008 Primary season.
None of the likely winners can fairly call themselves the "lone true Conservative." That's not to say each, in their own right, wouldn't do a fine job as President...but they sure as hell can't keep a straight face and tell us they're Regan Conservatives...NONE of them. They each, to their greatest area of expertise, are well left of Reagan's opinion on Government and its role in our lives. Sure, Reagan had his flaws, but these cats aren't in the same league - sorry Bots...but if you take a deep breath, you'll admit this to yourselves (perhaps with a little counseling) and with a few doses of anti-psychotic medication, you might actually be willing to admit that Conservatism (like the Constitution to some several of these candidates) has become a living breathing thing, and must be changed from time to time, to keep up with our ever-changing world.
Pathetic.....
Remember the Constitution? Well, there's a really simple and succinct sentence in that document that has been terribly bastardized...:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America
Their Federal-level ambitions were simple...and they intended for each of the "some several states" to do the bulk of the heavy lifting for local systems of governance in line with the best interests of the local population(s). What has become of this simple idea? Our representatives find ever-new ways to provide for the minimum amount of the common good to the maximum number of people to keep themselves elected...which further serves to maximize their personal "good" by attaining and retaining power and control over their constituency. A self-fulfilling prophecy...or, in the memories of the founders, a self-fulfilling heresy.
During the trial separation, while the GOP could have sought to fix the things they did to damage its relationship with Conservatives, Congress did none of what they promised us. Worse, they placed moderate to Dem-lites in Committee leadership roles and in the overall minority leadership positions. Like with their departure from Conservative principles during their majority status, they make clear they have no intention of returning to anything from days gone by; some genius has devised a "modern" Conservatism (post-Reagan) and they mean to solidify its place in American politics.
As I have said repeatedly, the ultimate victor in the race for the White House almost matters not at all. They'll sign or veto the trash that comes out of Congress. Yeah, I know, they set the agenda and the party they represent will fight to get it pursued on the floor and in Committee...but, given our likely President will be a moderate (sorry-"modern Conservative") OR a left-wing lunatic...what's going to matter is who wins and loses in the House and Senate a WHOLE lot more than POTUS.
Change in America...BACK to Reagan-era Conservatism will not come from this batch of political heroes. Finding a new party will feel good, and should probably be started knowing full well it will take a generation to achieve legitimacy, but what's going to matter more than anything else is selecting State and Local politicians as well as our Fed Reps that are Conservatives. Finding them will be nigh impossible, of course, but the search MUST begin...and begin soon.
Sit back, relax, and know that there will continue to be hell to pay for Conservatism AT LEAST until the mid-terms. Get used to it, accept it, learn to live with it...and as these once dear friends of ours in the GOP who could give a flip about Conservatism are saying and will continue to say:
Get over it.
And let's face it, the 1984 "Morning in America" campaign wasn't exactly a campaign on strict, solid conservative principles either.
So it's probably fair to say the last time we nominated a conservative who actually ran in the general election as one was, well, 1980.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
when the immigration wackos hijacked the conservative wing of the party. Again being for or against amnesty is not a litmus test on whether someone is conservative.
Here is what a conservative is:
100% Pro Life.
100% Pro Gun.
100% Lower Taxes and Smaller Government.
100% Strong on National Security.
I should know I live in the most conservative area in the country according to Newsweek.
Where does immigration or amnesty fall in this definition of conservative again? Ironically, I guess a true conservative would be in favor or allowing border states deal with the issue.
100% Pro Life.
100% Pro Gun.
100% Lower Taxes and Smaller Government.
100% Strong on National Security.
If there was somebody in the race who actually fit this description, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
I should know I live in the most conservative area in the country according to Newsweek.
Yea, well, if Newsweek says it...
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Where does immigration or amnesty fall in this definition of conservative again?
How about 15 to 20 million additional Democratic leaning voters? These folks are social and economic liberals. Don't you think they could be a threat to conservatives?
Or, do you think all those illegals will love McCain so much, for making them citizens, they'll vote Republican?
The question regarding which side the immigration vote falls is still up in the air.
As for the issue, I favor closing the border first and a path to citizenship for illegals that have lived here more than five years.
Does this make me a RINO? No! The real reason why people like HayStack won't vote for McCain depends greatly on how the feel about immigration. As for me immigration isn't my number one issue thus my support for McCain.
The question regarding which side the immigration vote falls is still up in the air.
Only in your mind.
Just look at the kind of socialists their relatives support. The areas of Mexico that donate most of the illegal immigrants (and to which most of the remittances from the US go) voted overwhelmingly for AMLO. They will be suckers for the Democrat party's message.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Conservatives know that national borders mean something. We aren't looking for a borderless kumbaya tranzi world.
It is those who enter this country ILLEGALLY & stay in this country ILLEGALLY. It is about those who employ ILLEGAL aliens & are doing so ILLEGALLY.
With all due respect, not differentiating Immigration from ILLEGAL immigration is only going to make the BS meters go off the charts for people like me, & will result in the hammering of your posts regarding immigration because it is factually incorrect to not point out it's about ILLEGAL entry into our country.
Barry Goldwater's The Conscience of a Conservative, and his failed bid for the White House in 1964, was the quintessential moment in modern American Conservatism. Directly from this foundation came the Reagan era and the GOP's coalition. Thus the divorce you speak of is better understood as a large family that has been slowly drifting apart. Daniel McCarthy wrote an article in The American Conservative that explains why this is so:
For the Right, Goldwater really is “the father of us all,” and each branch of the conservative movement can plausibly trace itself back to some tendency, however great or slight, in the Goldwater effort. But that’s not to say all claims on the family estate are equally valid. Nor is it the case that conservatives who blend the Goldwater movement’s tendencies toward economic libertarianism, values rhetoric, and militarism are necessarily the most truly “Goldwaterite” of all. If that were the case, even Rudy Giuliani would be a Goldwaterite: after all, the former New York mayor is socially liberal but promises religious conservatives strict judges, he’s putatively economically conservative, and he’s very hawkish. Yet few old-guard Goldwaterites take Giuliani’s bona fides seriously. Even the genteel William Middendorf, who praised Mitt Romney and John McCain in a C-SPAN interview with David Frum, expressed doubts about Giuliani. Almost as few old Goldwaterites credit George W. Bush’s pretence to the mantle of Mr. Conservative. But if the Republican Party is full of pretenders, where does one look for Goldwater’s true heirs?
As Senator, Goldwater voted to uphold legalized abortion - refuting your claim that "a conservative is: 100% Pro Life"
Are you the type that wouldn't take immigration seriously until some Muslims smuggle in a nuke across our southern border and reduce one of our cities to radioactive rubble?
Some of us take it more seriously now than that.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
Here's a thought - which border do you think the Muslims are more likely to smuggle a nuke across? The southern one or the northern one? What country has lots of Muslims in it - Mexico or Canada? Where would an Arab stand out more - Mexico City or Toronto? We ALL know the answer so stop pretending that this debate is about that until you call for a fence on the Canadian border.
John S. McCain III
We've come a long, long way together/Through the hard times and the good
I have to celebrate you, baby/I have to praise you like I should
Canada attempts to control its territory, let alone its ports and borders. Mexico isn't even in CONTROL of the very south, having let part of Chiapas fall into the hands of some communist revolutionaries.
Further, the Canadians aren't hostile to our border control interests. The Mexicans actively assist those who wish to illegally.
So the Canadian border is far less a problem than the Mexican.
to list in order of priority the concepts that each of hold most dear. This kind of behavior only tends to divide us and show where the gaps in our platform are weakest. For example, we can decide that stopping abortion is number (n) on my list and number (m) on your list and so on but we eventually must admit that it is not number (1) on everybody’s list. In this case putting a stop to abortion is a campaign pledge that places us in danger of supporting big government, intrusive government, or at its worst, a police state in order to enforce this single idea. Of course, standing up for life is never a bad idea; but it places our politicos in the position of needing to select which members of the party they will target. When carried to the extreme, something our opponents would like to see; we will fragment into the second amendment party, the nuclear energy party, the tax cutters, the compassionate remnant, and a host of other sub groups. So don’t go there.
Rush had the right idea when he was asked by a caller to identify his top concepts. He chose to be more general and selected things such as standing for limited government, standing for free enterprise, standing for faith in the people’s collective decision rather than the government’s and finally he wanted someone who would stand up and be a leader. These ideas we should be able to get behind without putting someone’s cart ahead of someone else’s. Oh, and Rush first stated that these concepts were in no particular order.
Thompson's loss is not the issue here-the pleasure and glee of seeing him lose on the parts of "Conservatives" lays waste to what Thompson spoke of and ran on. I actually don't think Thompson would be able to deal with Congress as it is today-he's better off going home and watching from the sidelines.
Any left in the field will be moderate Presidents, willing to capitulate wherever necessary to the Dem majority. They ave each governed that way, in their previous jobs...there's no reason to think that changes now.
Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus
a) I don't see a lot of pleasure and glee about his loss
b) If I do see any, it's from people who are primary election competitors, which none of us are used to having among Republicans at this level.
Getting along with a Democrat Congress will probably be more important to the next President (if he is a Republican) than pushing the conservative agenda in an environment where it doesn't have a realistic chance of passing either the House or Senate.
If triangulating Republicans were able to prevent conservative nominees to the federal court of appeals from being confirmed when we had 55 Republicans in the Senate, what is the likelihood that we can look forward to a better situation when the Senate has only 46 or 47, especially when one of the triangulating Republicans has become president?
We all want Bush's tax cuts made permanent. But will a Democrat Congress make them permanent when a strong economy under a Republican president works to the disadvantage of Democrats in 2010 and 2012 ? Also, if the Republican president himself called the Bush tax cuts tilted too far towards "the rich," the Democrats would probably use that as their main talking point as why the Bush tax cuts should be scuttled in favor of more lavish SCHIP funding or funding new social-welfare benefits for "new citizens" who have travelled the "path to citizenship" via illigal immigration.
After reading this comment, I don't really see any point to the original post. Just a lot of speculation.
HayStack overreacting. NO!!!!! I love his world view here. Thompson is the only conservative candidate in the race. Despite Ron Paul's almost Constitution like party stance on entitlement programs. Despite the similarities between Thompson's and McCain's records that many have pointed out.
Conservatives who advocate splitting from the GOP because of Thompson's defeat in South Carolina are just as extreme as the MoveOn Crowd on the left. The more and more we see it the more and more they lose credibility.
"What happens when conservatives move to the extreme left and liberals move to the extreme right? Both end up strapping themselves to a tree somewhere in the wilderness invoking madness as their justification."
Their offices in FL and other states are still in business and are they said that Fred Thompson is not dropping out!
Thats fine, except as of today, he is the only candidate not physically in Florida. It also looks like his poll numbers are dropping in the state.
There is no question that FDT is the only 200 proof conservative in this race. There is also very little question in my mind that, had Fred taken that high octane performance he gave in the last debate and started that back in September, he would be leading, and leading handily.
I will say, however, that the "I'm gonna take my ball and go home" attitude is more than a little juvenile. It reminds me of a quote from Russel Kirk, that I've reproduced here from memory:
"The conservative movement will become like one of those dark little shops which apparently never sell anything. If, for any reason, you go in, you find at the back an old man, fingering for his own pleasure some oddments of cloth. Nobody wants to buy them, which is fine because the old man is not really interested in "
In my mind, a movement more concerned with maintaining doctrinal purity than infusing those doctrines in the life of a constantly changing and chaotic world is a movement that is pining for its own demise.
You wrote:
"ultimate victor in the race for the White House almost matters not at all."
That is a fascinating statement that almost borders on sheer nihilism. The next president will inherit two wars, a growing national debt, a shaky economy, Pakistan on the verge of Islamist meltdown, etc. Elections matter, elections have consequences, and the results of this one will echo into the lives of our children's children.
"ultimate victor in the race for the White House almost matters not at all."
which followed with
"what's going to matter is who wins and loses in the House and Senate a WHOLE lot more than POTUS."
All you say about what he inherits is true, but as you've seen Congress spends themoney and approves the actions taken by the WH...
disagree with me, fine-but be fair about it.
Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus
I'm impressed by your memory, of the actual words. Bill Buckley recounted what Whittaker Chambers wrote to him about the necessity for political realism to defeat the ideological foe.
But if the Republican Party cannot get some grip of the actual world we live in and from it generalize and actively promote a program that means something to the masses of people-why somebody else will. Then there will be nothing to argue. The voters will simply vote Republicans into singularity. The Republican Party will become like one of those dark little shops which apparently never sell anything. If, for any reason, you go in, you find at the back an old man, fingering for his own pleasure some oddments of cloth. Nobody wants to buy them, which is fine because the old man is not really interested in selling. He just likes to hold and to feel.
I'm firmly convinced minimum wage laws are bad policy, but the vast majority of the American people disagree with me.
Given that political reality, it's pointless to whine about "Why are most Americans such idiots!" even though I believe the majority is mistaken about minimum wage. I and others can try to persuade people to our view on minimum wage laws, and hope our position has more support in the future.
In the meantime though, I don't consider it an abandonment of principle to vote for an "electable" nominee who will advance other policies I support (trivial little stuff like GWOT, taxes, etc.), but will also go along with minimum wage laws. I consider that far more principled than nominating a purist who's general election loss will hand my country over to Democrats that oppose most of my principles (and may also hike the minimum wage even further than the "unprincipled" electable candidate).
Great to have in the coalition, but not strictly conservative. He even had the wisdom to call himself "a man of the right," instead of a conservative.
it's about whether there is a new brand of Conservatism taking control of the party based on who IS statistically like to get the nomination.
I'll do an open thread on whether he stays or goes if you like, but I'd like to see a discussion here about the state of Conservatism in the GOP, and whether there is a new version of it that has crept in and taken its place that looks and smells an awful like Moderate to Dem-lite.
Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus
If anything, I think the non-conservatives now (guys like McCain and Giuliani) are significantly to the right of the non-conservatives of ages past (think Ford and GHW Bush).
I don't see how. McCain is probably the closest thing we could come up with to a clone of the man. He's not a supply sider. He votes against tax cuts because they benefit the rich. He supports massive and invasive new regulatory schemes. Hard to say about Ford, since he was just a temporary placeholder that didn't manage to do a whole lot. McCain is very much a man in the mold of GHW Bush and Nixon, though. They were decent on foreign policy. And positively horrible on domestic policy. I don't expect anything different from McCain.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I don't see McCain as 'positively horrible' on domestic policy. I see his record as positively horrible on party building, but that is distinct from policy.
I think just his enthusiastic support for carbon caps earns him that title. Add to that his disdain for tax cuts and his non-supply sider nature. Add to that his program to send paychecks to laid off workers for some unspecified period of time and I'd say all the warning signs are there. In fact, the warnings are much stronger in the case of McCain than they ever were in the case of Bush 41, and we know how well he turned out.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Carbon caps are armor-piercing bullets for the economy. Our economy, that is. They sure would help China and Russia.
But here is where I think you are very wrong:
"it's about whether there is a new brand of Conservatism taking control of the party based on who IS statistically like to get the nomination."
I think a lot of factors are driving support for McCain, fairly or unfairly. Electability certainly, the war in Iraq definitely. I can imagine both Kirk and Edmund Burke being baffled by your definition of 'conservatism' as total statis.
that every candidate can say they are conservative and not have to explain that they really are only part conservative.
------------
Conservatism is about empowering people to do the work, not the government!
Personally I don't see an 'empowerment' role for the government at all. That sounds like social engineering or economic planning to me.
Doesn't limited government, a strong national defense, and a justice system that doesn't legislate empower the American people to come up with creative solutions to the problems we face? Isn't that what the founding fathers had in mind when they divided the powers of government?
If I'm missing something please clarify for me. I would be interested in your thoughts.
------------
Conservatism is about empowering people to do the work, not the government!
The way I see it, it's up to people to empower themselves, and we just need to keep government from interfering.
During our current president's first term there were a few things that got my attention, and not in a good way.
1. Tariffs on imported steel.
2. Massive Medicare expansion (prescription drug benefit)
3. Endless pork barrell spending.
Did you approve of these positions he took? Were you at all concerned about his failure to locate his veto pen? and finally, because of all this, did you vote for Bush in '04? Or did you, like most voters, look at the available options and make the calculation: which candidate is best positioned to move the ball on conservative issues in a favorable direction?
I came out hard and loud about these and many more-it all started with that joke of a farm rescue bill.
And, like I'll have to this time around...I voted for him in '04 because my alternative was Kerry or stay home-and I can not sit on my hands when I spend so much time trying to be engaged and involved...
And, I'll vote R again-regardless that the GOP keeps giving me moderates and telling me to accept them as Conservatives...and to LIKE it.
Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus
Or did you, like most voters, look at the available options and make the calculation: which candidate is best positioned to move the ball on conservative issues in a favorable direction
Those of us griping about what appears to be the impending decline of Conservatism as an actual ideology (as opposed to a talking point for public consumption) in the GOP have performed such a calculation.
The end result is that we see none of the remaining candidates actually moving the ball to the right on key issues. Each candidate remaining will at best hold the fort on any given issue and move leftward on others.
THIS is the crux of the lament you hear from Fredheads and others who decry a slate of moderate GOP candidates.
The greatest single cause of Atheism today is Christians who profess Jesus with their lips & then go and deny him by their lifestyle. That's what an unbelieving world simply finds..unbelievable -Brennan Manning
like we were going to let John Francious Kerry run this country...you look past the negatives...hold your nose and pull the lever than throw up...you know like we will have to do if McCain gets the nod.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
I like provocative, as you may have surmised.
But see here, I disagree with you on the most fundamental premise of your position: Compromise.
That's the issue I was trying to get at in my blog entry.
Put simply, the argument I hear from those yelling no compromise is that electing a Pol who isn't representative of their views is compromising their principles. Correct me if that isn't a proper or sufficient distillation.
I could not disagree more.
The President doesn't equal your values, nor does your vote for President. Sure, each may to some extent be representative of your values, but it is not the sum total embodiment of them.
Here are your values and Principles. Let's call them Bob. Here are your issues. Let's call them Tomato. Because of Bob, Tomato. Right?
Ok, now along comes an election. Neither Bob nor Tomato become Pie all of a sudden, they are still Bob and Tomato.
In this election there's a candidate. Let's say Fred. Fred also has Bob. But Fred doesn't say Tomato, he says tomato. You know, like the song.
If you vote for Fred, it's still Tomato, on account of Bob.
The point is, work for your values to become reality, your values and issues are yours. Conservativism is ours. If conservativism as a whole takes a back seat to conservativism in part periodically, that is not a failure of conservativism or the voters. We do what we can, when we can.
We don't stop fighting partial birth abortion on the grounds that it is not fighting all abortion, right?
Also, Fred's failure to catch on is lamentable, but not ideologically significant. It speaks to strategy, not philosophy.
absentee
I have read it now and appreciate the thoughts there...well done.
I'm not so sure we fully agree, but in there I can find support of the notion that ideological compromise is surely what these primaries are about.
It's clear in any case that no one is anxious to devoutly carry the Reagan-era water...it isn't a winning combination in these times. How much of it gets cast aside is still in question, and the more of it that does, the less likely we'll ever see it come back-waiting for election cycles to play themselves out and hoping the NEXT one will bring back the things some would prefer to have kept intact is a losing game.
We'll see, in any case, because this election cycle is all about who beats the Dems and not about who's right.
Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus
I appreciate your point of view as well. To an extent I had to choose between optimism and depression. I'm one of those people who always chooses the former.
As a vet, I admit I have biases to McCain, so perhaps that has fueled some optimism.
Mostly, though, I consider politics a practical exercise by necessity. I have a natural distrust of politicians. I don't want to think of them as representative of my soul. I much prefer to think of them as means to an end.
absentee
and of all the "McCainiacs" on here I find your arguments to be the most persuasive.
I understand completely your logic laid out above and in your excellent blog explaining your rationale for changing from Fred to John. I have used the same rationale many times in voting for those with whom I have philisophical disagreements.
As an intensely pro-life voter, I have often expressed disgust with fellow pro-lifers who sit out an election because the R opposes abortion in every situation except rape, incest and the life of the mother while the D is for abortion on demand up to and including partial-birth. My reaction has always been that to give up supporting someone who opposes, in effect, 99% of abortions just because he doesn't support the final 1% is ludicrous.
However, (you knew that was coming, right? :-) my problem with McCain is that he has opposed so many of the things which I believe in as to render my support for him to be a personal betrayal to myself of the vast majority of that which I hold dear. Even the two areas in which I appreciate his stance (pork & the war in Iraq) are offset by his embrace of AGW (the regulatory burdens will far offset whatever we save through the elimination of pork) and an unwillingness (at least through his actions) to secure the border, which I also find to me a major component of the GWOT.
His positions, and the ferocity with which he has attacked my conservative values, leaves me with no confidence that he will pursue but a very small percent of those things with which I agree. At some point in time my conscience says I can compromise no more without ceasing to be all of what I claim to hold dear.
Thus, I respectfully disagree with your trust in Sen. McCain as the individual who can edge us back to a more conservative party.
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
"what is conservatism in 2008?" I hate to admit it, but pennpatriot actually had a good thought in identifying the attributes that define what we might consider as conservatism, although his definition could hardly be considered as finessed.
I just did a search on the phrase "Where have all the conservatives gone?" and the collection of articles by that name is fascinating. If I wasn't so jet lagged still, I'd do some more reading and try to diarize this. Maybe on the plane home...
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
The Republican Party has been reduced to folks running around telling folks how much more conservative they are than others. What happened to the Party of solutions and ideas.
is just what the doctor calls for. (not Dr Paul, though :>)
You are right, of course, in emphasizing the importance of Congress. Imagine what W's legacy would have been if the Dems kept the Senate in '02 and '04.
And when YOU run for president, you have my vote!
the Divorce between the Republican Party and Conservatism has been finalized.
Bunk. I put my conservative credentials against anyone's. I'm the flag-wavin', Burke-readin', Constitution-toting Reaganite real deal. So are a lot of other people who also supported Thompson but aren't blaming the voters for his campaign's mistakes. They're conservatives, not crybabies. You got your c-words mixed up.
The voters that didn't vote for him because he was lazy or had no fire in his belly or ran a lousy campaign were not blamed...voters that chose another candidate were free to do so. That Thompson lost was facilitated by the voters lack of casting theirs his way.
You miss the entire point here if you think I'm being a "crybaby" about Thompson (since I have said several times now this is not about him...and given his performance he WOULD have failed miserably up against the clowns on the Hill).
The pleasure the other bots and the Moderates and the Independents are enjoying over Thompson's loss, and their insistence that we who supported him because of his conservatism MUST now support their guy DESPITE a lack of it in theirs...and that this might be an indication of the drift between the Republican mantel and the Conservative one...THAT is the point of the post...
Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus
I'm not thrilled that Thompson lost and I defy you to find any evidence that I am. I hoped he'd pull it out because I thought he was the best man for the job of President. But he didn't and its time to act grown up about it.
Getting pissy because supporters of other candidates didn't support your candidate and are glad he lost isn't grown-up about it.
I am not getting pissy, I do not resent anyone that didn't vote for Fred Thompson, and given his campaign performance and the response from the states he has so far been voted for or against, I believe he would do poorly against the presumed Dem increase in majority status. Ease up big fella...
AGAIN-this thread is about whether the primaries and the people rooting for their guy while dancing on the graves of ALL that have or will withdraw...and those beclowning themselves as Conservatives while espousing moderate to Dem lite policy positions has established the final divorce between the party and the ideology.
You're better than this man-I am getting pissy about the party-stop taking it personally.
Iustum et tenacem propositi virum non civium ardor prava iubentium, non vultus instantis tyranni mente quatit solida.
-Quintus Horatius Flaccus
Ok.
I agree that its in bad taste for supporters of other candidates to crow when a candidate gets knocked out. It makes for bad blood and puts one campaign above the long-term health of the party.
I agree that people shouldn't consistently advocate moderate positions while calling themselves conservatives (though the fact that moderates would want to call themselves conservatives says we've done some good things with branding).
But where do you get all this stuff about a final divorce between conservatism and the GOP? Conservatives are mostly found within the GOP and, given the vagaries of the political process and the political climate, the GOP mostly serves conservatives' interests. Fred Thompson not getting acclaimed doesn't change that.
You find most conservatives still in the GOP and consistently voting for Republicans because there's nowhere else for conservatives to go. At least the Republican candidates are closer to conservatives' values than Democrats (socialists) are. You can even find some moderate liberals in the GOP because when their party slips so far to the left that they can no longer follow, there's another party to the right of them that they can join. When the Republican party slips too far to the left for conservatives to follow, there's nothing to the right of us for us to join. We're stuck with the Republican party, for better or for worse. Our only option is to fight for the heart of the party and try to drag its platform back to the right and into our comfort zone. If we can't do that, it doesn't matter. You'll still find us in the GOP because we have nowhere else to go. Doesn't mean we're happy about it, though. The GOP just takes us for granted and doesn't have to please us because they know we have nowhere else to go and we'll probably reluctantly vote for Republicans because at least they're better than Democrats.
So, conservatives, fight for the heart of the party. But understand that the GOP is slipping leftward and it will be a difficult battle to win our influence back.
And part of it starts with the realization that we don't need the *most* electable candidates, we need the most conservative candidates who are still reasonably electable. And realizing that ability to organize the party and promote the message are important too, that its not all about a candidate's issues.
Most Western Democracies do not have a two-party system, but multiple political parties. Ruling coalitions are created by the parties agreeing to work together. Sometimes this sounds appealing--but then again, the socialists usually win in Europe, and John McCain would be considered a right-wing extremist over there.
I had considered matching the '08 GOP candidates with a corresponding European political party, but the match-ups wouldn't be precise and some here like to nitpick.
Anyway, Mike Huckabee is something of a Christian Democrat--found all over Europe--often fiscally socialist.
Giuliani might be a Likud Party member, ala Netanyahu, mostly security and markets.
McCain might join Silvio Berlusconi in Italy's National Alliance--market-based and nationalist.
Thompson and Paul share much with the "Blue Tories" of the Canadian Conservative Party--socially and economically conservative.
Romney... Well, I don't know what he really believes, so I guess he could fit in anywhere...
The point is that "conservatism" has many faces throughout the world. We can talk about Adams, Hamilton, Burke, Kirk, Buckley, Goldwater, or Reagan till we're dead without agreement....
Sure, McCain is not going to win the "Mr. Conservative USA" pagent, but let's look at the big picture. We have republicans of varying degrees of conservatism in the House & Senate - in Governorships, State House & Senates, & down to the local board of zoning - all across this country. I'm a bit of a broken record on this, however, we need to build, rebuild, & shore up conservatism from the grassroots ground up. The more conservative the base is, the more to the right (not wrong) our party "higher ups" & the party will be moved. This way, we can keep our elected representatives in line like we did with the McCain Amnesty bill.
I would have liked Thompson, but I think the truth of the matter is that he and Romney have been drawing from the same pool of Conservative voters... and even John McCain to some extent.
It's not that Conservatism is dead, just that there has been no one with the longstanding consistency, the personal charisma, and the insane dedication to politics needed for someone to unite all Conservatives behind them as the clear and obvious standard bearer. We have not had that since Reagan- which is why we keep looking back at him, instead of being willing to choose the best from the options we have.
Just because people didn't agree that Thompson was the best candidate doesn't mean they aren't conservative. In fact, I find such an argument rather arrogant and off putting.
Lets focus on making the best of what we got this time around and building for the future.
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh people didn't vote for Fred, so they can't be real conservatives.
Whatta bunch of babies.
We want a leader, not a panderer.
There was one Reagan, and even he would be chastised by readers of RedState.
Did you come up with that yourself, or did your classmates dictate it for you at recess?
Next time try something with a little more intellect.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
We haven't nominated a conservative since 1984. Heck, there wasn't a conservative in the running for the R nomination in 2000, either.
To act like now, suddenly, the party is hostile to conservatism just because Fred Thompson lost, I think is a big overreaction.
While I do think that there is work conservatives can do to make sure our voice is heard, rather than just complaining about "the establishment," you have to consider that like with Ron Paul, the problem is the messenger, not the message.