One of the problems with free enterprise, and the understanding of it these days, is the rush to globalization. I am in the vast minority that disagrees with globalization. I do not see 600 billion dollar trade deficits as a plus for our nation or it's citizens. I do not approve of the WTO, NAFTA, the ICC or the proposed FTAA. I see them as encroachments.
I do support free enterprise within sovereign nations. I also favor reasoned international trade. But in the extreme internationalist version, you can't have free enterprise unless you surrender sovereignty. That process is well entrenched at this time. It's about to get a lot worse.
I agree with the premise you raised. I do however recognize that we may disagree on what I've said to this point. I believe that internal free enterprise and moral behavior are integral to the well being of our nation. I do believe the issues regarding free enterprise have become more complex over the last decade. As for moral behavior, it's a tough sell these days with all the cultural conflicts.
I recognize that we have a small minority of moderates who support the things you mentioned. They are not conservatives. Yes, some they think they are. I must admit, I view them as disrupters. Their views are in some instances identical to the groups we disagree with the most. I have no idea why they remain here, except for reasons that cannot be related to advancing conservatism.
Well, when it comes to the enviro folks, it's like trying to explain to someone that children need limits. They either get it or they don't.
While I do agree with the idea that there is division among the Republican ranks, I'm probably not as convinced as you, that the divisions are as pronounced. I believe that for whatever reason, there is a contingent on this forum that is here for reasons that do not relate to conservatism.
I believe that the other side is smart enough to realize that the best way to defeat conservatism, is to enter it's ranks and foster confusion and dissension. I also recognize that there are not infrequently instances when we do it to ourselves.
I try never to be a part of that, but well meaning people are not always correct. We can only do the best we can and hope we get it right more often than not.
You see globalization as a consequence of free enterprise. I don't. I see globalization as a consequence of differential regulation often foisted by political means in order to make extranational investments profitable. Further, I see American owned assets within sovereign foreign nations enjoying the substantial subsidy of American military protection. In both cases, the taxpayer is either penalizing domestic investment or subsidizing investment overseas. Tax policy adds substantially to that set of effects.
But in the extreme internationalist version, you can't have free enterprise unless you surrender sovereignty.
You would need to read my book on that one. You know that I am an advocate of national sovereignty and controlled borders, else the inability to effect laws within those borders renders representative goverment meaningless.
I recognize that we have a small minority of moderates who support the things you mentioned. They are not conservatives. Yes, some they think they are.
Small? If so, they are extremely vocal. I agree that they think that they are conservatives, but when one examines the consequences of social policy, the claim to be both a social moderate and fiscal conservative is simply ingorant.
Well, when it comes to the enviro folks, it's like trying to explain to someone that children need limits. They either get it or they don't.
I don't think that's the point. They don't understand the power of private property and free enterprise to manage the complexity of environmental problems.
I believe that for whatever reason, there is a contingent on this forum that is here for reasons that do not relate to conservatism.
Lower taxes and strong military defense. Me, me, me...
I believe that the other side is smart enough to realize that the best way to defeat conservatism, is to enter it's ranks and foster confusion and dissension. I also recognize that there are not infrequently instances when we do it to ourselves.
This is a might presumptuous. It presupposes the ability to make an objective judgment of the distinction. I would go into detail, but it would involve mention and discussion of the attributes of specific FReepers, which I won't do.
I try never to be a part of that, but well meaning people are not always correct.
Then you fell in with the wrong crowd during the recall, D1. Personally, I beilieve that the incessant (and frankly, vicious) attack McClintock suffered at this website, was enough to convince the staffers of elected Republican Party legislators and officials that conservatives could be cowed into supporting Arnold. It was the focus of the tipping point when McClintock had risen from 4 to 12 points in two weeks while Arnold had dropped somewhat. The resulting endorsements of Chris Cox etc. were then enough to sink McClintock's effort. I have a few acquaintences in Sacramento who have admitted to me that what happens here is influential. Admittedly, when Tom accepted that tribal donation, it supplied his enemies with ammunition. If the conservatives who supported him weren't such skinflints and had sent him $20 apiece, it wouldn't have happened.
To this day, I believe that had people voted their preference for governor rather than their fear of Bustamante, Tom would have won that election. There were internal polls in the campaigns that strongly so indicate. If you liked that table I posted above, you should know that I will eventually get the data on one that proves that point. This isn't about spilled milk or sour grapes; it's about teaching FReepers that voting your convictions and supporting others in doing so can win elections. We have more power than we realize.
Another example of disruption from supposed conservatives is what happened to Bill Simon here on FR. It was ugly. Frankly, I had my problems with both Simon's detractors and his paid help operating on this website, which is supposed to be about grassroots activism. I believe that there are more paid operatives here than we realize.
C'est la guerre.