The coming conservative collapse

World Net Daily ^ | September 19, 2005 | Vox Day

[rob777]

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.




I am referring to its senior elected officials in D.C. The fact that most of the party's base is conservative is what causes me to favor a Goldwater style challenge to the senior leadership than a turn to a third party. We had Goldwater and his challenge to the old guard. That was followed up by Reagan's challenge and then Gingrich and the Class of 1994 House Freshmen. It is time for another internal party shake up. My choice to lead such an effort is Mike Pence.

[hedgetrimmer]

Why would you want to nominate a person who is a socialist in republican clothing? I don't get that.

[Protagoras]

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.

You must have been delighted when he signed the repeal of the first amendment and the forth amendments. And I'm sure thrilled when he not only signed, but PROPOSED the largest entitlement program since LBJ. Were you happy when he expanded the unconstitutional role of the federal government in education? How about his plan for the government takeover of private charities?

Were you happy when his administration bungled the best chance this country has ever had to privatize the SS Ponzi scheme? How about the imbecilic cave in to the liberals on taxes where his cuts are temporary and they get to raise taxes by a huge amount without even voting for tax increases in the next few years?

Happy with his silence as the SCOTUS repealed the right to private property in this country?

The list is actually longer, but I just wanted to stoke your thrill factor.

The liberal media can be counted on to attack anyone who isn't a Democrat even if he is giving them most of what they desire. But shame on the right for giving him and the "big tent" clowns in the Republican Party a pass on all this. Shame on them. Shame on them. Shame on them.

[RockinRight]

Pretty stupid statement since I never told you WHICH GOP candidate I intended to support...

Mike Pence or perhaps Tom Coburn.

[ottersnot]

WTF.

This Roberts confirmation appears to be a victory.
Heck, Gore and Kerry losing are huge blows.

Why all the whining, have we lost our will to fight back?

[PGalt]

The only thing collapsing will be The Democratic Crime Syndicate when they are voted into extinction.

[wardaddy]

BTTT pardner!

[sarasota]

Well that's just right on. Thanks for the insight and optimism among the naysayers/doomsdayers. Freerepublic seems to have gone to the dark side.

[sarasota]

Well that's just right on. Thanks for the insight and optimism among the naysayers/doomsdayers. Freerepublic seems to have gone to the dark side.

[sarasota]

I'm afraid there are already many "fallen" on this forum. Yet I still believe that most conservatives on the "outside" are steadfast.

[sarasota]

Say it loud and say it often: we have not lost the "will to fight"...at least I haven't.

[sarasota]

The USA isn't Britain or Canada.

[Wombat101]

Bad analogy since FDR was a dyed-in-the-wool socialist to begin with. It a quite common affliction of the very wealthy. His uncle (curiously enough, named Coolidge) was a member of the Fennian Society and wrote a book (the title now escapes me) on how socialism could be introduced to America. Had there not been a crippling economic crisis (Great Depression) one could make the argument that FDR would never have won the 1932 election.

Amazing how much the New Deal resembled that book. Even more amazing how much the New Deal resembled a Soviet Five Year Plan, as well. And the FDR socialist legacy remains, hugely enlarged by the other idiot LBJ.

PS Why is it that democratic presidents seem to only be remembered by their initials (not germaine to the topic, but interesting nonetheless)?

[rob777]

Bad analogy since FDR was a dyed-in-the-wool socialist to begin with. It a quite common affliction of the very wealthy. His uncle (curiously enough, named Coolidge) was a member of the Fennian Society and wrote a book (the title now escapes me) on how socialism could be introduced to America. Had there not been a crippling economic crisis (Great Depression) one could make the argument that FDR would never have won the 1932 election.



That may very well be, but he did not run as a socialist in 1932. The major planks of his platform were:

A "competitive" tariff designed for revenue, not for protection;

a "sound" currency, but no mention was made of adhering to the gold standard;

extensive banking and financial reform, including regulation of the stock exchanges;

support for veterans' pensions;

aid programs for farmers;

a reduction of federal expenditures and a balanced budget.

While not a pure free market platform, it was not a full blown socialist one either. His campaign was run more on an attitude of optimism, rather than a specific agenda. He strikes me more as a political opportunist, more than an ideologue.







Amazing how much the New Deal resembled that book. Even more amazing how much the New Deal resembled a Soviet Five Year Plan, as well. And the FDR socialist legacy remains, hugely enlarged by the other idiot LBJ.




All to true, but most of this was not spelled out in the campaign. It was later argued that the lurch to the left was needed to fend off the growing socialist movement and prevent America from embracing full blown communism. I do not think that FDR had much of an ideological compass, although he did surround himself with those that did. Be that as it may, the argument for political pragmatism contributed to the routing of the non socialist wing of the Dems by the socialist wing.

[Wombat101]

And while we're all at it, let's just take a serious look at just how one arrives at the faulty assumption of a "conservative collapse" in the first place.

If the author merely considers a change of tactics (giving just enough on the social side of things so as not to appear as ogres), then he's incredibly shortsighted. Bill Clinton leaned more right (at least in public) than Bush 43 has leaned left. All Bush has managed to do is to put a smiley face on conservatism, while his party alternately extolls it's virtues and throws them by the wayside simply because they have a safe majority for the foreseeable future.

If the author seriously believes that the democratic party can mount a serious challenge in the near future, he's on drugs. The democratic party is on the wane; it was obvious in the last election cycle when they fronted 9 candidates for the Presidential nomination whose main selling point was "I'm not Bush". None of the 9 even advanced anything resembling a platform or an initiative and none could answer a question without resorting to canned, pre-written and focus-grouped responses. A party that was a serious contender for national office would not have made it's surrender so obvious. The fact that Kerry managed to make it a close election (within 3%) speaks more to the polarization of society than it does to any democratic agenda.

If we consider Hillary a serious candidate (in that she might win) then we need a collective trip to the psychiatrist's couch. Hillary is an attractive candidate solely from the standpoint of the cult of personality that surrounds her. She has no experience (one term senator from New York? Give me a break!)and has, thus far, gotten a free ride. I say "free ride" because she hasn't had to stand for anything that isn't already an obvious choice. Once she has to start advancing an agenda, and when she gets called on it with specific questions of how that agenda will be implemented and how it will work, she'll sputter. Attacks upon her (lack of) character and mudslinging will not work and only make a martyr of her and backfire. She needs to be called on the carpet. If the democratic party can only put up a potential martyr in the coming cycle, they're dead.

Again, a party that can only produce such a rotten candidate cannot be taken seriously. There is no democratic challenge politically, only a PR offensive that can be momentarily successful. Should she win, she's a one termer, for sure, and that vicroy will probably be due more to a conservative/republican gaff than anything else.

The democratic "base" of the perpetually-dependant and the unions is no longer the threat it once was. Union membership is down. The black vote is shrinking by the day. The FDR-New-Deal-cult of the "Greatest Generation", the ones with an emotional attachment to Social Security, is dying. The ex-Hippies are now older and have families and assets to protect. The only constituency they can appeal to that might tip the balance is the Howard-Dean-tree-hugging-double-latte-pseudo-disaffected lot that is so looney that catering to them simply makes the rest of the party look worse than it is. Hitching their wagon to the Deaniacs merely speeds up the process of sinking.

Are the democrats going to kill us on issues? No. The only issues left to them are the tired rhetoric of race and class warfare, the war, and abortion. It's the same agenda that got Richard Nixon elected. Twice.

In the meantime, conservatism is on the march throughout the country. People continue to vote republican/conservative all over the country at the state and local level. More people identify themselves as religious or socially-conservative than at any other time. Home ownership and personal investment are at all-time highs. It all shows that conservatism is working for the greatest number of Americans.

Nope, conservatism is safe, so long as conservatives don't repeat the errors of the past and get so arrogant that they begin to sound and act like the leftists we all claim to hate so much. That means we cannot and should not lord our power over the others. We should be able to act in a pragmatic manner and compromise where necessary. We should not begin to believe that because we're winning at the ballot box that we can now do whatever we want to, when we want to.

Never mind a third party challenge for now. Any potentially-viable third party will require decades to establish itself at all levels before they can field credible candidates.

[Wombat101]

Maybe so, but it was the War that saved FDR's bacon and ended the Despression. I still hold that FDR was a closet commie.

[OKIEDOC]

Seems like a lot of so called Republicans are finding any excuse to bash Bush.

Damn, don't the Democrats have enough nitpicking and complaining with out many FReepers joining in the chorus.

I suspect that many who post that they have turned on Bush and will not vote Republican probably did not really vote for him in the beginning.

What other choice is there besides the Republican party.

The Democrats, Communists and others offer no alternative.

Count me in the party that will save America not destroy it with their radical membership.

[sarasota]

And I'm here to fight the fight, too. And I'm told there's somethig coming our way on freerepublic that will unite us. Those of us who are willing to get one with it, that is.

[rob777]

Nope, conservatism is safe, so long as conservatives don't repeat the errors of the past and get so arrogant that they begin to sound and act like the leftists we all claim to hate so much. That means we cannot and should not lord our power over the others. We should be able to act in a pragmatic manner and compromise where necessary. We should not begin to believe that because we're winning at the ballot box that we can now do whatever we want to, when we want to.





I would like to add one more warning. We should also be wary of the fact that the Dems have moved so far to the left that the GOP has ample room to move leftwards and still appear conservative by comparison. If the center of political debate moves leftwards, "conservative" political leaders have failed us. The factors which you have pointed out that show a bright future for conservatism are all the more reason why GOP leaders need not move leftward to win elections. That they do even if it is not necessary is a strong indication of weak leadership. It is easy and safe to move leftward to the area of the playing field that the Dems are vacating in their move even farther to the left. This may still bring electoral victories, but will not bring victory for conservatism. Now, it may very well be that conservatism will win anyway, due to the factors you site. If so, it will win despite the present political leadership, not because of it. By all means, let us remain hopeful, but let us also put the pressure on our political leaders to be more of an asset than a hindrance.








Never mind a third party challenge for now. Any potentially-viable third party will require decades to establish itself at all levels before they can field credible candidates.




You are right about the third party route. Been there, done that. We still need to have a Goldwater/Reagan style shake up of the party. (The "Contract With America" approach during the 1994 elections is also a good model to follow.)

[jjm2111]

I'm going to be voting LP from now on anyway. Bush was the last straw.