Conservative lament

The Washington Times ^ | August 24, 2003 | Ralph Z. Hallow

[Cincinatus]

The conservative movement has scored historic gains but has yet to achieve several of its basic goals.

That's the verdict of some of its founding fathers (and one important mother).

"We won the battle against communism, but I guess we've largely lost the battle against big government," says Eagle Forum President Phyllis Schlafly, 79, who defied conventional wisdom by leading a women's crusade that defeated the Equal Rights Amendment in the mid-1970s.

[Cincinatus]

"In the early years, there were no 'big government conservatives' around — at least no one who would admit to being that,"

A little retrospective re-writing of history here. All conservatives supported "Big Government" when we needed it to fight communism during the Cold War (as well they should have), including the sainted conservative icons Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Conservatives made a Faustian deal -- we needed Big Government to fight the commies, so they accepted that idea in principle. That was the camel's nose under the tent. The difference between liberals and conservatives then became to what ends should we apply this Big Government? Liberals wanted to attack social problems with it. The conservatives were then stuck with Great Society boondoggles.

[JohnEBoy]

But there is a fundamental difference. Establishing and maintaining a ready military IS called for in the constitution. Providing Social Security, social welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, prescription drugs, abortion on demand, etc., is NOT.

[Cincinatus]

I know that. My point was that once the genie was let out of the bottle, it's very hard to get him into it again.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

Agreed.

"One of the greatest impediments to the success of the movement, some leaders suggest, was the fundamental incompatibility between two of its major goals — scaling back the size and scope of the federal government and waging an aggressive foreign policy to defeat communism around the world. "

Bull#$%^

[At _War_With_Liberals]

Conservatism is de facto 'dead'.

Like Latin as a spoken language. It has obviously been defeated by the party of socialists (Dims), and from within by the neocons.

Conservatives remaining in govt cannot be trusted anymore because they either sold out or (by and large) stood by and did nothing as the Neocons usurped power against the mandate of the 2002 election. The voters never signed on for huge spending and larger govt and limited individual rights, but they pushed it all thru anyway.

There will be a schism in the Republican party, with a new movement that is to the right of the old school conservatives. That is my hope, at least.

[nathanbedford]

One political reality, Mr. Viguerie says, is that the "conservatives in Congress today are not movement players. They are part of the Republican team assembled by President Bush and [Bush chief strategist] Karl Rove. No matter how much overlap there may be between the two agendas, their first allegiance is to the Republican Party rather than the conservative movement."

I am afraid there is more than a little truth in this observation. But I would add a caveat: Their first loyalty is personal not to party. That means that it is to miss the mark to accuse the Bush/Rove faction as being RINOs or moderates or even country club republicans. Their loyalty is to the extended Bush family and its hold is very strong. It is animated in the President's case not by political philosophy or ideology but by his Christian faith.

Normally, this brings him down on the conservative side of issues, but not always. That is why he will spend $15B in Africa in a hopeless campaign against aids. He sees himself as a good Samaritan. Rove may countenence this ill advesed undertaking for political reasons but Bush is free of hypocracy. He is a true believer. That's why he could sign on to Kennedy's education boondoggle. It is a matter of Christian compassion. Ditto health care.

After he makes a judgment of right or wrong as a Christian, he extends and expects loyalty. Too often this is loyalty to a person like Putin or Fox or even Kennedy rather than to a principle.

Finally, and derivatively, he is a conservative.

[steve50]

Conservatism is de facto 'dead'.They keep the name alive, and that's about it. The neocon faction has at least admitted what they intend. Read Kristol's Aug. 25 piece.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

Read Kristol's Aug. 25 piece.

Can't find it. 9-01 on WS site

[Noachian]

If big government is against the conservative agenda, and Bush is a conservative, how does Bush's pushing of the Patriot Act, and other similiar acts, diminish big government?

Although we need extraordinary laws for extraordinary times laws that limit individual freedoms, while enlarging the role of government, are more of a Democratic/Liberal idea than a Conservative idea. Long after this war is over those laws will still be on the books, and will have consequences unforeseen by today's Congress.

How these laws will be used by a future Clinton-type president to expand his personal agenda and enlarge government is scary to think about, and the irony is that those laws will have been put in place by a conservative president.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

...Their first loyalty is personal not to party...

Just like the Clintonites.
It is that more than anything else that proves the death of the republic.

We are only waiting for the first king.

[Princeliberty]

Rusher said the conservative movement has come
to totally dominant the Republican party.

More like the Republican party has come to dominant
the conservative movement. Hence why there
is no push to reduce government.

Or do anything good for that matter, just
elect Republicans.

[tkathy]

I know I am going to get it for this, but the fiscal policies (which are brilliant and intellectual) haven't been defeated from outside sources as much as defeating itself with the endless emotional social issues.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"How these laws will be used by a future Clinton-type president to expand his personal agenda and enlarge government is scary to think about, and the irony is that those laws will have been put in place by a conservative president"

The clintons used the old laws to destroy enemies well enough. Hillary must be drooling over new ones that increase govt rights and diminish indiv liberty.

Since she advocates the judiciary making laws anyway, I wonder if it really matters in the end.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

I know I am going to get it for this, but the fiscal policies (which are brilliant and intellectual) haven't been defeated from outside sources as much as defeating itself with the endless emotional social issues. "

I do not follow.

[PGalt]

Good post. Interesting comments bump.