Posted on 04/23/2009 4:49:47 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
.
American conservatives are living in a majority immoral nation. There is no other way to interpret the embrace of a radically pro-abortion president being elected. It’s perfectly OK to kill unborn babies and it’s perfectly OK for queers to marry.
Can Huckaby or Palin create a new GOP governing alliance by reuniting the cultural populists and economic populists?
Where is Ben Raines when you really need him?
Is hatred a sufficient basis for a political party in this country? Americans prefer a positive message that proposes solutions and looks towards the future, not a party of just NO!
But, the problem is the ability to unite for someone or something.
Utterly false in assumption, and completely foolish.
Suffice it to say, a fusion of Christian conservatism and traditionalist conservatism will require a new glue.
The glue of the old fusion movement was anticommunism, strong leadership, and good writers in Buckley's magazine. I propose that the new glue of the new fusion movement be: a) the united opposition to modernism and b) natural law philosophy.
Absolute and utter pap.
This is NeoCon bullcrap, right down the middle. Conservatives at the grassroots will not change, because what they are is what they ARE. The factionalism prevents such change, as the factions will not compromise. Ergo, one must eject factions of conservatism to form this new "alliance", even as the NeoCons have done before. No doubt about it. this is a call to start at the NeoCon "square one", not at the conservative "square one"
American Conservatism cannot exist outside of libertarianism and the Judeo-Christian ethic. ALL alliances must begin on that solid ground, and Reagan Conservatism defines that perfectly. The factions built upon that ethical foundation find solace there naturally, and far outweigh any other force in this country. That "fusion", libertarianism and the Judeo-Christian ethic, IS the glue that has always held America together, not to mention the Conservatives, and is the basis for every Conservative principle in conscience, period.
Reagan was absolutely clear about his principles. His coalition strategy was to say to everyone, you are welcome to join us. We want you to join us. Just don’t try to change us.
Today’s republicans strategy is to say Please, let us join you.
Well let’s try that. I for one do not agree with the hard stance on abortion that many here have. I do not agree with the tendenancy to stick the goobermints nose into the bedroom. How can I “unite’ with the far right who holds those views?
THAT is precisely right, and your observation is the salient difference.
What is left to us is to heal the divisions caused by twenty years of moderation and compromise, wherein all of the conservative factions have been made to "compromise for the cause". That was never Reaganism. In fact, it is it's antithesis.
Those divisions must, by their nature, be resolved in the Judeo-Christians and the libertarians FIRST, because it is to that partnership that all the rest are inexorably drawn. That is the foundation, as Reagan defined it, because that is the foundation of America.
Goldwater was close, mind you... libertarianism must be the core philosophy, but without the Judeo-Christian ethic it is insufficient. Even as, btw, the Judeo-Christian ethic is insufficient without libertarianism to restrict it.
I think we should keep in mind that neither group passes these ideas on to many of their own children, for obvious reasons. The place to break the chain is in thwarting the indoctrination of our young.
Let me make an observation regarding tactics. I think we need to abandon the word “libertarian”. It just carries too much baggage and raises too many red flags with people who should our allies. I personally would adopt the pharse “classical liberal” but I would be open to something new.
This is not a trivial nit-picking question. Words are powerful. Use one wrong one and a lot of people will just write you off.
We are for the sanctity of life.
We are for the freedom of the individual to proceed in their affairs unmolested by the Government, so long as they leave others alone.
We are for the rights of property owners to be the stewards of their property as they see fit.
We are for developing our own energy resources, conventional and cutting-edge so there will be opportunity for growth and development.
We are for securing our borders against invasion by those who are not of us who would gorge at our table but not so much as knock at the door.
We are for the individual having the freedom to enjoy the fruits of their labors, to use and dispose of those as they see fit, without the hand of Government dipping deeply to take them and distribute them to those who would not labor.
What more empowerment do you want???
Angry?
Hell yes! I am angry that we allow ourselves to even be portrayed as a party of "no" when all we stand for enhances the liberty of Americans, instead of those who masquerade as liberators the whole time they are hammering the links of bondage around our children's minds, backs, and wallets.
Who are the slavers and who are the liberators?It is Conservatives who value Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, who reverently thank whatever God they know for those opportunities and having been either born here or able to come here and partake of this feast of Liberty!
Those who deceive, who paint us not as the guardians of Liberty, but as enslavers are themselves those who would slaughter the child in the womb, who would tax the prosperity of those who labor to give away for their own ends, who use the public coffers to buy votes, and who ignore or treat with disdain the very foundations of the Rule of Law of this Republic, our Constitution.
There is no shame nor evil in calling those who desire liberty to be attendant to the responsibilities which come with that selfsame liberty, and I would contend that those who claim Conservatives are a party of just "NO!" seek a different and false freedom, not the freedom of having responsibility, but the freedom from responsibility. Which is the essence of the liberal victimhood mindset, where it is always someone else's fault, and the individual is the victim of things beyond their control.
I would contend that is not the case, that those who would be free, truly free, need to embrace the responsibility for their situation because that alone will empower them to change it.
YMMV!
Huckaby is a political Charlatan. There's no way he can be elected.
True, but I am with Ann Coulter on that. Is there some sort of stock-ticker where we can keep track of all the horrible and politically incorrect words from minute to minute?
We have allowed the media to render the language into a twisted and meaningless carriacture of itself, which suits their purposes just fine.
Until we can take back the words they have ruined, we will be rowing with one oar.
I’m just saying as part of our cause we need to choose our words carefully, strategically.
Personally, speaking only for myself, I say to H with PC wording. And to H with people who don’t like me because of it. I dislike them even more.
Easy...
For abortion: FedGov refrains from using tax money to fund abortions, here and elsewhere, because there is no constitutional privilege for FedGov to subsidize abortion, plus it violates the religious and moral convictions of many taxpayers. Further, FedGov works to rescind Roe v. Wade because it is bad law. Rescinding this abominable decision would have the effect of returning the abortion debate to the states, and the people - where it belongs.
Avoidance (some might say negation) of a judicial oligarchy (some might say theocracy) should be a common conservative goal.
With respect to the government's nose and the bedroom: How is forcing a morally conservative christian landlord to either (a) stop renting out property or (b) rent out an apartment in direct conflict with his religious/moral views not obtrusive? The euphemism regarding privacy of the bedroom is the rallying cry for taking proclivities public and forcing acceptance of them, in my experience (although I don't believe that is what you mean, this is exactly what many gay rights activists mean when they mouth this slogan).
Keeping the government "out of the bedroom" also needs to mean keeping government out of the church. When one loses the right to proclaim one's own beliefs because someone else is screaming they have a predilection for same-sex escapades, there is an intractable problem.
This balanced (IMO, at least) solution will displease some (or many) on both sides of the argument - but I would posit that this "laissez faire" style of governance is the ONLY one that is true to the ideals of the U.S. Constitution.
One last note: I have tried very hard to avoid bombast in this post. If I have failed, please point out where I did so and accept my apology.
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.