The coming conservative collapse

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

[meyer]

So is everyone going to jump ship and vote for the DemocRATS?

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.

[rob777]

Conservative's are far from perfect but they're better than the alternative.





Sure they are, but conservatives are not a majority. The GOP leadership is not very conservative. There are a few promising rising stars like Mike Pence on the horizon though.

[meyer]

Republicans need to get back to that message: fiscal responsibility, smaller government ... and hammer away at the Left/Socialist/Democrats.

We need Newt!

[jpsb]

Thew collapse has already occurred, GOP spends bigger then Democrats, industry is fleeing the USA and illegal are pouring in. It is over and we (conservatives) lost, sold out by the stupid party.

[meyer]

That is a poor analysis. The majority were scared of Democrats. Fear sells.

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.

[meyer]

Perot split Bush's vote and gave us Clinton's first term. I'll agree with you about Dole.

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.)

[rob777]

Where conservatism is failing, however, is in having to govern in a non-traditional (for conservatives) way (i.e. prescription drug benefits, increased education spending, increased social spending, etc). These are tactical retreats intended to make the conservative line more attractive to swing voters. This is what the author seems to have a problem with (i.e. Compassionate Conservatism). This is not what conservatism is, it's just the political enviornment it finds itself operating in these days.









Such "tactical retreats" are exactly what helped to morph Classical Liberalism into today's modern liberalism. Conservatism in America has a long lineage and its defining principle has always been limiting government to its proper role. It is now in danger of morphing into something else entirely. At least when Reagan made tactical retreats, he stuck to conservative principles in the use of his bully pulpit. With Bush, you have the spectacle of the leader of what the public views as the conservative party, adding his voice to the liberal argument about the relationship between poverty and race, the role of the federal government, etc.

[hedgetrimmer]

There are plenty of good conservatives in the GOP

Who've been told to never darken the door of the white house again.

A great and faithful conservative vied for the governorship in California, but guess who got the support of the party? An Austrian socialist.

[Wombat101]

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.

[k2blader]

You make a good point.

[Wombat101]

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.

[JSDude1]

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)!

[OKIEDOC]

Much dirt has been kicked into my face as a conservative but I am still breathing,much to the chagrin of radical liberals and the MSM.

Years ago i read a book by a fanatical liberal feminazi.

She stated the way feminists and abortionists would win the battle is to separate opposition into fighting groups.

The liberal race baiter's and their white enablers in the MSM are doing exactly that as we post.

I hope that many on this forum will not fall prey to these divisive tactics by the mentally ill radicals aimed at ripping our traditional beliefs to the four winds.

[California Patriot]

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.

[Wombat101]

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?

[Diva Betsy Ross]

Clownposse members are all over here too.. they are very good at disrupting. They love to brag about it even. In fact I would bet many of the Clownposee posters are the stormfornters. They should be given the boot.

[VictoryGal]

> 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.

[Tax-chick]

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.

[RockinRight]

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?

[rob777]

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.





This is true, but there was also the tactical retreat of pragmatic politicians. Most of the early gains for the socialistic agenda did not happen under the banner of true believers. Look at FDR, he initially ran on a platform of a limited federal government and then moved leftward to co-opt the American Socialist Party. Electorally, it was a victory for the Democrats. Ideologically, it was a turning point for the Democratic Party from an agenda that stood for a limit to federal power to one that pushed for an expansion of federal power. At the time it was rationalized as a necessary pragmatic step that would keep the country from embracing full blown communism in the wake of the Great Depression. As we now know, it was not a temporary tactical retreat, but a turning point which redefined the ideological direction of the Democratic Party.
I am concerned that we are seeing another such turning point where Bush and the GOP are moving left to co-opt the Dems and the left. Rather than a return to the principles of limited government, after a temporary tactical retreat, I see an ideological redefinition of conservatism. This started after the GOP backed off from its serious attempt to roll back the role of government by Newt Gingrich and the class of '94 House freshmen. When Clinton dug in, the resulting stand off ended in the government being shut down. That was the high water mark of the GOP's commitment to limited government. The resulting uproar caused the Senate GOP and elder House GOPers to back off from the whole notion of completing the "Reagan Revolution". By 2000, the GOP elite was in full retreat and Bush ran as a "Compassionate Conservative" who insisted that the GOP jettison such planks in its platform as abolishing the Dept. of Education. I see the current situation as part of an overall trend that has the GOP marching down a path which will lead them in the opposite direction than the one Goldwater, Reagan and Gingrich pointed the party towards. I'd love to be proven wrong, but see no evidence to change my mind.