Thompson Dares Utter "THAT" Phrase
"mainstream conservatism"
By haystack Posted in 2008 — Comments (12) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
In the "official" Press Release announcing his intentions to formally throw his hat in the ring for the Pennsylvania Avenue gig in '08, Thompson's campaign Manager Bill Lacy coined a phrase we don't hear much anymore:
By announcing via webcast, Fred is able to take his consistently mainstream conservative message directly to the voters, who are already responding to that message with a strong upwelling of grassroots support.
"Mainstream" and "Conservatism" back to back in the same sentence...hunh.
Short of arguing, for the moment, over which GOP hopeful may or may NOT be this "thing"...this "Mainstream Conservative"...it seems worthy of some analysis on JUST what that expression might mean in these times, and whether America even NEEDS such a thing at this juncture.
More below the fold...
Grant Havers wrote, in his piece "Leo Strauss, Willmoore Kendall, and
the Meaning of Conservatism" the following:
What is conservatism? Is it simply an older version of liberalism? Which traditions do conservatives 'conserve' in an age of modern change? Is conservatism populist or elitist, democratic or aristocratic? Does it support imperialism or isolationism? Which religion, if any, is most compatible with conservatism? Since the end of the Cold War, these traditionally academic questions have drifted into the political arena and often pitted conservatives (especially in the United States) against each other. To date (2004), the American conservative movement’s divisions have forced a return to the question of the very meaning of the doctrine.
So, just what does it mean? Back in '05, Ezra Klein deemed Sandra Day O'Connor a so-called "mainstream conservative." Is THIS what today's version of mainstream conservatism means?
Also back in '05, the American Spectator suggested that any Liberal caught complimenting those Republicans who espouse this mainstream conservatism ideology to be considered suspect:
Liberals have begun using "mainstream conservative" as a compliment. Conservatives should be suspicious.
Separating the two terms for a minute to focus on "mainstream", the Spectator piece goes on to say this:
When pressed, Democrats are cagey about what "mainstream" actually means. In the July 4 Washington Post, Ted Kennedy emphasized (regarding replacing SCOTUS Justices) that "picking from a list of mainstream lawyers and judges" is a consensus project. Feinstein told Fox News Sunday on July 3 that a mainstream conservative is "someone that really speaks for the great bulk of Americans."
By "mainstream" Democrats must mean more than mere consensus. Touting O'Connor's affirmative action and abortion decisions, the Philadelphia Inquirer lamented that Bush wouldn't nominate "someone just like her. And that's a tragedy for mainstream America."
To the abortion lobby, "mainstream" means pro-abortion. The NARAL e-mail that supporters can send to Senators reads, "We deserve to know where nominees to the Supreme Court stand on such core mainstream values as privacy, personal freedom, and a woman's right to choose."
Barbara Boxer grouped "mainstream" with her two other main priorities. ''I urge the president and the Senate," she said July 1, "to ensure that her replacement reflects Justice O'Connor's judicial philosophy -- mainstream, pro-choice, and independent.''
Yet, just a bit further on, we learn:
In reality, Democrats' idea of the mainstream is wide of the mark. A Harris Poll released in March found the lowest national support for Roe v. Wade in 20 years -- a mere 52 percent. Eighty-six percent opposed laws permitting abortions in the third trimester, upon which national Democrats have stubbornly insisted. Despite reporting record-low support for abortion, the poll faced a virtual press blackout, earning only a mention on the Wall Street Journal website and a press release from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Perhaps the press is interested in maintaining the fiction of the mainstream.
Hmm. There really isn't any double standards in American Politics, now...is there? Given that 86% of those polled were against partial-birth abortions, how can the determination be made that those who DO favor it are in the mainstream?
Conservatism is a little easier to deal with. Webster's defines it thusly:
[A] political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change.
This would suggest ours is a movement centered around keeping things just as they are...of course, most of us believe they are not where they should be, thereby making us ACTUALLY Liberal given that we would like to see radical change.
Enforced borders and immigration laws, limited and ever-shrinking Government, traditional marriage, pro-life and pro-family are all things Conservatives supposedly stand for, and yet we have none of this in today's world...at least they are considered issues taken up by the kook fringes among us. Further, we would like to see the system of taxation, the endless litany of taxation without representation, and the elitist, autocratic-style of governance be returned to that which our Founders and Framers envisioned when this country was born. Each of these would be extreme departures from our current status quo.
Remember, if you add "mainstream":
[A] prevailing current or direction of activity or influence
you can see how we may have come to the moment in the GOP where we face this severe identity crisis.
For Thompson to use "Mainstream Conservatism" in his presser, we need to watch VERY closely for one of two things. Will he be talking to us about Conservatism, or will he be talking to us about being in the mainstream? [read Bush's Moderate Conservatism of the last 6 years] OR, will he be talking to us about what REAL Conservatives, by and large and in the largest of numbers and percentages demand he (or any of the other candidates for that matter) will be fighting to bring BACK to "Mainstream America?"
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Democrats Boycott Rogue Primaries — Comments (23) »
Thompson Dares Utter "THAT" Phrase 12 Comments (0 topical, 12 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
and I predict a whole new approach to the campaign, based on what he and his staff have said since early spring.
Remember a couple of years back when it was in vogue for liberals to think that the reason they were losing elections was not that their ideas were wrong, but merely that conservatives were tricking voters into thinking their ideas were wrong? This is one of their responses - calling the culture of death "mainstream" as if labeling it so makes it so.
We need to stop letting liberals define what mainstream conservatism is. It means respecting life. it means smaller, smarter government that confiscates less money from the people and lets them make their own financial decisions. It means both freedom of pocketbook and freedom of conscience. It means that the legitimate function of government is limited to preserving those freedoms from threats internal and external.
To liberals, a "mainstream conservative" means one who is not a conservative at all, but a centrist, one who governs with half-measures and compromises. To conservatives, a "mainstream conservative" is one who adheres to the common core of conservative thought. We have legislators who are mainstream conservatives, and we have judges who are mainstream conservatives (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia come to mind). We have had one mainstream conservative president - Reagan - during my lifetime, and I look forward to the day when we have others.
We will, if we are able to explain clearly to the American people what a "mainstream conservative" is, and then answer the Democrats' request that we deliver one.
"I am afraid that even after the American people will elect those who promise to leave Iraq, the U.S. will not do so." - Hamas leader Abu Abdullah
Many if not most people like to believe that their political opinions are shared by the vast majority of Americans.
When elections or poll results suggest I'm in the minority on some issue dear to my heart, it must be because the issue was framed in such a way that the people didn't really understand what they were voting for. If people just knew the truth, if they could just hear someone articulate the issue well, they would come around to realizing they agree with me.
That kind of thinking is also reinforced by the fact that many people hang out with others who mostly share their opinions, and just can't accept that many millions of people they don't know think very differently. That's illustrated by the film critic who was astounded that McGovern lost in 1972: "Nobody I know voted for Nixon."
It's also a political tactic of realists who don't fall for that conceit, but are trying to peel off some voters from the other side. "Mainstream" to most people means "people who agree with me," so when politicians call themselves "mainstream", the implicit message is "I'm somebody who agrees with you." When they speak of "mainstream [opposing side]s", it's typically to denounce someone they claim is not a "mainstream [opposing side]". They want to argue that their position is one largely shared by people in both parties, but the candidate of the other party is on the extreme fringe outside that "mainstream" bipartisan consensus. If the voter from the other party wants to defend the mainstream that he's part of, he needs to vote against his party in this particular election.
What Fred Thompson seems to be saying is he is really a conservative federalist and not just a Republican. A lot of Republicans claim to be conservative, but have wildly mixed voting records. There is plenty of dissatisfaction to go around with President Bush on various issues, but that is not a reason to abandon the mainstream conservative ideas, like minimal governmental interference in citizens' lives, doing what the government does well, and leaving the other issues to the states to come up with better solutions. If the federal government sold beer, it would be $90 a six-pack and 90 days delivery. Fred Thompson is genuinely not of the cut and run cloth and would not smother companies in taxes to where they could not compete in foreign markets. Unlike Washington D.C., Fred supports basic 2nd amendment rights. He is plain spoken and clear in his purpose. That is frightening to politicians who have never learned differently. Lying, obfuscating and misleading the public are just not his style. He does not attempt to be divisive and strident and is very capable. Welcome aboard Fred Thompson!
"Mainstream Conservative" sounds good to me. Maybe Fred will be the first to really give it real definition. I don't really care much about who said what beforehand, it seems like a rather brilliant piece of wordsmanship. It conveys immediately that conservative thought is in the mainstream. It by definition refutes liberal efforts to marginalize the candidate.
Good start Mr Fred Thompson!
I love this article. It asks all the right questions. What do we mean by mainstream? I would argue that it usually means watering down the truth in order to get the liberals to go along. Kinda what George Bush did with prescription drugs and No Child Left Behind, two of the worst boondoggles of recent history IMHO.
It appears to me that a lot of people who write on this site are so afraid of being "out of the mainstream" that they would compromise any principle to keep that mainstream support. They've never been on the outside looking in, as we conservatives all were pre-Reagan. Funny thing is that, as we compromise more and more, we find that more and more of us are cast out into the fringes anyway, all because we harbor some little opinion, be it 2nd amendment rights or pro-life or whatever, that just doesn't fit with the corporate ideal of "mainstream conservative". It is the death by a thousand knives.
I'd love to believe that Fred is more conservative than mainstream, and that he's the Knight on the White Horse riding in to save us. The voting record, and the lobbying clients leave me less than thrilled, but perhaps he's the best we can hope for. I dunno.
Frankly, I think most of the obstacles to rebuilding a great conservative movement come from within our own ranks rather than from the left. First, we don't really know what it means to be conservative anymore. Second, we're afraid to expound on the value and importance of those beliefs. Obviously, the first leads to the second.
Young "conservatives" have become lazy whilst our party has been in power. I expect that the likely trouncing at the hands of an aimless and pointless opposition party will be the wake-up call. Because most of America, despite their revulsion for the ideals of the Democrats, also recognize that the Republicans aren't delivering, and will probably stay home.
Nothing worth achieving is easy.
Hmm...maybe Fred Thompson IS the ideal candidate for this generation.
If Thompson starts throwing around 'mainstream conservative' the way Bush threw around 'compassionate conservative,' THEN I'll get worried.
But one time in one paragraph... I think that's jumping the gun.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.
At first glance I thought Fred was aligned with Main Street Partnership. whew!
"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson
The definition of all these sets of "political ideals" has changed and continues to change over time. So quickly, I would argue that, the term "conservative" and "liberal" without qualifiers are both rather meaningless. I agree with Curtis Sr. about what Mr. Thompson was trying to convey by using the term, "mainstream conservative."
1. He is trying to put some distance between himself and the most disastrous policies of the Bush administration:
A. Ever expanding and centralized government,
B. Failed immigration policy (or more precisely lack of an immigration policy),
C. Poorly executed Iraq policy.
I'm very heartened that Thompson has done so because I believe Bush's plummeting popularity amongst what I call true conservatives of late is precisely because he has abandoned much of the federalist conservative ideology in whole.
2. He is acknowledging, despite most media reports to the contrary, that he knows there is a mainstream conservative majority base that if addressed plainly, honestly, and unabashedly, will propel him to victory against any other candidate.
I can't wait :)
I think any conservative candidate will need to create a sense of "refreshed politics". Term limits mean nothing if the candidate is a carbon copy of the previous administration. I think it's easy to read too much into the exact wording of this PR. Ultimately, Thompson wants us to take a deep breath, and reafirm the conservative beliefs.
The word mainsteam has been used a lot, but it doesn't always mean the same thing.
I think what mainstream conservatism means is quite simply those plain, common-sense views shared by the great mass of the people (Nixon's silent majority?) that ought to lead to their voting for conservative candidates, but which somehow through GOP incompetence and media mendacity does not.