I guess that all depends on whose definition of "conservative" you want to use.
If you mean the definition of conservative which embraces protectionism, isolationism, and non-interventionism as a political ideology, then they are not...in fact, they have never truly been the base because all those are political ideologies which have never been embraced by the U.S. people at any level.
If you mean the "conservatives" who support exclusion rather than inclusion, who see dialog with certain segments of the voters as "pandering", and who raise ideology over people, they haven't been any part of "the base" since Reagan raised the standard, and placed people ahead of ideology.
And lastly, if you define "conservatives" as they who would welcome electoral victories by Democrats in the name of advancing "conservative" principles, then I say to you that they are truly NOT the base of the Party.
The base of anything must, by definition, be that which supports and stabilizes it, the "conservatives" around these parts, or at least those who label themselves "true conservatives" have left the Party before, and threaten to leave it again...they cannot possibly be the base.
Like it or not, they are the minority within the majority membership, and geometrically speaking, if you see the ideological make up of the GOP as a triangle, these "conservatives" are the point, and the narrowest point of a triangle can't be its base.
When I read what he wrote last night, I kind of had a kneejerk reaction, but then I realized he meant "conservative" in the best kind of way -- the inclusive kind of way, where he accepts us ALL into that "tent," if you will.
I really don't think EV meant to use the term "conservative" in the way its thrown around on this forum.
I don't think I would be mistaken to say that your definition and mine are quite different.
If you mean the definition of conservative which embraces protectionism, isolationism, and non-interventionism as a political ideology...
I most certainly don't.
...then they are not...in fact, they have never truly been the base because all those are political ideologies which have never been embraced by the U.S. people at any level.
Do you really believe that? Your statement is demonstrably untrue. Isolationism and protectionism were the prevailing public sentiment at many points in our nation's history; most strikingly in the years just prior to WWII.
If you mean the "conservatives" who support exclusion rather than inclusion...
Those are normally nothing but liberal codewords for the use of the race pimps and the leftwing propagandists. However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and read them in the best possible sense of the words.
The conservatives I know are Christians with a heart for people. They as a group do more for poor folks, and for immigrants, than any other group in our society...by miles and miles.
Does that mean that they then support illegal immigration, for example? Definitely not. Does their opposition to illegal immigration then violate some principle of 'inclusion' or 'exclusion' and then somehow make them jingoistic racists, as the use of such loaded terminology intimates? Not just no, but hell no!
...who see dialog with certain segments of the voters as "pandering"...
Well, then I'm guilty as charged. I think it absolutely is pandering as practiced these days by most of our cynical political class.
The truth is that 'true conservatives' have a better handle on color blindness than anyone...it is at the core of their worldview. People are people, and conservatives not only know it, but live it.
...and who raise ideology over people...
Hmmm. That is some pretty tricky rhetoric there, buddy. You could beat anyone who maintains any kind of ideological standard about the head and shoulders with it. Don't think I like your implications too much, and it raises questions, at least in my mind, about your debating methods.
...they haven't been any part of "the base" since Reagan raised the standard, and placed people ahead of ideology.
I will just add to the fact that I disagree with your definitions by saying that I also reject your view of history.
And lastly, if you define "conservatives" as they who would welcome electoral victories by Democrats in the name of advancing "conservative" principles, then I say to you that they are truly NOT the base of the Party.
That would not be the case with 99% of conservatives, and in the 1% of those who say such things, that is mostly just frustration producing intemperate words.
The base of anything must, by definition, be that which supports and stabilizes it...
Hence my initial statement: Conservatives make up the base of the GOP. Overwhelmingly.