I know that I’m going to get flamed for this, but I believe that conservatism doesn’t have a single meaning: it has several strands. We know that some people are conservative socially, the others are conservative economically, and so on. Some people are both social and economic conservatives. The great thing about Reagan is that he could put different strands of conservatism in one umbrella. The way I understand Rush is that a person has to hold every single conservative position (in social, economic, patriotic, etc.) before he can be called ‘conservative’.
“The way I understand Rush is that a person has to hold every single conservative position (in social, economic, patriotic, etc.) before he can be called ‘conservative’.”
Because that is conservatism, the rest of the people have to balance what compromises they will accept, that is why a lot of the liberal republicans are joining Obama, Palin is too conservative for them and they won’t support her just to maintain their “economic conservatism”
“I know that I’m going to get flamed for this, but I believe that conservatism doesn’t have a single meaning: it has several strands. We know that some people are conservative socially, the others are conservative economically, and so on. Some people are both social and economic conservatives. The great thing about Reagan is that he could put different strands of conservatism in one umbrella. The way I understand Rush is that a person has to hold every single conservative position (in social, economic, patriotic, etc.) before he can be called ‘conservative’.”
No flames here. I agree about Reagan. He pulled in social and foreign policy conservatives who were out of place in a Democratic Party that had moved left.
I’d be a lot more comfortable with the “lose and rebuild” theory if I saw a Reagan out there to build around during an Obama presidency.