What Reagan Taught Us About Being Conservatives
By HeavyM Posted in 2008 — Comments (47) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Promoted from the Diaries - MartinAKnight
Believe it or not, this article is not intended to endorse or attack any of the current candidates running in the 2008 election. You all know who my dog in this race is, but this piece is fully intended to be philosophical in nature and to remind us that our team needs us - all of us - if we even want to have a prayer of winning next year's general election.
During the 1960s and 70s, the conservative movement in America was all but pronounced dead. Democrats had advanced an aggressive left-wing agenda under Johnson (such as the War on Poverty and the Great Society) that indebted the country, both figuratively and literally, to liberal policies. Heading into the 1980s, Republicans had not had control of the Senate or the House since 1954, sometimes facing deficits of 23 seats or more in the Senate alone. Nixon had tarnished the Republican and the conservative name with the Watergate scandal. Americans identified themselves as Democrats more than Republicans by a 25% margin in many polls. The media and many Americans began asking if Republicans would ever be in power again. Conservatives, they said, had gone the way of the whigs.
But in the midst of certain permanent defeat, conservatives were handed two beautiful gifts. The first was the disastrous presidency of a peanut farmer from Georgia. But even one of the worst Presidents in modern history couldn't have turned the tide of five decades of history that seemed bent against conservatives. For that, we needed our second gift: an actor-turned politician from California.
Ronald Reagan. The Great Communicator. The Optimist. He is consistently ranked as one of the greatest Presidents this country has ever known by Americans of all stripes. But how did he manage to bring conservatives back into prominence in America again? I believe the resuscitation and empowerment of the conservative movement in America began with a single speech in which a massive philosophy shift was cast as a vision for the future: Reagan's 1977 CPAC speech.
You see, the problem from 1955 up to the 80s wasn't that there weren't conservatives in America. There were. Indeed, even in that speech, Reagan laid out these statistics:
Despite what some in the press may say, we who are proud to call ourselves “conservative” are not a minority of a minority party; we are part of the great majority of Americans of both major parties and of most of the independents as well.
A Harris poll released September 7, 1975 showed 18 percent identifying themselves as liberal and 31 percent as conservative, with 41 percent as middle of the road; a few months later, on January 5, 1976, by a 43-19 plurality, those polled by Harris said they would “prefer to see the country move in a more conservative direction than a liberal one.”
Last October 24th, the Gallup organization released the result of a poll taken right in the midst of the presidential campaign.
Respondents were asked to state where they would place themselves on a scale ranging from “right-of-center” (which was defined as “conservative”) to left-of-center (which was defined as “liberal”). 37% viewed themselves as left-of-center or liberal, 12% placed themselves in the middle, and 51% said they were right-of-center, that is, conservative.
So if those numbers were accurate - and they were, as much as polls can be - what was the problem then? Why were liberals running government? Why weren't conservatives getting elected? Once again, Reagan spelled it out:
You know, as I do, that most commentators make a distinction between what they call “social” conservatism and “economic” conservatism...
There was the problem. Conservatives were splintered. Social conservatives (socons) over here, fiscal conservatives (fiscons) over there. And Reagan even goes on later in his speech to talk about a conservative foreign policy, alluding to a third splinter of conservatives: defense conservatives (defcons). Faced with these three splinter groups that should have been in the majority but instead languished in the minority, Reagan proposed this:
The time has come to see if it is possible to present a program of action based on political principle that can attract those interested in the so-called “social” issues and those interested in “economic” issues. In short, isn’t it possible to combine the two major segments of contemporary American conservatism into one politically effective whole? ... My friends, the time has come to start acting to bring about the great conservative majority party we know is waiting to be created!
Ronald Reagan, the Great Communicator, spoke of a "New Republican Party" in his speech that embraced the conservative principles of all three of these groups. A "New Republican Party" with a new core, a new image, and a new message to inspire the American people. And he led this New Republican Party, made up of ragtag groups of socons and fiscons and defcons, and he united them all under one banner: for a moment in time, we were all simply conservatives. With that great conservative majority as his army, we marched to victory in 1980, winning the White House, picking up 34 seats in the House of Representatives, and winning control of the Senate for the first time in 26 years.
We celebrated. Conservatives were back! Republicans were back! And for the most part, that union of three splinter groups of conservatives held together pretty strongly. We held together because we were inspired by Reagan and his vision. We held together because we all opposed the Clinton presidency. We held together because of the Contract With America. We held together through some of Dubya's first term as well.
But then, cracks began appearing in our coalition once again. Fiscons were the first to become disillusioned with the marriage after seeing deficits expand, Medicare D passed, the transportation bill, the farm bill, and no reduction in the size of government. Then the socons began splintering during the Harriet Miers debacle and the immigration debate, and especially after the 2007 State of the Union address which managed to upset the Family Research Council, the American Conservative Union, and National Review all at the same time because of the fact that Bush seems to have dropped all plans of pursuing any sort of social conservative agenda his remaining two years. All that remained of our conservative marriage were the defcons, and as public opinion for the war in Iraq began to wane and as we watched Republicans in Washington jump ship with regards to the war, even they became uneasy.
Now, in April 2007, we find ourselves in the same place we were at 30 years ago in February of 1977: a splintered majority on the verge of defeat. The Republican name has been damaged. Americans expect the democrats to win in 2008 and hold both houses of Congress. And yet, the most recent AP poll shows that 41% of Americans consider themselves conservative compared to 21% who consider themselves liberal.
Yes, we face the same kinds of problems today heading into the 2008 election. We are splintered. The fiscons have their candidate, the socons have theirs, and the defcons have theirs. It's time we took note of what Reagan taught us about being conservatives.
First, we would do well to remember that we are conservatives first and Republicans second. Reagan, in his '77 CPAC speech, mentions this very clearly when he asks: "Once we have established this [conservative majority], the next question is: What will be the political vehicle by which the majority can assert its rights?" The Republican Party is the vehicle by which we conservatives assert our rights. We are not bound to vote Republican. We are not bound to dutifully pull the lever simply because someone has an (R) by their name. We embrace the principles of conservatism and vote accordingly.
And in that embracing of conservative principles, we also must remember this foundational truth: united we stand, divided we fall. We cannot afford to cast off a third or two thirds of our conservative coalition simply because we believe the remaining third is what is truly important. We tried that for 30 years and it didn't work. It doesn't matter if you don't find social issues or fiscal issues or defense issues to be all that important - somebody does. The conservative coalition requires all of us - all of us - to be on the same team in order to be successful. We must reunite the factions that have splintered in the past 5 years and reclaim our status as the majority.
And finally, we need to re-establish the Republican name, just as Reagan managed to do. We need to return to his New Republican Party that stood together and drew its strength from our diversity and willingness to work together to achieve all of the goals of the coalition.
In 2008, we need a leader who will effectively vision cast that dream and reunite us all under the banner of conservatism. Because, no matter what adjective you put in front of it - fiscal, social, or defense - when it all comes down to it, we are all simply conservatives. This will be our great hope for 2008 - not a single man, but a single vision. Not a single candidate, but a single movement. Not a single person, but a single coalition, united together by the belief in the underlying goodness of conservatism.
To borrow from Reagan's speech one last time: "My friends, the time has come to start acting to bring about the great conservative majority party we know is waiting to be created!"
Cross posted at race42008.com.
I'd like to address this particular point.
What will be the political vehicle by which the [conservative] majority can assert its rights?" The Republican Party is the vehicle by which we conservatives assert our rights. We are not bound to vote Republican. We are not bound to dutifully pull the lever simply because someone has an (R) by their name. We embrace the principles of conservatism and vote accordingly.
Regarding the general election, if a conservative voter fails to pull the lever for the candidate with an (R) by their name, even if one disagrees with some aspect of the candidate’s stated position on policy, it is a decisive loss for the conservative coalition.
Once the Republican nominee has been chosen, conservatives are dutifully bound to vote for that candidate - period. To do otherwise, including wasting one's vote to "send a message," strengthens the liberal position and stifles the advancement of conservatism, because it’s impossible to govern based on conservative principles while relegated to the minority. That’s the harsh reality of a two-party system.
For those interested in reading Ronald Reagan’s 1977 CPAC speech in it’s entirety, click here.
Good post - recommended.
***
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
Governor Ronald Reagan, addressing the California Republican Assembly at the Lafayette Hotel, Long Beach on April 1, 1967, spoke these very important words.
Given the caustic nature of the current political environment, they are just as applicable today, if not more so.
Ronald Reagan - The Eleventh Commandment
Within our tent, there will be many arguments and divisions over approach and method and even those we choose to implement our philosophy. Seldom, if ever, will we raise a cheer signifying unanimous approval of the decisions reached. But if our philosophy is to prevail, we must at least pledge unified support of the ultimate decision. Unity does not require unanimity of thought.
And here is the challenge to you. It is the duty and responsibility of the volunteer Republican organizations, not to further divide, but to lead the way to unity. It is not your duty, responsibility of privilege to tear down, or attempt to destroy, others in the tent. As duly chartered Republican organizations, we can all advance our particular sectarianism or brand of candidates for the party to pass on openly and freely in a primary election.
But, as volunteer organizations, we must always remain in a position that will let us effectively support the candidates chosen by the entire party in a primary. To do less is a disservice to the party and, more importantly, to the cause in which we all believe.
Our 11th Commandment is perhaps more profound than we realize. “Thou shall not speak ill of any Republican.” To do so means we are inhibited in the support we can give that Republican if he should become the nominee of our party. Certainly our task is harder if we must challenge and refute charges made by our opponents if those charges were first uttered by us.
(emphasis added)
***
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
A common tactic on Redstate is to accuse someone you don't agree with to be a democrat, liberal or even a treasonous enemy.
Because of said diversity, a wide array of writing-styles, debating-methods and varied opinions are commonplace. Some are obviously very passionate when it comes to defending their position.
***
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
In the Reagan speech, he said:
...the divergence of views is one of our strengths. Let no one, however, interpret this to mean compromise of basic philosophy or that we will be all things to all people for political expediency.
That is my point. We don't compromise our basic philosophy or try to be all things to all people for political expediency.
Also, there is no reason to believe that the 11th commandment is anything more than it says:
Thou shall not speak ill of any Republican.”
The word is "ill". It doesn't tell us to vote for anyone, or to not stay the truth. The speech was about primary elections, and Reagan clearly wanted both sides to campaign. Reagan wasn't trying to stop people from telling the truth (and if he were I would ignore him). Reagan's point is to avoid trash talking the opponent, emotional and personal attacks with no relevance to the election, and which would divide the Party.
from that same speech, when taken in context, says much more than that.
We must keep the door open – offering our party as the only practical answer for those who, overall, are individualists. And because this is the great common denominator – this dedication to the belief in man’s aspirations as an individual – we cannot offer them a narrow sectarian party in which all must swear allegiance to prescribed commandments.
Such a party can be highly disciplined, but it does not win elections. This kind of party soon disappears in a blaze of glorious defeat, and it never puts into practice its basic tenets, no matter how noble they may be.
The Republican Party, both in this state and nationally, is a broad party. There is room in our tent for many views; indeed, the divergence of views is one of our strengths. Let no one, however, interpret this to mean compromise of basic philosophy or that we will be all things to all people for political expediency.
(emphasis added)
But you are correct regarding the 11th Commandment, Reagan was speaking of primary politics.
He was also adamant that we don't compromise our philosophy or pander to everyone for political expedience, ie. just to secure votes. However, once the party has chosen its nominee, it is our responsibility to pledge our support for the candidate, with the ultimate goal being to win the election in order to create a majority and advance our conservative principles.
Within our tent, there will be many arguments and divisions over approach and method and even those we choose to implement our philosophy. Seldom, if ever, will we raise a cheer signifying unanimous approval of the decisions reached. But if our philosophy is to prevail, we must at least pledge unified support of the ultimate decision. Unity does not require unanimity of thought.
(emphasis added)
***
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
I always get a kick out of the mentality that if there is an "R" next to someone's name, Republicans are "duty bound" to vote for that nominee.
So let's talk turkey: Rudy Guiliani is leading in most if not all of the GOP polls at the moment. It is still early, but he is certainly a contender.
Rudy Guiliani is pro choice, pro gun control, and at best, moderate on issues of gay marriage and a host of other social issues.
Rudy Guiliani may very well be the GOP nominee. Despite that, Rudy's stated positions directly contradicte a sizable (I don't know how large, but it's sizable) portion of the Republican party on issues central to their beliefs.
Is that portion of the Republican party - the portion that, say, is profoundly and resolutely pro life, "duty bound" to vote for Rudy just because he has an "R" next to his name and he won the GOP nomination?
Should they be expected to?
is the Republican nominee. However this would be a wasted vote.
I consider myself pro-life but the Republican party has had pro-choice candidates that won in the past (Nixon and Ford)and they never ruined the party.I wonder how many candidates on our side are closeted pro-choice and only pretend to be pro-life to get elected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Party_%28United_States%29#Abor...
the social conservative's concerns regarding Rudy's stated position on these issues is the primaries. I've made this argument numerous times down-thread.
Since you've limited your query to the Executive, let me construct this hypothetical: Rudy Giuliani is the Republican nominee and Hillary Clinton is the Democrat nominee.
- Whom would you rather have setting official US policy in the following departments and agencies?
- Department of Defense - Force structure, size, equipment, defending our national security interests and combating the Global War on Terror.
- Director of National Security - The Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency and Defense Intelligence Agency.
- Department of State - Official foreign policy, foreign aid, nuclear proliferation, weapons of mass destruction and State sponsor's of terrorism.
- Department of Homeland Security - Immigration, border security and first-responders.
- Department of Justice - The FBI and US Attorneys.
- Department of the Treasury - The IRS.
- Department of Education - Government Schools.
- Department of Health and Human Services - Medicare, Medicaid and 25% of the federal budget.
- Department of Energy - Nuclear security, energy security and scientific discovery and innovation.
- Department of the Interior - Natural resources, land use and management of our national forests and parks.
- Environmental Protection Agency - Laws and regulations.
And then there are life-long appointments to the Federal Judiciary, which includes, but is not limited to, the Supreme Court.
Consider these words from HeavyM's OP:
And in that embracing of conservative principles, we also must remember this foundational truth: united we stand, divided we fall. We cannot afford to cast off a third or two thirds of our conservative coalition simply because we believe the remaining third is what is truly important. We tried that for 30 years and it didn't work. It doesn't matter if you don't find social issues or fiscal issues or defense issues to be all that important - somebody does. The conservative coalition requires all of us - all of us - to be on the same team in order to be successful. We must reunite the factions that have splintered in the past 5 years and reclaim our status as the majority.
And these immortal words from Ronald Reagan:
Such a party can be highly disciplined, but it does not win elections. This kind of party soon disappears in a blaze of glorious defeat, and it never puts into practice its basic tenets, no matter how noble they may be.
However, your hypothetical construction expects the American electorate, Republican voters in particular, to make their choice and cast their vote for President of the United States based solely on the issues of abortion and the Second Amendment, which constitutionally belong to the Legislative Branch, not the Executive.
***
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
positions on abortion they should vote for the candidate that wins the nomination of the constitution party if Rudy happens to be our nominee. I agree it would a wasted vote for them to do so however I think thats their choice even though it's a foolish choice.
you're using says you can't chuck social conservatives completely to the curb, and still expect to win.
If abortion is your overwhelming issue, it makes perfect sense to vote Constitution over a pro-abortion Republican. Life will go on with a Democratic President - even Carter didn't manage to stop the sun from going 'round. And in the meantime, there will still be a major anti-abortion party, and a good chance of an anti-abortion president in four years. Neither would be true with a pro-abortion Republican president.
Such choices happened regularly in New York State when I was living there. The Right-to-Life Party regularly sucked votes away from pro-abortion Republicans. I doubt they ever elected anyone to office who wasn't also endorsed by the Republicans, but they do illustrate the dangers of a party split.
Note that this applies to ALL the groups. Chuck Hagel would be fine with me as a Presidential candidate. But I won't waste time supporting him, because he'd turn off the defcons. Why support someone that can't unite the party?
> But I won't waste time supporting him, because he'd turn off the defcons. Why support someone that can't unite the party?
I agree. That seems to be the key, that party unity requires both the winner and loser of the primary to compromise. The Republican minority should vote for the candidate which the majority selected, and the Republican majority is equally responsible to select a candidate which the minority within the party can vote for.
This fits President Reagan's words:
There is room in our tent for many views
and
Let no one, however, interpret this to mean compromise of basic philosophy or that we will be all things to all people for political expediency.
After all, there isn't "room in our tent for many views" if each primary involves a 51% majority selecting a candidate which the 49% consider "compromise of basic philosophy".
That's real compromise and unity too. Everyone compromises, not just the minority of the Party.
> Whom would you rather have setting official US policy in the following departments and agencies?
It depends on the person. Party is irrelevant when it comes down to a single person. There are numerous Democrats who are less liberal than Republican Lincoln Chaffee.
There are many Democrats to the right of Lincoln Chaffee, but Chaffee will never be a viable contender for the Republican nomination. I find it hard to believe that any candidate with Chaffee's voting record would ever be considered for the Republican nomination, although it's possible that someone with his voting record could be considered for the Democrat nomination.
My construction matching Rudy Giuliani against Hillary Clinton was in response to Roth's comment, and I simply chose the two candidates that are leading in the polls. I plan to keep my powder dry until the primary season really heats-up in the Fall, because it's way too early in the '08 cycle for me to actively support any of the candidates.
Note: Since we do not have a parliamentary form of government, I would never support a Third Party candidate. Ross Perot played the spoiler in '92 ("Read My Lips" didn't help) and cleared the way for Bill Clinton to win with only 43% of the popular vote. We will be forced to pay for the legacy he left behind well into the foreseeable future.
***
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
> I find it hard to believe that any candidate with Chaffee's voting record would ever be considered for the Republican nomination
I consider John McCain to be that candidate, Lincoln Chaffee + POW. I won't repeat my McCain posting, but link it below, and note that McCain and Chaffee were the only ones to vote against President Bush's 2001 tax cut, while Senator Snowe joined them to make the only three Republican Senators voting against Bush's 2003 tax cut.
with Sen. McCain, and the following is not meant to indicate my support for the Senator. This is simply a comparison between Sen. McCain and Sen. Chaffee, which is based on selected votes during their years of service.
- American Conservative Union Rating:
- Sen. McCain: 2006 - 65, 2005 - 80, Lifetime - 82.3
- Sen. Chaffee: 2006 - 24, 2005 - 12, Lifetime - 34.7
***
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
McCain is pretending to be a conservative this year, since he will do anything to become president.
Back in 2002 when the Democrats were begging him to switch to their party, McCain had an ACU 78 while Chaffee had a 53 and Arlen Specter a 50. In 2001 McCain had an ACU 68 while Specter had a 56 and Chaffee a 44. That is the real John McCain.
***
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
[quote]Once the Republican nominee has been chosen, conservatives are dutifully bound to vote for that candidate - period.[/quote]
No, you're missing the point. The coalition works when everybody is getting something out of it. It's not a pact to accept any warm body for the sake of the party.
For example, I'm not a defcon, or at least not as fully one as many here. From my point of view, Bush's actions in Iraq were overall a negative factor in my 2004 choice. But I was getting a good chunk of what I wanted as a social con, so I was more than happy to pull the lever for him - and to attempt getting others to do so.
Would I have done that if Bush had promised his next Supreme Court candidate would be a Ginsberg clone? Nope. At that point, I'd be getting so little, that to "send a message" starts looking like the better long term option.
Cooperation is good. Demands for unconditional loyalty aren't.
The Republican nominee was chosen by a majority of his/her peers. Obviously, he/she represents the majority's particular conservative position on any given issue.
If that particular candidate does not wholly satisfy me, or does not address my individual concerns, it's simply not my turn. It also means I must work much harder to advance my position for the next election cycle.
The alternative is "Pelosi & Co.™"
***
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
> Obviously, he/she represents the majority's particular conservative position on any given issue.
How does Republican automatically = conservative? Was Lincoln Chaffee a conservative?
Conservatism is a philosophy, not a party. One of the best ways to make the Republican Party conservative is to not vote for Republican liberals.
As far as party loyalty, if one of our candidates has built his career as being a "rebel" against the Republican Party, and helping the Democrats to pass liberal legislation, are we obligated as Republicans to vote for him?
To me it is not about "sending a message". If someone is too far away from my conservative views, I won't vote for them, even if they are Republicans. I would never vote for a Democrat, but if the Republican is unacceptable I might vote for a third party. I believe in party loyalty, that it should be a part of the decision, but it can't be 100%, it can't just be a blank check.
The primaries are the correct venue for resolving policy differences within the Republican Party.
The alternative is unacceptable, and the risk of damaging, or negating entirely, the hard fought advances in policy by the conservative movement is very real.
***
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
One issue with deciding everything in the primaries is that Democrats and independents can vote in the Republican primary in many states. Some Republican candidates have run and won with exactly that strategy, to get the votes from the left of the Republican party along with independent and Democratic votes to win the Republican primary. If I must vote for whoever wins the primary, then I could end up being forced to vote for the candidate which a minority of my party, with Democratic help, selected.
Incumbents also have many unfair advantages, and are hard to beat. If my incumbent drifts over the years, I could end up being forced to vote for someone I disagree with, mostly because no one could raise the millions to compete with him.
There are other exceptions too. Country comes before party. If I feel the Republican candidate, say for President, is unqualified to hold the office because of personality, maybe anger or flip flopping which shows he is a liar, then I won't vote for him even though he won the primary.
> The alternative is unacceptable, and the risk of damaging, or negating entirely, the hard fought advances in policy by the conservative movement is very real.
This is the assumption I disagree with. Withholding votes from some Republican candidates, even if that makes them lose, advances the cause of conservatism.
scenario in which a Republican loss could potentially advance the conservative movement, but in the real world it's more than likely, as it is with the current make-up of the 110th Congress, we'll end up with "Pelosi, Reid & Co.,™" or its likeness.
Instead of controlling the legislative agenda, we are apparently banking on the hope that the tenures of Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid become so untenable the American electorate will reject the Democrats on a wholesale level, and extreme caution must be exercised during this period to insure the GOP will not be tagged as the opposition party. In the case of the later, we are fortunate to have Sen. McConnell as the Senate Minority Leader.
The odds of advancing the principles of the conservative movement are much higher when the GOP is governing from the majority position, even though we may have to tolerate a few "mavericks" within the party.
Sage words from the time when he was still known as Governor Ronald Reagan, "Unity does not require unanimity of thought."
Note: For a reference in time regarding my political experiences: As a young teen, I remember drinking several cases of "Goldwater" that my neighbor brought back from the 1964 Republican Convention.
I also remember The Speech.
***
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
My point would be that in the situations I am talking about, it would be impossible for me to hurt conservatism by not voting for the Republican candidate. The only reasons I am not voting are because either they aren't conservative or they have some personal flaw which makes them unqualified for the job. As you said, Lincoln Chaffee is not a conservative. So whether or not I vote for him, a liberal still wins, and conservatism isn't hurt.
The real issue is whether we have a conservative Senate, not a Republican one. The scare tactics about Pelosi, etc. don't matter to me because I've learned a long time ago that if there are 60 liberal Senators then they govern like liberals, regardless of which is the majority.
If my only choices on election day are between a liberal Republican and a liberal Democrat, I'm better off not voting for either, not voting for the liberal Republican, but that will discourage liberals from running in the Republican Party.
Do you actually believe that a hypothetical situation such as the one you constructed, which allows control of the legislative process to shift to the Democrats because of voter apathy or through a conscious effort to "send a message to liberal Republicans," does no harm to the conservative movement?
And...
"The real issue is whether we have a conservative Senate, not a Republican one."
Given the stark differences in ideological principles and policy positions between Republicans and Democrats in our current two-party system, a conservative majority in the US Senate is not possible without a Republican majority in control of the legislative process.
***
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
Maybe the disagreement is this. It seems like the theoretical argument is something like: most Republicans are conservative. Therefore, if I vote for a Republican on Election Day, the odds are that I've voted for a conservative. So we are likely to end up with a (more) conservative Congress.
However, I am not voting for a random, pot luck Republican. I know his name, and whether or not he is conservative. So if he is conservative, I vote for him. Otherwise, he is liberal, so whichever way I vote, a liberal gets elected. The liberal from either party will vote with Democrats on important issues.
The reason why it is necessary sometimes to not vote for liberal Republicans is because otherwise the Party relentlessly drifts to the left. Why not? Most politicians don't care about anything but getting reelected. If they can count on conservatives voting for them no matter what, then the further to the left they move, the more votes they'll get.
It's easier to see with something like pro-choice / pro-life. Someone could make the argument that Republicans are the pro-life party, so a pro-life voter should always vote Republican, even if the candidate is strongly anti-life / pro-choice. So this would be telling the voter that on election day they would advance the pro-life cause by voting for a pro-abortion Republican candidate. That seems like a stretch to me, saying that voting for pro-abortion is anti-abortion.
Even if there is disagreement about details, I want to say that I agree with most of what you've said. Republican party loyalty is important, and the primaries are the best place to settle disagreements within the party. If everyone held out for the perfect candidate, there would be no political parties, and in fact they'd probably vote only two or three times in their entire life.
My only point is that for a conservative (or really anyone) party loyalty doesn't necessarily have to be absolute. I listed some of the exceptional circumstances, like putting country ahead of party if a candidate had serious personal flaws. I hope that it is rare for conservatives to not vote for the Republican candidate, because that usually means a Democrat will win. But nearly every rule has exceptions.
The potential for "exceptional circumstances" does exist.
However, I also have faith in the electorate to recognize those exceptional circumstances and deal with them accordingly - preferably in the primaries.
***
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
One related subject is whether voting for a third party is "throwing the vote away". I don't think so. First, the election of Senator Lieberman, along with other independents in Congress, shows that third party candidates can win. It is much more common at the state and local level.
Also, the argument about throwing the vote away seems to be based on a double standard. I could argue that my vote won't decide the president election, even in my state, so that it has only symbolic value. That would mean that however I vote, it isn't throwing the vote away, since it is just symbolic anyway. For example, when Democrats vote Green or for Nader, they are sending a message that they don't think the Democratic candidate is far enough left.
The response to my argument would usually be "You are only one of millions of Republican voters who are deciding whether to vote for the Republican candidate or not. Each is making up their mind indepdendently, and added together they will decide the election." But if that is true, then it is also possible that those millions of votes could join with mine to elect a third party candidate. So by that standard, voting third party is not throwing the vote away.
It is for the same reason that I don't buy the argument that voting for a third party would mean that I am helping elect a Democrat. Voting for a third party conservative candidate means I am trying to elect a conservative, nothing more. If a Democratic candidate then wins, it is because the other voters gave that candidate the votes.
Conservatism is not a party. That said, the Republican Party is the only vehicle for advancing the principles of the conservative movement under our two-party system.
While Lincoln Chaffee is certainly not conservative, had he been reelected, control of the US Senate, the committee chairs and the legislative agenda of that chamber, would rest with the GOP.
As we speak, the Senate Judiciary Committee could be addressing tort reform. Instead, Sen. Leahy is trying to criminalize politics, and Sen. Feingold is trying to advance the "Terrorist's Bill of Rights."
***
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
> While Lincoln Chaffee is certainly not conservative, had he been reelected, control of the US Senate, the committee chairs and the legislative agenda of that chamber, would rest with the GOP.
That points out the whole problem. What if the entire Republican Senate were clones of Lincoln Chaffee? As you said, he is not a conservative. So we would have a Republican but not conservative Senate. It would be a meaningless victory.
That hypothetical construction seems to indicate you have no faith in the conservative majority of the American electorate.
***
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
"sending a message" has adversely affected the whole country, because apparently, the entire legislative agenda of the 110th Congress is controlled by approximately 21% of the population.
***
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
that I owe loyalty to the majority, even if my own needs are not met, at least in a reasonable degree.
Well, then you should be pleased as punch with the Pelosi House. They won a majority. And if they're not conservative in the way you like, that hardly matters, right?
Running roughshod over any major segment of the party - including the ones you actively dislike - is a good way to produce more such victories.
I made a clear distinction between the primaries and the general or mid-term elections.
Policy disputes within the GOP should be resolved during the primaries.
The Republican nominee should be supported during the general or mid-term elections, because the GOP is the only vehicle for advancing the policies of the conservative movement.
***
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
just does not cut it. What ever the election. It certinaly will not draw less enthused folks out to vote. Then your left with the fear mongering/hate which passes for politics now.
Will i still in most cases vote for the R yes, but it is never a given. For example i live in AZ but have not voted for john since the early 90's , and will not in 2008.
HeavyM, who's your candidate at this point? Who is most likely to unite the def-fis-so cons of our party?
happens to be Mitt Romney, but I don't intend this diary to solely influence folks toward him. I just want to see the party unified in 2008, because I firmly believe in this environment, it's the only way we'll win next year.
--------
After the 2006 elections, al Qaeda released a statement saying they were happy Democrats won. That should tell you all you need to know.
I can not wait for the day when we stand united, coalitions rebuilt, and power restored.
It is important to be reminded of Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment especially during such a prolonged campaign timeframe for 2008. There is such a target rich environment of Democrats running for POTUS in 2008 for hit pieces. dKos, and Huffpo are where Republican hit pieces flourish, and they should not be here at RedState.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
My question is why can we NOT have a Conservative candidate who embodies all these attributes and unites all these conservative values, without asking us to trade off one for another?
http://OsiSpeaks.com or http://OsiSpeaks.org
With malice towards none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see right.
Sadly, Republicans hardly remsemble the party of Goldwater/Regan. I gladly voted for them both, but will continue to vote Liberterian until conservatives stop the incessant spread of government into our personal lives. Currently, there is very little difference between Republicans and Democrats. Conservatives lost control of their party long ago.
because there is not much difference between the two. I normally vote Republican, but often holding my nose---as happened with Katherine Harris in the FL Senate race this past year.
_______________________
When taunted by a Liberal in Parliament that he was going to die "on the gallows or of a vicious social disease," Disraeli replied "That depends on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
It seems to me that with past presidents going back to Reagen both sides have gotten something. However with Rudy it seems that a part of the party is ready to say good - bye to the Social Conservatives. It seems to me that all the other candidates offer something to all sides. They are not all perfect but at least we would all at get something. I am not particularly excited about Fred Thompson, but at least he is opposed to Roe. McCain may be for stem cells but on the vast majority of issues he seems to be on our side. So far all of the candidates involve some kind of compromise, except for Rudy. Rudy involves the Democratic form of compromise " we get all, you happily lose all".
Rudy would shake up the coalition upon which conservatives have won in the past. I am not convinced that he would lose but there does seem to be a risk in changing the makeup of the coalition. The way I see it now, he might do better in blue states, but not enough better to win them, and then some of the South and Midwest would go blue. Especially if the candidate is someone like Edward or Obama, who I think the South and Midwest might actually be able to stand.
Well done.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.