Posted on 09/10/2002 8:38:50 PM PDT by nonliberal
Citizens for a Sound Economy August 14, 2002
A Conversation with a Conservative
There is a widening gap between the values of Washington Republicans and America's conservative base. I have had two very different running conversations this year. The first is with inside-the-beltway Republican politicians. They tell me things are going fine and they’re doing the best they can. The other conversation has been with conservative activists all across America. They tell me how bad things look. They say it appears the politicians don’t care about freedom anymore.
Activists get involved because they want to make a difference. They hold core beliefs and values and are willing to sacrifice their time and money to advance these beliefs. They’re willing to organize their neighborhoods, develop phone banks, distribute literature and mobilize voters. They do really important work. But rhetoric and spin is not their thing – they’re involved in the process because they want to see results. And, right now, they aren’t seeing results.
President Bush remains remarkably popular with the conservative base. I sense people view him as a decent and honest man, and like all Americans, conservatives support the commander-in-chief. But there is uneasiness with some of the decisions of the “Bush Administration.” In particular, the farm bill and steel quotas have frustrated conservatives because they want to see the size and scope of government reduced – not expanded.
More worrisome, if you are a partisan Republican, is the growing frustration of the conservative base with the generic “Republican Party.” Take away President Bush’s personal popularity, and there is genuine anger and disappointment with the performance of the Republican Party.
Government is growing right now – at every level and in almost every area. That is a factual statement and it upsets the conservative activist base.
Social Security is headed towards bankruptcy and the Republican Congressional Committee is advising Republican congressional candidates not to talk about the issue. That is a factual statement and it upsets the conservative activist base.
The activists I talk with can’t believe Republicans would allow liberal demagogues to get away with scaring seniors citizens, let alone scaring Republican candidates. When politicians who are on record supporting personal retirement accounts flip-flop in the heat of battle, activists quickly become disillusioned.
Activists know, like most Americans, that the current structure of Social Security is unsustainable. Because they care about public policy, they have read the policy papers and the reports. The activists believe personal retirement accounts provide the only viable alternative to tax increases and benefit cuts.
And, here is something else conservative activists believe: That Republican politicians know Social Security is going bankrupt and personal retirement accounts provide the only viable solution to tax increases and benefit cuts.
So, when a Republican politician flip-flops on Social Security reform, the activists don’t view it as a change of heart based on facts. They see it as a political sellout caused by the unwillingness of the politician to fight for his or her core beliefs.
As I said, conservative activists do really important work. Precinct walks, phone banks, literature drops, voter mobilization – the work that makes a big difference in off-year elections. But it’s voluntary work. These dedicated citizens have complete lives and other obligations. They do the volunteer work on behalf of freedom because they’re motivated and they think they can make a difference. When their leaders let them down, activists stay home, and that hurts freedom.
Political leaders running political campaigns can make their own decisions about strategy. Elected officials make their own decisions about how and when to fight for freedom. On the other hand, their decisions have consequences – and from the conversations I’ve been having all year with our best activists, it appears the politicians have decided they don’t need their base. The problem is that on Election Day this November, the conservative base may decide they don’t need the politicians.
"Except when said "Republican" is wrong."
Nonliberal corollary
"Loyalty to the Country does not mean loyalty to the President."
--Theodore Roosevelt
If the current administration is screwing up domestic policy, it is our duty as citizens-and conservatives for that matter-to speak up.
I DON'T smoke pot.
I DON'T use drugs.
So...maybe you can try and re-read (this time WITHOUT the liberal use of alcohol)...and try and understand that the ONLY way this Nation was Founded and kept alive was for enough 'common' people to take a 'Stand'.
One based on principles...
One based upon the idea that each of us has worth...
One based on the 'crazy' notion that each of us is Blessed with gifts from our Creator....such as the Right , and of course the concuring 'flip-side'...the responsibility, to decide our own fate.
redrock
p.s. Why do you guys ALWAYS bring up pot when discussing Freedom?????
Well, that wasn't really what I meant. I was simply pointing out the reality of the conservatives and the moderates in the Republican party. Of course conservatives are stronger if we are the majority party, especially if we have the presidency, to boot.
While I have no doubt that conservative policies will have some success should we take back Congress in November, the reality is that we'll be fighting RINOs tooth-and-nail for many of the policy victories, just like we have to do with the Dems when they are the majority party. RINOs are liberals who happen to agree with the occasional tax cut, which is about the only thing that keeps them on our side. Our battles are never truly over, even in the best of circumstances.
The operative word is "enough."
Most of you C3POs think "enough" is "me, my dog and some guy named 'Chip' I met on the Internet."
True enough.
But this Nation was started by roughly 50-74 men (reports differ).
They made their stand on a village green......
...in Lexington,Mass.
Sometimes it just takes a few to start the ball rolling.....
redrock
ROTFLMAO! You almost made me choke to death...!
Or is the goal to enact conservative measures and policies?
In the long run, it seems to me that the real task is PERSUADING actual voters, of the benefits of conservative policies.
My guess is that, for instance, a Libby Dole would vote for my policy positions, more often than her democrat opponent. She should be a strong candidate, based on name recognition, her resume, etc.
Therefore I get more of my conservative policies passed, with her in office, instead of her democrat opponent.
The debate on FR seems to be ill focused, on party domination, not on actual legislative votes and policies.
I believe in the long run, conservatism will BENEFIT, from working through a single BIG party. Let the debate continue, inside the party. Yell, scream, kick, threaten; but stay in the party. Observe Reagan's Law.
The liberals benefit from having conservatives, spread through several parties. Notice the effect of a Nader/Green party? It benefits conservatives and Republicans; it harms liberals and democrats.
The reverse is also true.
If we have a coherent ideology and are able to articulate that ideology we can persuade the voters.
Wrong, if in the quest for party domination, the party puts forth candidates who are TOO conservative to get elected. Both parties MUST try to appeal to the middle, by just enough to get their vote.
Idealogues from the extremes rarely win. The ideal candidate holds conservative to moderate positions, has an appealing personality, has a lot of money and an outstanding campaign team.
Substitue "liberal" for "conservative" and you will see defined the toughest opponent, for a conservative. If the conservative concedes the moderate votes, he won't win. Plain and simple.
I notice from your profile that you are 27 years old, and from that I deduce you have a lot of idealism, but tempered by fairly limited life experience.
At twice your age, I offer that I will side with "conventional wisdom." I will agree with you only to the extent that the 33% moderates ARE viable prospects for conservatives--the task for victory being to win a majority of moderate votes at election time.
The conservative side is more fractured and divided, than would suit my tastes. I would prefer that Reform, Libertarian, Constitution and other small party adherants put aside their differences and join Republicans at voting time.
Let the Greens divide the opposition, causing the defeat of democrat candidates. Reasonable compromises are the pathway to elected office, not strict idealogy.
In my opinion, the left can always count on getting their 33% from among the various lock-step groups of minorities, government employees, intellectual "elites" etc.
that Karl Rove expected about 19 million self-professing "religious conservatives"Gee, Karl, maybe it's because you expect religious conservatives to support your candidate without question. It's operatives like Rove who ensure they stay home.
Furthermore, if those 4 million had voted for conservatives in other races, the GOP might still control the US Senate.If the GOP would run conservative candidates, they would already control the Senate. People love leaders; not lukewarm party hacks. Give them something real to believe in and someone to follow. Remember, the revolution of '94 worked until the RINOs emasculated the new blood.
The problems within the GOP are not the fault of the grassroots. It is the elite who push crappy candidates and even worse policies.
I understand your frustration, but it is a pathetic excuse to stay home. If every one of those folks who believed that Howard Philips was the man who could lead our country had voted for him instead of sulking at home, his four million votes would have been almost as big a story as the Florida fiasco. Most people would have been asking "Who is Howard Philips?" The media would have given very dishonest coverage, but Mr. Philips still could have gotten his message to many people. Instead, his candidacy is a joke and discredits the ideas that he tried to advocate.
The problems within the GOP are not the fault of the grassroots. It is the elite who push crappy candidates and even worse policies.
There is a great deal of truth in what you say, but there is also a "chicken and egg" side of it. If the people who want strongly conservative candidates take the time to follow the elections during the primaries and support those candidates, then more strongly conservative candidates would win the primaries. If the strong ideological conservatives drew the most votes, they would eventually control the party.
I understand that you may be working hard for the strong conservatives in the party. However, if you aren't, then you are part of the reason that RINOs have so much control. I'm not advocating that you vote for someone who doesn't represent what you believe, but I am advocating that every conservative make the effort to vote before complaining.
WFTR
Bill
A belief that only pot-smokers would ever want full-blown liberty, maybe? I guess for everyone else, the thought of the government not holding a gun to every citizen's head is too scary to even discuss.
If the government wasn't there to force us all to behave, it'd be anarchy, man!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.