Posted on 02/17/2011 5:29:26 AM PST by scottfactor
If the conservative movement which has come roaring back to life in the past couple of years hopes to survive and prevail, it must be united under a solid platform, not divided by conflicting ideologies. I have written previously about what I call America’s great unbridgeable divide. It’s a division of massive proportion between lovers of God, family and American freedom and haters of God, family and American freedom. It really is that simple, and the contrast between the two sides could not be more stark.
I have also warned the Tea Party movement about the danger of emphasizing purely fiscal issues at the expense of acknowledging the importance of a moral foundation in our leadership, which is necessary to have good government.
Right in line with the exact things I’ve been pondering lately comes an excellent piece from Frank Gaffney, Jr., who is the founder and president of the Center for Security Policy in Washington DC. His column, titled, “Conservative Crossroads: Return to Reagan Coalition Roots or Lose in 2012” lays it on the line, and I highly recommend that you read it. He makes it clear that the conservative movement must stand on a well-rounded Reagan conservative platform in order to dominate as we move forward.
Mr. Gaffney writes,
“To all outward appearances, the just-concluded Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) was a huge success. It was attended by a large, boisterous crowd, a substantial part of which was student-age – a promising indicator of the movement’s appeal to the coming generation. A number of luminaries, including several prospective presidential candidates, addressed enthusiastic audiences clearly invigorated by last November’s successes at the polls.
CPAC’s apparent vigor, however, obscured the fact that the conservative movement is at a crossroads: Will it continue to be comprised of, and appeal to, all three elements of Ronald Reagan’s winning coalition – fiscal discipline, traditional family and other social values and a national security approach rooted in the philosophy of ‘peace through strength’? Or will it be reduced to a libertarian-dominated, small-government agenda which ignores or repudiates Reagan’s conservative values and robust defense platforms?
Upon the answer rests not only the future of this vital movement, but of America. For, if conservatives get this strategic question wrong, they not only are unlikely to enjoy the support of the electorate come 2012. They will not deserve that support.”
There it is. I keep saying the same thing. In writing about the Tea Party movement, I have noted that the Tea Party sprung up on the foundation of fighting runaway government spending and burdensome taxation and demanding fiscal responsibility from those in our local, state and federal governments. Those things are very important, but without a well-rounded platform that holds our leaders accountable to a higher, across-the-board standard of moral values, there is a danger of mediocrity which leads to ineffective, even detrimental, governing.
Our Constitution cannot work when corrupt people are in power. I realize that purging corrupt leaders from our government and institutions is a daunting, uphill battle, but it’s a battle we must undertake one elected and unelected official at a time.
Mr. Gaffney noted the division of ideologies evident at CPAC, as he writes,
“Unfortunately, the evidence that libertarian impulses were ascendant at CPAC was not only to be found in the straw poll victory of their exemplar, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas.”
Even though some people don’t want to hear this, the libertarian influence in the conservative movement is one that will have a weakening effect on the conservative movement. Although libertarianism has some things in common with conservatism, the differences that occur in the social issues and national defense area are deal-breakers. A little leaven infects the whole batch. We must beware of the subtle influences of the Left within conservatism. Despite claims by some libertarians, the Tea Party movement is not a libertarian movement—we already have the Ron Paul supporters, after all, so why be redundant? Conservatism and libertarianism are two different animals.
Mr. Gaffney goes on to detail the divisions in this year’s CPAC conference due to the invasion of CPAC by demonstrably non-conservative groups. This invasion has caused some high-profile sponsors to withdraw from CPAC. In contrasting the groups present and absent, Mr. Gaffney reports,
“It was also apparent in who was, and who was not, participating as sponsors of the conference and/or some of its events.
The former included GOProud, Muslims for America and the so-called ‘Conservative Inclusion Coalition’ – organizations that, in the name of ‘inclusiveness,’ are insinuating into the conservative movement individuals and initiatives that are divisive and anathema to many who hew to Ronald Reagan’s beliefs and policies. Such sponsors include: aggressive promoters of the anti-family and pro-homosexual agenda; advocates for gambling, open borders, amnesty for illegal aliens and legalization of addictive drugs; champions of gutting the defense budget and immediately withdrawing from Afghanistan and Iraq; and people associated with Muslim Brotherhood front organizations and agendas. For example, at a panel sponsored by said Conservative Inclusion Coalition, a panelist even expressed enthusiasm for reaching out to the Nation of Islam, Louis Farakhan’s notoriously anti-semitic and increasingly radical Islamist organization.
Meanwhile, among those who declined to participate in CPAC 2011 were: the Heritage Foundation, the Family Research Council, Concerned Women of America and the Media Research Center. These organizations are committed not only to reducing the deficit and keeping taxes low. They also favor preservation of the family rooted in marriage between one man and one woman as the key building block of a healthy, democratic society. And they are committed to a strong national defense, one that ensures that our men and women in uniform have the resources they need to protect our country.”
This division is an alarming thing to see. We know that the Left cannot defeat conservatism in the realm of ideas, because the Left’s ideas are bankrupt through and through. So, the Left must resort to lies and dirty tricks to get into power, and one of their favorite tricks is to invade conservative groups with the purpose of creating division. The Left certainly knows the power of people united and the weakness of people divided.
We are facing serious trouble in our country on so many levels that it truly boggles the mind. If we are to have any hope at all of stopping America’s seemingly relentless slide into socialism, conservatives must be a powerhouse of unity. To be unified, we must agree on the solid foundation of conservatism which must include a morally sound platform. We must not be afraid to stand firmly for truth and righteousness in the face of vicious attacks by the lying Left. Truth and righteousness will always expose the lies and degeneracy of the Left, and that’s why the Left vociferously opposes the moral aspects of conservatism.
Mr. Gaffney applauds two CPAC speakers, in particular, for their strong stand for conservatism which embraces Judeo-Christian morality. They just happen to be two of my favorite people, as well. He writes,
“It was particularly true of the opening and closing keynote addresses delivered by two of the stars of the conference – Reps. Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota and Allen West of Florida, respectively. These two darlings of the Tea Partiers made clear that anyone who tries to portray their grassroots movement as exclusively concerned with balancing the budget (important as that is) does not understand the conviction they and their cohort share about a Constitution grounded in Judeo-Christian values and the obligation to provide for the common defense.”
God bless Allen West and Michele Bachmann! Now there’s a presidential ticket I would love to see!
As time goes on, it will be harder and harder to take a soft stand on the social issues in our country. We are going to continue to see the Left pushing for increasingly immoral legislation. The militant homosexual movement is not going away and must be defeated, just as the invasion of Islamists who are stealthily pushing their repulsive Shariah law must also be defeated. Those agendas have no place in our country.
If we have any hope at all of defeating the evil forces of the left, we must be firmly united under godly principles in all areas of our society. I know the difficulty of what I say. So many people today have no regard for biblical truth and sound morality, but I maintain that there are still plenty of people who do value those things. We must come together in unity of purpose with a godly vision for America and a willingness to fearlessly fight for that vision, if we hope to survive as our nation was founded.
Mr. Gaffney wraps up his column with an exhortation to those of us in the conservative movement,
“For conservatives it is, indeed, a time to choose: Will they embrace the contention that the elections of 2010 prove that economic issues alone will earn our movement a mandate to control the White House and Senate, as well as the House of Representatives, 22 months from now? Or will they recognize the necessity of appealing to Republicans, independents and Reagan Democrats with a platform of fiscal discipline, yes, but one that rests firmly, as Allen West put it Saturday, on two other ‘pillars’: a robust national security stance and a clear commitment to traditional conservative social values?
Much rides on the answer. Indeed, the stakes are nothing less than the future of America, whose best hope is that a new, stronger and more dynamic Reagan conservative coalition will emerge from the divisions papered over at CPAC 2011.”
Well-said, Mr. Gaffney! Let’s hope and pray that true conservatives will be able to see past the crafty infiltration of the Left into our midst. Let us not be deceived in thinking we can all just get along and succeed with a bigger tent to include leftist factions. A big tent is not the answer to achieving powerful, effective influence—a tent firmly united behind principles of godly truth is the answer.
No one agrees with that more than me. I spent some time wearing a uniform in support of that concept. (not to boast by any means, many pulled far riskier duty than I ever did).
But just because I share the philosophy expressed by Iris DeMent:
Everybody's wonderin' what and where they all came from.
Everybody's worryin' 'bout where they're gonna go when the whole thing's done.
But no one knows for certain and so it's all the same to me.
I think I'll just let the mystery be.
...my political worldview is no less worthy of being termed "conservative" than is yours.
because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, • would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
In other words, morality cannot be imposed by government.
Wait a minute. I thought we were to be warned about the danger of emphasizing purely SOCIAL issues.
Tell you what. Why don't all you prophets, soothsayers and hand-wringers get together and just have a few margaritas and enjoy life for a while.
We're grownups. We'll figure it out as we go along.
Every law that exists on the books of a local, state or federal government "imposes" a morality.
Simple example. If you obey the speed limit on the roads, you have just had morality imposed on you by the government.
Incorrect. Laws impose consequences--justice. If laws imposed morality, then laws against murder would eliminate murder. Laws against fraud would eliminate fraud. All laws can do is administer justice, according to whatever the law says that means. The murderer still murders. The crook still commits fraud. The morality of the people has not changed at all in that scenario.
If I drive the speed limit, motivated not by my own sense of duty or public safety, but rather by the desire to avoid punishment, that's not morality. It's self-interest.
Enforced morality isn't morality. If you're not free to choose, than how is that moral? It's servitude.
Your double-minded reply is a non sequitur - it doesn’t address the bottom line issue I brought up. Sorry.
The Golden Triangle of Freedom
The movement in our country to fly on "one wing," reason alone, will ultimately undermine the very foundation of our country -- freedom. America is rooted in the founders' belief that free people, whose God-given rights are protected by a government that allows the individual to pursue their dreams and reap the fruits of their labor, would build the most just and prosperous society in the history of man. They were right; freedom was the key ingredient in the American experiment. Our founders understood it was relatively easy to establish freedom in our Constitution, the harder task was to create a system that would maintain it against the corrosive force of time. The author Os Guinness describes how they accomplished this as the Golden Triangle of Freedom: "Freedom requires virtue, virtue requires faith and faith requires freedom and around again."
That freedom requires virtue was explained by the political philosopher Edmund Burke, who wrote: "Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites ... Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters."
Virtue requires faith because faith is the primary teacher of morality. That is not to say that one cannot be virtuous without faith, but for society as a whole faith is the indispensable agent of virtue. Faith requires freedom. Why has America remained a deeply religious country averting the road to secularism traveled by our European brothers and sisters? Again Madison's "true remedy," the combination of "free exercise" and no religious state supported monopoly, has created a vibrant marketplace of religions extolling everywhere the word of God to inspire people to fulfill His special plan for each of us. Our founders' inspired brilliance created a paradigm that has given America the best chance of any civilization in the history of man to endure the test of time. Time, this time now in American history is putting that to the test.
Psst. I don’t want you to believe in God. That’s your sole decision. I only want you to defend my right of free exercise of faith as a fundamental, essential and non-negotiable plank in the conservative platform. As I do fiscal conservatism and national defense conservatism. It is all for one, and one for all. Or we will all fail and the socialist libs 'win'.
I agree with this. Free people must be capable of governing their own passions. A corrupt people can't make themselves virtuous by fiat. And a virtuous people don't require a fiat.
PS- I am all for the free exercise of religion. And of all religions, I like Christianity the best, and prefer to live in a majority Christian area.
Thanks, Scott! I’m sorry you had trouble with the Word document I sent.
Outstanding replies! Thanks. IMHO, this is living proof of the three-legged stool. It’s the libs that are trying to set FiCons, SoCons and DefCons against each other. They’re creating divisions that don’t need to exist. The worst dividers are the libs within - Grover Norquist is at the top of that list.
Gaffney has spent years examining first hand the muslim/illegal alien promoting of CPAC’s Grover Norquist.
This is what we get when we don’t listen!
Latino Arab American Advisory Committee civil rights training, on Feb. 19
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2674877/posts
I know that a lot of people take that as capitulation or retreat or unacceptable compromise. Maybe it is, but I don't think so. I believe fiscal issues are most certainly a government matter,and can truly ONLY be fixed within the government sphere.
Moral issues overlap with government, I grant you. But surely government won't make us moral. It's up to us as a people to rediscover public virtue, to promote it, and pass it on.
Now if I could only stop fat fingering the keyboard, I’d be OK.
Great post. I appreciate the opportunity it gave to ‘preach’ the Reagan Coalition’s three-legged stool. ;-)
HA! I knew what you meant. :-)
bttt
"Imagine if this country were actually founded upon a wimpy rejection of metaphysical certainty and the leftist embrace of relativism?:
We hold these preliminary findings to be more or less accurate, at least for now, that all cultures have equal validity, and that each culture has its own ideas about rights and duties and so forth and so on and blah blah blah. In our case, we have hit upon this idea -- no offense, but we have this tentative idea -- subject to further studies, of course -- that we would like the government -- that would be your government -- to cut us some slack so that we can do what we want to do -- basically acquire property and be happy, but not limiting ourselves to that. Anyhoo, it is our culturally conditioned idea that Governments -- not all of them, of course, but ours -- should actually derive their power from the people, although we have respect and tolerance for the contrary view that you folks hold. Nevertheless, some of our more headstrong citizens think that we should be able to form a government based upon these vague hunches of ours, which, after all, are as good as your hunches. No, that was rude -- let's just say that our hunches are different than yours, and leave it at that.... No one can presume to be a judge of whose hunches are best.... At any rate, since, as the saying goes, "different strokes for different folks".... "
Thank you, Servant of the Cross! I also appreciate your excellent comments.
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.