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.
How’s it worked for you so far? Every year America is a more lefty nation. God forbid SoCons light’n up a bit and work with ECons that have been the last few years doing all the populist work.
Very well then, I'll take my contributions and my votes someplace else.
Great article that makes a great point. Conservatives are their own worst enemy. They cannot agree on any one candidate or any set of values. I am personally pessimistic about any chance of conservatives getting back into political control. They all will shoot themselvs in the foot.
Now there are two things we agree on.
Generally, I agree. But it’s a tall order and will be more difficult than when Reagan accomplished uniting all factions of the Republican Party and taking some Dems with him - given what has transpired in the last 20 or so years.
That is, corporate America no longer puts America/amercians first. The elites who govern have opened the door to millions and millions of immigrants - both legal and illegal permanently changing the face of the electorate in favor of the left. They are not required to assimilate and, in fact, are encouraged not to do so and retain their previous culture.
We need one like Reagan with that leadership and communication gift able to conquor a condescending media. So far, I don’t see a person like this on our conservative horizon...
The links I included in my column didn’t make it to this post, but here’s Mr. Gaffney’s piece, which is linked in my article: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p18644.xml
That's not what he said, but I don't guess you've read his column yet.
The national defense conservatives (NEOCONS) can get us into all kinds of misadventures, with enormous price tags, and dubious purpose, but that's ok. We just have to do the best we can.
The one group that NEVER gets its way is the fiscal cons. Makes sense. Gubmint loves spending money. So they buy off the socons with morality talk, they buy off the neocons with interventionism, and the fiscal cons? They get told that as a percentage of GDP, the deficit really isn't that bad.
....or you could tell yourself “is it really so bad being in the tent with Mr. Gaffney and people who believe in God”?
After all, the alternative could be more of Imam Obama, he has a soft spot for Allah.
You can see this both ways.
Nope. People who believe in God are happy to have the votes of people who don’t. Its called natural law, the belief that even atheists and agnostics, if they are rational, and most are, must acknowledge the real boundaries of the universe as God created it. As long as we can agree on those boundaries, we are happy to work together to set public policy, because conservative public policy is, if nothing else, based on recognizing the hard limits of reality.
However, as a rule, those who believe in God also tend strongly to believe in sanctity in general, and therefore sanctity of life, and therefore inalienable human rights, out of which all major facets of conservative political thought flow, whether fiscal, social, or international relationships are involved. If an atheist prefers to use Rand or some other mechanism to arrive at those values, so be it. We see it as natural law at work and are happy to have the help.
Only we do see it as an irrational leap on the part of the atheist, for whom logically Nietzsche must be closer to the gospel than Jesus. That’s where most hardened leftists are, and that’s why we are naturally reluctant to formally welcome that belief into the “tent.” IMHO.
The Tea Party should use it’s grass roots strength to it’s advantage buy focusing it’s energy on what it does best:
Local-State Elections.
1) Retake the US senate and shoot for a sixty plus GOP advantage with DeMint as leader. This guy is born to be a Senate Majority leader.
2) Hold congress while weeding out more RINO’s
3) Strengthen gains many of the GOP dominated state assemblies. The little reported fact was just how HUGE the GOP majority has become in many states Ex Texas, Alabama.
4) Not to be pessimistic but Obama has a billion dollar war-chest and the media in his back pocket. That along with a GOP that will most likely nominate Huckabee or Romney type candidate, will keep many of the base at home. Obama will be difficult to beat.
JMO..
Good, glad to hear it.
“So if I don’t believe in God, Mr. Gaffney wants me out of the tent.”
If you feel that way you certainly are on the wrong website.
We “SoCons” are not being bought off and will not be bought off with “morality talk,” as long as babies are still dying and good people are being forced to accommodate perversity. The fact is, economic “freedom” is useless if your result is China, capitalism without freedom of conscience or freedom of worship as integration points; you still end up with a slave state. I know of no “SoCons” who actually *want* their children enslaved by debt. I didn’t vote for Bush because I thought he was or wasn’t frugal, but because he looked likely to add conservative voices to the Supreme Court, which he did. Frugality was not on my radar at that time. Now it is.
BTW, “SoCons”, “FiCons”, and “NeoCons” are largely constructs of division useful to the left, not to conservatives. They condition the user to think in terms of what makes us different, rather than what makes us alike. There is a common nexus that drives all genuinely conservative views, and we need to be dynamic in our thinking, not accepting the static little linguistic boxes the left has created for us, to control us. Life and family, fiscal responsibility, and international survival are *all* nonnegotiable, as all derive from a common root, our belief in the transcendent worth and dignity of every human life, which gives birth to the entire family of human rights, the right to breath, the right to earn, the right to seek safety, the right to live according to one’s conscience before God, and more. That’s where we will find the energy to unite against our common foe, and we should not allow ourselves to be defrauded into division over it.
Precisely.
I have no problem with people who believe in God. And I'm of the opinion that over the last two hundred years or so, nations which are majority Christian or Jewish do far better by freedom than those which are not. You are welcome to review my posting history to verify that I'm not a militant, pull-down-the-Christmas-tree atheist.
Where I draw the line is with those who suggest that because I am not a believer I cannot be a conservative, and especially with those who say that my non belief is parasitic upon a Christian polity or harmful to America. After all, what does one do with a parasite other than exterminate it?
If you don't support our founding principles (spelled out in the Declaration of Independence), get out.
There is only one way to have unalienable rights (aka the SELF-EVIDENT TRUTHS). Government's only legitimate function is to "guard them". The Constitution was put in place to do just that - it is a meaningless document otherwise.
Undermining the Foundation of Our Unalienable Rights
Scipio: 'The most earth shaking event in secular world history was the creation of the United States of America. It was quite literally “conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” Nothing like it had ever come about. From the start she presented to the world a frightening thing, the possibility that the citizens of a nation might actually control the levers of power in a state. If she succeeded she would become a “dangerous nation” and a threat to tyranny around the world. Thus the hatred that European nations had for the new nation. None of them even believed that the US could possibly survive. It was a good thing for them that she did.
'The United States did indeed become a dangerous nationdangerous to tyrants, that is. Here is a list of nations freed by herand some of these were freed more than once: France, Germany, Norway, Finland, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Algeria, Morocco, Romania, Kosovo, Panama, Serbia, Croatia, Bulgaria, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, Denmark, Kuwait, Iraq, Egypt, Montenegro, New Guinea, Indonesia, Thailand, Greece, Tunisia, Ukraine, Albania, Hungary, Belgium, Austria, Libya, Korea, Japan, Italy.
'As a comparison, take a look at some of the players upon the stage of the world who are in the news today -- China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela. How many nations have they freed? None. And why should they free any nations? They are not in the business of freedom. They are in the business of slavery.'
Bottom line -- there are really only two kinds of countries in the world: those whose asses we saved, and those whose asses we kicked. And two kinds of people: those who know it, and those who deny it for whatever crazy reason.
Saving the World, One Assoul at a Time
"...America's founders knew that man only derived his value by virtue of his relationship to the Absolute. This is a fine example of how metaphysics -- the eternal science -- is enfolded in religion. For to see -- and it is a seeing, not a mere "knowing" -- that men are endowed by their Creator with life and liberty is to affirm that life and liberty have an absolute and infinite value. They are "unalienable." Anything short of this makes our rights quite alienable indeed, meaning, among other things, that we can surrender them to liberals for cash and other valuable prizes. ..."
Dull minds make for good slaves; and a moral vacuum needs to be filled. bttt
A complete misread of the entire point. This article responds to the Grover Norquist's of the world that want 'SoCons' out of the tent (or at least to shut up). Not happening. The Reagan Coalition, the three-legged stool of authentic conservatism, is the only winning strategy to beat 0bama. Like it or not, we need each other.
The idea that SoCons aren't also rock-ribbed FiCons is rubbish. The 'social justice' Christians (think Rick Warren) are libs, not conservative.
The libs can support each other's vices ..... why can't we support each other's virtues in the same way?!
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.