Posted on 09/19/2005 8:10:32 AM PDT by Mikey
The turn of the century was supposed to be the triumph of the conservatives. From the dark era of the Democrat-dominated '60s and '70s, conservatives began their protracted march toward electoral power, culminating finally in the long-awaited capture of all three branches of the federal government. The Reagan Revolution was finally to be realized in earnest!
But just as most Republican Supreme Court nominees have turned out to be treacherous supporters of big government – activist liberals in disguise – their legislative- and executive-branch colleagues likewise revealed themselves to be every bit as unfaithful to conservative principles of small government and individual freedom. As is all too often the case, conservative success carried within it the seeds of its own demise.
President Bush's recent speech on his administration's planned long-term response to Hurricane Katrina marked an interesting point in the continued devolution of American conservatism. Whereas his first five years had previously been a strange combination of strategic Wilsonian foreign policy and tactical Keynesian domestic policy, the president managed to make it abundantly clear that in domestic terms, his presidential guiding light is Lyndon Baines Johnson, not Ronald Wilson Reagan.
Real conservatives now understand they have been betrayed – badly – by this fraudulent man. Compassionate conservatism, as it turns out, is simply another name for Great Society liberalism, and not even the Texas swagger is original. Genuinely conservative Republicans are dismayed by the president's unveiling of his core liberalism and rightly fear for the future of a party which has likely seen its high-water mark already.
But nothing dissuades the Three Monkeys from screeching and howling their enthusiasm for their Dear Leader's every action. They have redefined conservatism to be the actions of one known as a conservative, so the individual is no longer defined by his ideology, the ideology is defined by the individual.
Consider radio host and former WND columnist Hugh Hewitt's take on the president's speech:
My acquaintances at the nation's leading "conservative" blog, Powerline, agreed:
Unfortunately, celebrating the realization of that which one opposes is the predictable end result of pragmatism, which is nothing more than a euphemism for the slow sacrifice of one's principles. Longtime readers may recall that I wrote the following in 2003:
As I feared, that tide has continued to rise under the aegis of a Republican House, Senate, presidency and Supreme Court. So, are there truly no conservatives left in the Republican Party today? Or is the determination to see, hear and speak no evil about the present gang of Republican charlatans in office based on a fear of giving aid and comfort to Hillary Clinton in 2008?
In either case, it is apparent that mainstream politics in America has been reduced to a Seinfeldian sport wherein voters are simply rooting for laundry.
Since the Republican Party has dedicated itself to racing its Democratic rivals in offering more bread and circuses to the underprivileged masses, there is no longer any reason for conservatives to support it. Disenchanted and dismayed Republicans will do well to remember these pragmatic betrayals of conservative principle when The Most Important Election of Our Lifetime rolls around again three years from now.
Vox Day is a novelist and Christian libertarian. He is a member of the SFWA, Mensa and the Southern Baptist church, and has been down with Madden since 1992. Visit his Web log, Vox Popoli, for daily commentary and responses to reader email.
I suspect that a lot of people just won't bother voting. I mean, why bother voting for a conservative when they do the same thing as the liberals? We need to undo the damage that FDR and Johnson did to this country, not embrace it.
We need Newt!
That was a portion of my reasoning in voting for Dubya. I don't think he's a terrible President, and I believe that he's been unfairly judged and maligned by the press, but for fiscal issues, he's been anything but conservative. And being an above-average taxpayer, I really don't like that.
Sadly, I believe that Dole would have been a very good leader. Boring? Perhaps. But respectable and cut of a much higher cloth than his opponent (though I understand that it isn't hard to be "of higher cloth" than Clinton.)
Actually, modern "liberalism" morphed into what it is now due to the influx of radical communists and socialists who entered the fray via the Gramscian principle: when you can't get elected, invade the institutions (academia, media, social services) and subvert the system from within. Once they had subverted enough they were able to get elected.
There is hardly anything "liberal" about these folks anymore, if we're talking the classical liberalism of free markets,property rights and equality under the law.
As for modern conservatives,they can only operate while espousing supposed "liberal" themes on the social side of the ledger. If they're smart (like Bush has been) they are able to present a conservative package in liberal wrapping. That is a tactical retreat. However, conservative gains have still been made in this way.
And with changing demographics tending the conservative way, conservatism can only continue to move forward, but in fits and starts rather than in a great leap forward. The "impending doom" of the conservative party can only come from within, and it will come from those conservatives who openly criticise that the very people they elected are "not conservative enough" or not responding to thier issues quickly enough (destroy Roe RIGHT NOW!). Self-immolation is a conservative specialty, especially in the second term of a republican presidency.
Want conservatism unaffected by other political concerns? Then be prepared to see conservatives out of power for quite some time. What we need is pragmatism and honesty, not complaining.
You make a good point.
PS - with regards to your "The GOP leadership is not very conservative" it's quite commonly known that 2/3 of the party delegates are staunch conservatives. Hence all the nonsense during primary season about "shoring up the right".
This is the 2/3 of the republican party that sets the agenda and controls the money.
Thats exactly what I have been saying for YEARS: the best (only) way that a 3rd party (Conservative or other) will make a difference in the United States electoral system is for them first to become a local, then state, regional power first, then they can spread from there once they have a few peole elected from a region/state and then become national in scope. Its foolish for 3rd parties to focus soley on national elections in the USA because they will never (I don't think) win that way and will only become spoilers at best (unless their goal is not to win, and only to be an single or two issue oriented party, then they really just want to influence policy, then that strategy is fine)!
There is some truth in what the guy says, but he says it so bitterly and simplistically that he undermines his credibility. "Vox Day" and Joe Farah are losers who deserve each other.
PPSS - I'll be proven well and truly wrong about that 2/3 number when Rudy Guiliani, with his pro-choice stance, takes the nomination for '08. Anyone want to take a bet on whether this happens or not?
> I would love to see the US move to a parlimentary system in the House.
That's an interesting concept, although probably not doable at this time in our history.
Anybody have any idea as to what would work to help turn our spendthrift Rs back to the conservative fiscal path? So far, I only think that blackmail (credibly threating to not vote at all or vote for a 3rd party candidate) is the only thing that will make them pay attention to us. But I'd be happy to entertain ANY other ideas.
Good summary. I think I remember, vaguely - it's been a long day! - that the Republican Party took over the former Whig Party from the top, when a preponderance of the leading politicians at the Congressional and Governor levels decided the Whigs were a losing team.
I suppose we've hoped the same thing would happen to today's Republicans: the party taken over and recast as Constitutionally conservative. Hasn't happened yet, but it's still possible.
So voting for a third-party that gets .1% of the vote is better than supporting a GOP candidate that has at least a CHANCE of getting the nomination? Even McClintock got well into the double digits in the CA gubernatorial election! Has a CP candidate ever done that?
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.