[truthfreedom]

I thought the plan was for the Republicans to get enough to stop new bad legislation from being passed. Obama isn’t going to sign Republican policy initiatives. The Republicans can pass laws that the people like, and Obama can veto them, and in 2012 they can point to what the people can expect if they elect the Republican.

I’d avoid a repeat of the budget issue between the 94 and 96 elections, the shutting down of the government and whatnot.

[Westbrook]

> The Republicans may gain seats in November, but it is
> hardly certain that they will implement a conservative
> agenda.

I submit that it’s virtually certain that they WILL NOT implement a conservative agenda.

The RINOs will see to it.

The Republicans had the Presidency and BOTH houses for 6 years and, other than the Bush Tax Cuts, did nothing to advance the conservative agenda while cooperating with the demoncRATs to advance the commie agenda.

Oh, they let the “Assault Weapons Ban” sunset, no thanks to Bush who said he would have signed it, or McCain, who supported reviving it.

[hershey]

more bad news...Zogby polling shows Mitt Romney up against Obama, and behind by 3 points. The Dems can’t wait to name the Republican candidate. CBS, NBC, etc. news in MA. blaring this at 5 AM. The excuse is that Mitt was the MA. gov. before lamebrain Deval Patrick, Obama’s BFF, who, by the way is leading Republican Charlie Baker by 3 points in the polls.

[ClearCase_guy]

Margaret Thatcher spoke of the "ratchet effect" -- when the Left is in charge, everything moves to the Left. When the right is in charge, the position is held so that no movement to the Left is made, but movement to the right isn't possible either. Over time, we just get a society which is more and more Leftist.

My longstanding view is that States (like AZ) should effectively secede: ignore the federal government and just govern your area as you see fit. What are they going to do? Invade? Let them.

[Chi-townChief]

I’m not so sure we want majorities in both houses yet. Just enough to stop Barry in his tracks.

[Texas Fossil]

de Plan—

1. Turn over the House and Senate in November

2. Uncover, expose and impeach

3. Then undo what the Left has done.

[Politically Correct]

Just shut it down. Forward to the senate only funding for government departments that we decide need funding.
Send them to the Senate one small bill at a time.
For instance, one bill to fund Dept. of Agriculture but only for research, no funding for crop or ETOH subsidies.
Fund DOD but remove all funding for European operations with the exception of maybe one or two bases, (in other words let Europe defend itself) this should collapse the socialist states a little quicker.
Don't bother to fund the Dept. of Education.

Dear Leader cannot veto what doesn't come to his desk.

[GenXteacher]

Sadly I think the guy is on to something. The Republicans never repeal anything that needs repealing. The Democrats pass their agenda when they get into power. Who gets their way? The left....

[SMARTY]

The author has expressed, in the MOST thorough and succinct way, just how precarious and urgent the situation is for American Conservatism.

However, he does not describe the ‘condition’ Liberals will find America in, if/when they succeed with their agenda.

He says:

“Will the American Right choose to accept subjugation under the rule of the Left, and perform the same function that the British Conservative Party has performed for decades — namely, provide rhetorical opposition but never really change anything?”

Though I hope that Liberals fail, I am certain that any permanent success the Liberals could achieve with their agenda will GUARANTEE social discord and instability for this country and into perpetuity.

If you ONLY look at the all but irreversible damage which has been done so far, you can see that the current administration never for one moment intended to lead ALL of America …. and this is obvious no matter what your politics. “O’s” plans, rhetoric, policies, etc. have forced gapping chasms between the basic and naturally occurring stratum of this society. He created THE most unwholesome and counterproductive political/social environment I have EVER experienced in my life.

Maybe the British Conservatives conveniently rolled over but I don’t think their American counterparts will be so willing or ready to do the same.

Time will tell. Conservatives need to consolidate their strengths and quit squabbling over ‘style’. The message is what matters and it must be clear, coherent and consistent…never mind who the messenger is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If the messenger is a hunch back, dwarf with one brown eye and one blue eye and who is practicing an ‘alternate’ lifestyle … f&^%$)g run with it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! “O” is living breathing proof that it’s about the horse… NOT the jockey!

[luvbach1]

Conservative principles have always been a hard sell to the increasingly dumbed down, entitlement-conditioned American voter. But to go the route of presenting a watered-down conservative message, as General Powell urged, is to abandon all we have striven for. If the voters reject our message they will deserve the inevitable bondage they invite. Of course all right-thinking (no pun intended) people will share their shackles.

[JimRed]

Will ObamaCare be repealed? Almost assuredly not. There is virtually zero chance that the Republicans will control both houses by the two-thirds majority necessary to override Obama's certain veto of any repeal effort.

If we can't repeal it, can we amend it to death?

[chrisser]

IMHO, the war isn’t in Washington. It’s just a battle.

I would liken it to the revolutionary war or the civil wars in some ways - Washinton is the naval battle. We need to neuter Washington from increasing its meddling the same way we had to stop Britain from bringing in more troops via sea, or Europe from resupplying the Confederacy.

But, in the meantime, the larger war is at the state, local and home level. If we can change the culture back (and I’m speaking of the culture of entitlement, centralized planning, and “trust” in Washington as a first solution for every problem) while we keep DC at bay, then as the Founders envisioned, the fed will be largely impotent. We need the states to reassert their authority and responsibility backed by their consituents and the citizens to become citizens instead of subjects/victims/sponges.

Personally, I doubt it’s possible anymore. My best hope, sadly, is that we can change the character of one or two states or regions that will, through threat of or actual secession, so stymie the fed that the rest of the country will benefit. The winning card in our hand is that freedom brings prosperity. Just look at what’s happening in Texas with just the slightest edge over other states in taxation and business freedom compared to states like California.

In the interim, I think there is a strategy that might temper the onslaught of socialism.

The original idea of united independent states was that each would be a laboratory - trying new policies on smaller levels to see what works. We ought to use that as a primary focus - “OK, maybe x policy will work, let’s set up legislation to simulate what you want in whichever states want to give it a go. Prove it will work”. I don’t see how “intellectuals” can argue with that, and it opens the door for us to do the same with our policies.

We could frame the argument for anything - socialized vs privatized medicine, open vs closed borders, chard check vs right to work, even income vs consumption tax vs both and I think it would be a difficult argument to oppose - might even be embraced by some of the misguided true believers on the other side.

We have tax brackets for individuals. Granted it’s a PITA, but why can’t we have “freedom brackets” or “policy brackets” for states?

[sickoflibs]

RE :”The Republicans may gain seats in November, but it is hardly certain that they will implement a conservative agenda. Will the American Right choose to accept subjugation under the rule of the Left, and perform the same function that the British Conservative Party has performed for decades — namely, provide rhetorical opposition but never really change anything? Or will the Right actually seek to reverse the hegemony of the Left, and restore American culture to its post-WWII greatness, mindful that the costs of doing so would be high?”

Unfortunately we know what the current Republican party stands for and it's not good. Republicans just opposing democrats works good in 2010 an off year election. But they will not get away with it in 2012 (2012 is the year Obama is counting on pro-amnesty hispanics uniting with blacks to get him re-elected.) In 2012 Republicans will be forced to take positions on actual actions. And what will it take to sour Hispanics on Obama in 2012? Unemployment? And what if RINOs once again try to work with Dems on amnesty?

If a Republican makes it to the WH someday, they will be under the same pressures GWB was to pass big progressive reforms to get re-elected. And we will be again told we have to go along to ‘defeat the enemy’

[MaggieCarta]

Here's the money quote:

The Republicans may gain seats in November, but it is hardly certain that they will implement a conservative agenda.

I have absolutely no doubt that Republicans will pick up many seats in November. But, what, if anything, are we winning?

[allmendream]

There is nothing conservative about mandatory military conscription, and that is the last thing the military wants or needs is a bunch of unwilling conscripts.

As a former professional soldier, I share the contempt that professional soldiers have always held towards conscripts.

And there is no need for deporting anyone, let alone calling them a “wetback”. When we enforce our laws against employing illegal labor such that it is no longer an economic incentive (or imperative) to hire illegal labor, they will go back home just like they came here, under their own power.

Government involvement in religion is the last thing we need in our Republic. These government scum (a necessary evil) have too much power already, I don't even want to hear them try to talk to me about God. It isn't their place and we should always strive to KEEP them in their place. It performs no compelling government function under any of the governments LIMITED and ENUMERATED powers.

Yes, like the Communists before them, Muslim enemies within seek to use our freedom against us. They forbade being an ideological Capitalist in their nations, while we recognized our citizens freedom of conscience to believe in Communism. The great Communist nations are all turning or have turned Capitalist. We don't need to destroy our freedom in order to save it.

“Let them do their worst; and we, we shall do our best.”

[Durus]

This article is odd at best.

“But let us for the sake of the argument suppose that a repeat of the 1994 midterm elections is in the offing and that Republicans exceed their wildest expectations, and gain control of both houses”.

“There is virtually zero chance that the Republicans will control both houses by the two-thirds majority necessary to override Obama's certain veto of any repeal effort. ”

Uhm ya…the chances of them getting control of both houses is about the same as them getting 2/3’rds majority in both. Regardless the next few paragraphs is what can’t be achieved without 2/3rds majority. It’s not news, it’s not constructive, and it’s akin to crying. Cowboy up! So we won’t win the war with the next battle, but we still have to fight. We have to achieve intermidiary goals to arrive at the end game.

“We know what the endgame is for the political Left. It is national socialism with as many citizens dependent on the government as possible, and international socialism with foreign policy and economic policy controlled by UN and EU-style bureaucrats. This would put the Right out of business for good. What, then, is the endgame for the political Right? How does it plan -- (does it even have a plan?) -- to put the Left out of business for good?” .

Great question…except the prefacing statement is wrong or at least puts the left’s goal in the best possible light. It needs to be said loudly and often that socialism is simply a tool for tyrants and what the left really wants is a return to slavery. They desire the great unwashed masses to bow to them because to leftist elites suffering from megalomania, it’s about power and they would claim whatever ideology they needed to claim to gain it. They don’t care about socialism as an ideology any more then Marx actually believed in communism. These ideologies are tools to gain power and that is all.

We should have no plan to put these people out of business for good as that is impossible. Our founding fathers knew what evil lurked in the heart of man. They knew that there would always be another power hungry wannabe tyrant waiting in the wings to seize power. They carefully crafted a government devoid of the power to impose tyranny. It’s taken this long for us to slide as far back as we have to tyranny and it’s naïve to think that we will achieve what our founders did with any less effort then they put in. A valid argument could be made that we are less free now then the colonists were under British rule why do we think we can reclaim our birthright as Americans without a fight?

We need to re-impose the constitution and educate the populace so freedom is preserved for another generation. And the generation after us will need to do it again. That we thought we won the war the first time was our biggest mistake. This war can never be won…only fought to the best of our abilities.

“Indeed, the sainted Gipper, icon of the conservative movement, was a former Democratic union man who signed an abortion into law as governor of California six years prior to Roe, never had a balanced budget in his eight years as president, and signed an illegal alien amnesty in 1986”.

We will never win anything when conservative attack each with more venom and commitment then they ever attack liberals. No one is perfect, save your ammo for the enemy.

”It is unrealistic to argue, as some conservatives and Tea Partiers do, for a return to Jeffersonian libertarianism, no matter how desirable that may be. If conservatives were able to scale the power of today's Federal leviathan back to "merely" post-New Deal levels, it would be an enormous achievement.”

The left has set unrealistic goals for themselves too. They have corrupted the most free nation on earth against all odds and have almost achieved their goal of destroying it so they can take over and your proposed end game is to push them back half way? This sounds like a losing strategy to me.

“Let us suppose for a moment that the conservative goal was merely the preservation of the cultural values and international status of the America of the Eisenhower-Kennedy era (arguably the apogee of American power and influence). ”

Let us not. Our nation was already infested with and controlled by leftist influences by this point. There is no need for us to return to it. Let us instead desire to return to the spirit of ’76 where real freedom was the goal.

-A civil-rights movement based on individual equality, not group entitlements and reverse discrimination against whites and Asians;

This can't be done by government but must be achieved by society. Law is purportedly colorblind, it's the people that tinge it.

-Mandatory military training and conscription;
Unconstitutional boondoggle of unimaginible porportions.


-A muscular foreign policy in which America stood up to its enemies as JFK did during the Cuban missile crisis, rather than the Obama foreign policy posture of a beaten dog piddling in submission;

The muscular foreign policy like the Bay of Pigs fiasco where revolutionary forces were about to achieve victory but JFK “Stood up to its enemies” and withheld the promised air support so they were utterly decimated? How about we go back to a time when we actually didn’t back down and snatch defeat from the hands of victory? When an author will denigrate Reagan, but likens JFK to a hero, I begin to question their ideological preferences.

-Balanced or low-deficit budgets, with social spending limited to pre-Great Society "safety-net" minimums;

Why? I mean blanced budgets are required but why have social spending at all. The end game should require no social spending.

-A non-P.C. acknowledgement that enemies (then communists, now Muslim fanatics) sought to use America's freedoms as a tool to destroy it from within;
From whom and for what purpose? Will it allow the author to sleep better at night?

-The unapologetic deportation of illegals, e.g., Eisenhower's "Operation Wetback" in 1954;

I don’t care if we train our immigration officials to constantly apologize as they deporting illegals as long as they do it.

-The maintenance of American industrial and technological superiority;

Maintenance by whom? The collusion of government and business is unconstitutional, and is a basic building block of fascism.

-Social issues such as abortion and homosexuality left up to state legislatures as the Founders intended, rather than declared "constitutional rights" by activist judges;

Our rights are not confined to those in the constitution and nor was our government designed as a tyranny of the states. Abortion is the taking of a human life and should be treated as such. Homosexuality is a life style choice and as long as society at large doesn’t have to pay for their behavior then it’s not societies business. That being said, if we were to make pedophilia a capital offense, then I suspect in a couple of generations there would be very few homosexuals.

-The public acknowledgment of a nonsectarian "civic religion" based on the Judeo-Christian tradition;

Ok…I suspect I know where this is going but as stated is only half of the real suggestion.

-Unions investigated by the Federal government for corruption and racketeering, and a non-unionized public sector.

Agreed.

Conservatives must be under no illusions that the Left would regard such an agenda as "fascist" and react violently if such an agenda ever came close to being implemented.

Some of it is fascistic…what wrong with following the constitution?

The Republicans may gain seats in November, but it is hardly certain that they will implement a conservative agenda.

It’s clear that they won’t yet have the numbers to achieve any agenda but to slow down the lefts agenda. This is simply setting them up for failure when they won’t be at the stage where they can set an agenda.

Will the American Right choose to accept subjugation under the rule of the Left, and perform the same function that the British Conservative Party has performed for decades -- namely, provide rhetorical opposition but never really change anything?

I’m pretty sure that the Libertarian party has already locked up that role.

Or will the Right actually seek to reverse the hegemony of the Left, and restore American culture to its post-WWII greatness, mindful that the costs of doing so would be high?

Or will the right dispose of all the trappings of unconstitutional meanderings and once again champion liberty?

[flowerplough]

End game? Decline, collapse and anarchy.

Can we do something, as conservatives and libertarians - as patriots - to stop America’s self destruction?

No, we can’t. We are too small, too few, and America is too big, to complacent, and way too stupid. We can probably best invest our energy in “selfishly” attempting to prepare and provide for our own family and friends and in setting a common-sense example for others.

But stop America’s self destruction? Can’t be done. Like Bolivar said, might as well try to plow the sea.

In a speech entitled “Industrial Management in a Republic,” delivered in the grand ballroom of the Waldorf Astoria at New York during the 250th meeting of the National Conference Board on March 18, 1943, Henning Webb Prentis, Jr., President of the Armstrong Cork Company, had this to say:

“Paradoxically enough, the release of initiative and enterprise made possible by popular self-government ultimately generates disintegrating forces from within. Again and again after freedom has brought opportunity and some degree of plenty, the competent become selfish, luxury-loving and complacent, the incompetent and the unfortunate grow envious and covetous, and all three groups turn aside from the hard road of freedom to worship the Golden Calf of economic security. The historical cycle seems to be: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to apathy; from apathy to dependency; and from dependency back to bondage once more.”

[x]

We know what the endgame is for the political Left. It is national socialism with as many citizens dependent on the government as possible, and international socialism with foreign policy and economic policy controlled by UN and EU-style bureaucrats. This would put the Right out of business for good. What, then, is the endgame for the political Right? How does it plan -- (does it even have a plan?) -- to put the Left out of business for good?

First of all, nobody gets put out of business for good in politics. What I mean is that there will always be something called "left" and something called "right." The positions that each side takes may vary but the polarity will always remain. Some ideologies do come close to disappearing, like absolute monarchy or the 20th century totalitarianisms, but the idea that you won't have a big government and a smaller government, an egalitarian and a libertarin wing of political discourse is silly.

Secondly, this was the problem that conservatism has had since it was formed back in the 1940s and 1950s. That was an age of big, monolithic ideologies and ideas that claimed to provide THE answer to all of life's problems -- socialism, fascism, communism, Marxism, Freudianism, linguistic or analytic philosophy, cultural anthropology, semantics, etc. The founders of modern American conservatism opposed such monolithic ideologies in favor of a more realistic approach, but being of their age, they had to wonder whether or not they needed such an iron-clad ideological system of their own.

Nowadays, when all of those older systems have failed it would be a mistake for conservatives to adopt that way of thinking in giant blocks of thought, unbridgeable dichotomies, and final apocalyptic battles of good versus evil. Better to look at the way the world is and propose useful reforms that the country needs rather than to look ahead to a final conflict between massive ideological systems.

If you can prevent the other side from doing what it wants and put through a few useful and necessary measures of your own, you've won. Thinking about root and branch transformation of the whole country along some kind of ideal lines, or getting way too excited about ideological combat is a distraction from doing what needs to be done.