Posted on 02/11/2007 10:46:19 AM PST by PhiKapMom
Edited on 02/11/2007 12:14:43 PM PST by Lead Moderator. [history]
In this winter of their discontents, nostalgia for Ronald Reagan has become for many conservatives a substitute for thinking. This mental paralysis -- gratitude decaying into idolatry -- is sterile: Neither the man nor his moment will recur. Conservatives should face the fact that Reaganism cannot define conservatism.
(Excerpt) Read more at suntimes.com ...
People who support a left wing or moderate as the Republican Nominee are guaranteeing a democrat win!
We had a popular Conservative as POTUSA.
Next was a one term moderate.
Next was a two term traitor, who some people think was conservative.
Next was a two term moderate that squeaked by because the democrats nominees were very bad.
Now some people want a far left winger as the Republican nominee that most real democrats can beat because they can run to the right of any of them.
But arguably it made him less inclined to expect gratitude or credit high-flown sentiments. If you've got a lot invested in those emotions this may seem callous. It isn't: you go on saving lives or hiring people to work as lifeguards, but you stay skeptical about ideas of universal benevolence and good feeling.
Reagan may well have been Emersonian and individualistic, but as regards public institutions and the hopes people invest in government and politics, Reagan was probably less romantic and more realistic than people like Diggins who have communitarian roots or aspirations.
Did Reaganism pave the way for big-government conservatism? I don't think so. You can't go on winning elections simply by always saying "no." That strikes swing voters as being too negative. So you have to have a "positive component" to your message. For Reagan it was winning the Cold War and getting the economy back on track. For later Republicans and conservatives it has to be something else.
Even when politicians do emphasize the "no," their message gets heard as "no, for now" or "no, until we get through this." And when we do weather the crisis, enough voters want to hear "yes" to make a difference.
Did this article have to be excerpted because George Will belongs to the Washington Post Writer's Group because I cannot find the Chicago Sun Times on the list for excerpt and it didn't do it automatically.
Just curious? Because I will check in the future to see if an author is a member of their Writer's Group.
Thanks,
PKM
Yes, that is the reason we had to excerpt. Thanks.
Reagan conservatism is a viable political philosophy.
I only wish more Republicans would stay the course he set.
**
I am hoping Duncan Hunter is such a man.
Our founding fathers meant to limit the power of government, not the liberty of the people, quite true. But they also meant to insure that the liberty of some would not interefere with the liberty of others, that is where they meant to restrain "the people." And that the majority would not, as you say, vote to infringe liberty
Our founding fathers certainly recognized that the "will of the people" could very easily come to include such things as voting away liberty, voting away the liberty of others, or even voting for themselves a share of the possessions of others (now commonly accepted). So I think that is what Diggins meant when stating that the founding fathers meant to restrain the will of the people.
I think it is no accident that the Left so frequently stresses "democracy," that one so frequently hears leftists and socialists demanding this or that new power for the state, because it is the will of the people. I've even read an assertion by a socialist that since the people and the government are the same, then the power of government must be absolute. The framers of the Constitution clearly foresaw that line of thought.
I hadn't realized that NR did that and now some of the uglier comments I've seen around here about NR makes sense.
Precisely my point.
Frankly, I just do not see too much fondness for limited government within this very site much less from most people that call themselves conservatives. For to really have a fondness for limited government one has to embrace free trade, more avenues for legal immigration to occur, less advocacy for laws that restrict the liberty of others -- particularly at the federal level -- and less adoration for just about every other populist opinion that comes out of the mouth of Bill O'reilly or Michael Savage's pie-holes.
>> Yes, Reagan was great, but it's time to move on
Does this rule also apply to the other great men we revere or pray to for that matter?
''An unmentionable irony,'' writes Diggins, is that big-government conservatism is an inevitable result of Reaganism. ''Under Reagan, Americans could live off government and hate it at the same time. Americans blamed government for their dependence upon it.'
Whoa nellie! A little piece of heresy that is!
Thank you because now I will go get a list of their writers and make sure that I always post an excerpt when posting any of their articles and will pass the word to others!
George Will gets his paycheck from the limousine liberal establishment...
I loved Ronald Reagan voted for him as governor and president.. but when he was governor of California he wasn't much more conservative than Arnold... people forget that. Sometimes you have to govern according to the cards you are handed. He was a conservative when he governed more than an already liberal state.
good point.
So true and something people seem to have forgotten.
I agree with your analysis!
I agree with what you had to say. I am for free trade, legal immigration, limited government, etc. Unlike a lot of folks on here, I don't pay much attention to radio or TV pundits except occasionally. I prefer to read and think for myself!
"Reagan conservatism is a viable political philosophy."
LibKill, I agree with you 100%. Reagan-like thinking is NOT dead! And it DOES work.
To accept Rudolf Giuliani as the leader of the Republican party, among many other socialist mores we've fought against for so many years, we are told that we must accept abortion into our hearts. It is an accepted practice in modern America and only a minority of Americans say otherwise. Why resist?
Well, I'm sorry. I do not accept abortion into my heart. And I doubt the majority of Americans will either.
The mass murder of helpless innocent babies in the womb is evil. Period. Poking sharp instruments into the skulls of partially born babies and sucking their brains out is grotesque barbarism so horrific to be beyond the ability of most people to fully comprehend. It's unthinkable evil.
Knowing that the Democrat Party lovingly embraces this evil as part of their platform literally makes me sick to my stomach. Every time I see the face of Hillary, Kennedy, Schumer, Reid, et al, I see the face of pure evil. It's as if I'm looking into the face of Nazism
Rudolf Giuliani does not deliver us from this evil, he delivers us to it.
If the Republican party embraces this evil culture of death platform as the Democrat party does, then I will have to agree... it's time to move on.
The party of Reagan will be dead. The party of Lincoln will be dead. The party of Jeffersonian life and liberty will be dead. The only party defending human life and liberty in America will be dead.
The Republican party becomes the Democrat party and the Democrat party becomes the communist party, the right to life and liberty in America be damned.
Time and evil marches on.
Please pray for America.
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.