Conservatives Need to Get Real

The Intellectual Conservative ^ | 02 February 2004 | Scott Shore

[hilaryrhymeswithrich]

Fellow Loyola Alum here.......can't believe that another conservative managed to make it through all that liberal brainwashing....you sure you're not from DU????

[onyx]

If that's true, then you'll come around when you are faced with choosing between the democrat and President Bush. This election is too damn important to vote otherwise.

[George W. Bush]

Of course, because the goal of 'winning back the Senate' just wasn't enough. Let's say I go in and blindly vote straight Republican ticket in November. No thought, just the blind pulling down of a lever based on the alphabet. We get all Republicans nationwide to do that and you get your 60 seat majority.

It would take at least 65, probably 70. There would be inevitable defectors (Jeffords) and crossover votes.

We'd need a stronger House, supermajority in the Senate and the White House. Oh, yeah. And the will to use them.

[Jim Cane]

A sunset of the AWB.

To be fair, Bush never promised to sunset AWB. And knowing that, I still voted for him. But you pile on all the other straws, and joe camel's gotta serious date with the chiropracter.

[hilaryrhymeswithrich]

Well said! And it made me giggle too!

THE POINT OF AN ELECTION IS TO CHOOSE AMONG THOSE RUNNING

Sitting it out is a cowardly choice, not a pricipled one.

[Miss Marple]

Both the education bill and the prescription drug bill were campaign promises he made. Apparently you weren't paying attention.

[livius]

If it's of any interest, I happened to hear a radio host on a local conservative call-in show complaining today that people (mostly of the libertarian ilk) had suddnely started calling him a "lefty" or a "socialist." He's your basic Republican, from what I can judge by listening to him, and certainly not left-wing in any way.

But a small contingent of the right seems to have kidnapped the word "conservative" and is now labelling anybody who doesn't agree with them 100% as a socialist. SOme of them are libertarians, some are one-issue conservatives (certain 2nd Amendment folks who seem to have forgotten that the Constitution has a number of other amendments, as well).

Unfortunately, they're a very shrill and vocal group, and they intimidate people who were actually foolishly expecting a rational discussion. And the REAL left has picked up on this and is using it for all it's worth.

[Wolfstar]

Thanks, Sloth, for your attempt. I genuinely appreciate it. On your point #1, I agree. However, the argument over a weak vs. a strong central government was lost as early as the administration of George Washington. It's true. Then, what vestiges of the federal system envisioned by the founders still existed in 1860 were wiped away with the Civil War.

From the moment the states ratified the Constitution, there has never been a day when the federal government has ceased to grow and gain more and more power. In our time, we cannot overturn more than 225 years of history. We can only argue on the margins of debates settled long ago.

Re your point #2, respect for the Constitution isn't good enough. What's needed is a solid understanding of the Constitution, the historical context in which it was written and ratified, an understanding of just how far we have deviated from the Jeffersonian model, and an understanding of how to try to apply that early Constitutional framework to the world in which we find ourselves today.

To run around saying, "I'm a real conservative, and you're not," and "I'm the one with principles, not you," is unproductive and self-defeating. There are as many "flavors" of conservatives as there are in any ideology. They are all real, but different issues motivate different people at different times.

The one overriding hallmark of conservatism is protection of the nation. It is that very, very conservative impulse which motivates those of us who intend to vote for President Bush. If these were ordinary times, I could have more sympathy for the arguments you and others make about spending, immigration, etc. But these most definitely are NOT ordinary times. That is the fault line between those folks who share your point of view and those who share mine. It has nothing whatsoever to do with who has or doesn't have "real" conservative principles, but who has the correct vision of how best to preserve this nation.

[hilaryrhymeswithrich]

I suppose your frequent chide of those who disagree with you being "unprincipled" is not name calling.

[onyx]

#108 --- Hear, hear! Excellent.

[G.Mason]

As upset at GWB as I get, there is absolutly no doubt whom I, and my family will be voting for.

That is a no brainer, and anyone here in Freeper Land that tells you different, isn't placing this country before their paltry little issues.

Quite frankly, all the postulating is utter stupidity, as there is no one electable running that will do more for this United States than George Walker Bush.

"The history of American politics is littered with bodies of people who took so pure a position that they had no clout at all."

[Wolfstar]

It has not stopped amazing me how morally superior these "real" conservatives are.

And condescending.

[George W. Bush]

If that's true, then you'll come around when you are faced with choosing between the democrat and President Bush. This election is too damn important to vote otherwise.

Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is irrational.

I gave him the benefit of the doubt in 2000. And look at the results.

I expect results that I want before I vote for more of the same. Or at least to get results that I don't hate. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't hate Bush. As CIC, he's just fine, some minor WMD quibbling aside. But these policies he and Rove got the Congress to enact are an entirely different matter.

In 2000, we could still hope for a surprisingly conservative agenda from him. Today, it's pretty hard to be that optimistic.

Partisan rants aren't persuasive except to other partisans. I suppose one might observe the same is true of principled rants.

[hilaryrhymeswithrich]

Ah, WE are conservatives, too. We just don't agree with your short-sighted, narrow-minded tunnel vision.


EVERTHING I HAVE BEEN THINKING IN ONE PITHY AND FABULOUS SENTENCE.

[onyx]

You'll come around.

[My2Cents]

What's needed is a solid understanding of the Constitution, the historical context in which it was written and ratified, an understanding of just how far we have deviated from the Jeffersonian model, and an understanding of how to try to apply that early Constitutional framework to the world in which we find ourselves today.

Very well-said.

[Wolfstar]

One who believes in reducing the size and scope of the present federal government to accord with it's Constitutionally enumerated powers.

This is a political fault line that is older than our Republic. While I am for the Jeffersonian vs. Hamiltonian vision, the fact of the matter is that Hamilton won the debate during the presidency of George Washington. What vestige was left by the mid-1860's was wiped away by the Civil War. Then Teddy Roosevelt made us an internationalist nation, the politicians of the Wilson era gave us the income tax and direct election of senators, and FDR gave us socialism — which the American public had a great appetite for and still does.

Result? The nation we are today is not the one bequeathed to us by the founders. So how do we overturn over two-and-a-quarter centuries of history?

[Howlin]

I'm sick to death of these sanctimonious posters trying to portray themselves as the only conservatives around here.

[hilaryrhymeswithrich]

I guess your being here two years sooner somehow means something to you.

I have not been here as long because I have been raising babies and have not had nearly as much time to be involved in my passions as I am able to be now.

[Wolfstar]

Thanks for letting me know about the radio host. In less dangerous times, I might think such behavior was silly. In these times, I think it's tantamount to suicide.