The Fastest Fall: On the Need for the Conservatives To Get Their Game Together – Soon

The Richmond [VA] Times-Dispatch ^ | October 13, 2005 | Ross Mackenzie

[quidnunc]

Try this for a picture:

The nation with a President whose Investor's Business Daily Leadership Index stands at 41, a 9-point plunge since August; Republicans, who during his presidency have rated him as high as 95, now rate him at only 79. Declining support for the American presence in Iraq. Deficit spending at record levels, with more to come for Katrina recovery. Gasoline at $3 per gallon, and big jitters over the prospect of winter heating bills double those of just a year ago.

-snip-

So what is it about this, perhaps the fastest fall in presidential approval?

The ideologization of the right.

For decades, a conservative ideology — a set of "correct" beliefs forming a lens through which one views reality — did not exist. The conservative movement, such as it was, contained former Communists and anti-Communists, free marketers and compassionists and private-sector welfarists; unionists (Ronald Reagan's "hardhats") and those driven by a commitment to the Taft-Hartley Law's section 14-B; Burkeans, traditionalists, libertarians, religionists, and believers in living one's life according to an individualized secular virtue; neo-con refugees from the liberal swamp.

The conservative umbrella kept the rain off all these disparates; the conservative tent had room for just about anyone.

Conservatives took over the Republican Party and drove it to political power. On their way to consolidating power, two things happened. (1) They demonstrated time and again that they were not particularly good at government — that in many ways they don't do the governing thing well, often not so well as liberal Democrats. (2) They coalesced around a set of views and values one generally had to embrace in order to have one's claim of allegiance to the conservative flag accepted.

-snip-

[jpsb]

"Let me see if I got this straight."

I think you've got it, conservative MUST abandon conservative principle and morph into Bill Clinton new Democrats in order for the GOP to remain in power. Are you looking for your cocoon suit yet? LOL, I guess I'll just have to get used to being a 2 percenter dinosaur.

[jpsb]

"The power of hate"

LOL, Have you been reading your posts?

[jpsb]

"They did the same thing to the President's dad, and gave the leadership of this country to the Clintons. "

No we held our nose and voted GOP, 41 lost because of media/Rat electioneering and indicted Cap Weberger (i think) a few days before the election, that scared the soccer moms (not conservatives) into voting Clinton. Also there was the reform party with got very very few conservative votes. In short the only support 41 got was CONSERVATIVE! idiot.

[Little Ray]

Ownership society = the gub'mint owns everything. Hmmm. I remember a name for that, but I just can't recall it...

[jpsb]

This is really a funny thread, seems once must adopt communism / socialism to be a conservative now. LOL. Who'da ever thunk it! Bots never fail to provide first class comedy.

[JeffersonRepublic.com]

"reform party with got very very few conservative votes. In short the only support 41 got was CONSERVATIVE! idiot."

Perot got ~19% of the vote, and the Reform party ran a conservative campaign which is one of the reason Pat Buchanan join his party. Perot snipe off conservative voters who were upset with issues like trade, deficits and national debt.

If you would take the time to look at the '92 Reform Party platform, you will see that they were a Conservative challenge to the Republican party... And you wouldn't have to use the brilliant debate strategy of calling me an "idiot".

[jpsb]

Did you watch the nafta debate? Most democrats voted against it, most repubs voted for it. If anything the reform party sucked more D votes then R votes.

Yall trying to blame Bill Clinton on coversatives is a damn falsehood.

[Sam Cree]

"Question: Where would George be without the war???"

In the catbird seat?

Although seriesly, I think the war is unavoidable regardless of who is president. The choice is only in how to fight it, narrowly against Al Qaeda specifically, or against Islamic terror in general as Bush seems to favor.

[Sam Cree]

"The small-government model is fading and the model which advocates using government to move towards desirable, socially-conservative outcomes like the ownership society is in the ascendency."

I agree, but it ought to be noted that the model which "advocates using government to move towards desirable, socially-conservative outcomes" is the same model which advocates using government to order and arrange society generally. It grew out of the French Revolution, it's name is Rationalism. It was the root of socialism and is the same model currently being used by the political arm of the American Left, the Democrat Party. This version of conservatism is the one where conservatives are pulled along into leftism, kicking, screaming and holding on for dear life, but still being pulled along. We can only be pulled along like that when we lose sight of that strong principle that keeps us in place, our foundation, limited government.

Yes, we can say that we will give up the notion of limited government because we will use government power for good and noble causes, but the Dems say the same thing. We shouldn't give government that power because someday, like in 3 years, someone else could be wielding it.

[Frank T]

"Just as conservatism evolved away from the isolationist, business-versus-labor model — leaving Pat Buchanan and his ilk floundering about in the political wilderness like beached whales — so too is conservatism evolving apace away from the small-government, libertarian model so dear to the hearts of Rush Limbaugh and his acolytes...Bush has recognized this and has parlayed it into two presidential terms."

It is that "small government libertarian" fusionist coalition that propelled the conservative movement. And which GWB has squandered and rendered useless. Bush got a conservative inheritance. He did not blaze any trails.

And if you are foolish enough to believe that simply holding political power is what is needed, why did so many people leave the old Big Government/Dem coalition? If it's the same thing all over again with the Republicans, why have so many been used and betrayed?

Getting the Dems out is not enough. What needs to happen is: REFORM. If the GOP cannot deliver on this, then THAT's why the conservative coalition will desolve. NOT because of calls for ideological purity.

[Frank T]

"Pragmatic Conservatism Is The Only Way for a Long Lasting Conservative Majority."

Pragmatic Big Government Welfarism Is The Only Way for a Long Lasting "Conservative Majority."

There, I fixed it for you.

RINO.

[Frank T]

"No, it means that in order to be a successful politician you have to walk the line between a lot of competing interests, and it's usually not possible to eget everything you want. So the choice is between compromising in such a way as to advance your agenda a little at a time, or howling the cant of your pure ideology in the political wilderness while the othere guy advances HIS agenda."

You've got this all wrong.

The problem facing conservatives, after 5 years of GWB (and four of the other Bush) isn't about not getting everything, but about getting nothing. None of the big items on the conservative agenda, anyways, and that includes proper judicial nominations for the high courts.

After witnessing this administration, we are not seeing some sort of "conservative gramscian" movement (positive movement). Nor are we at a standstill (no movement). What it looks like is that we are going backwards (negative movement). Conservatives might be mollified with no movement. But:

1) regressing on the federal role in education?
2) adding an entitlement the size of the federal retirement pensions?
3) surrendering to opposition calls against Federalist society-type judges?
4) federal spending out of control? Worse than any Democrat would, or could, do?
5) rapidly increasing deficits and debt?

GWB is essentially a Democrat in action, with the backing of "ideological" conservatives.

If we are going backwards to such an extent, then how on earth can you suggest we are incrementally increasing conservatism? Either you are blind, or you are lying.

Now, if you are truly interested in seeing incremental gains, the solution is to go "ideological." Have the party run on a clear agenda of reform. Some elections we will win. Other times we will not. But more often than not, we will win. And because of that ratio (winning more than losing), once conservatives do get in office and work hard at implementing reforms, real progress will be made.

The answer IS NOT to have Republicans in office 80% of the time, just to implement big government style laws and spending 90% of that time, with the other 10% spent on mollifying the base. That is the recipe for regression.

Accept that conservatism will not win 100% of the time, and you will wind up with advancing the main agenda points in the long haul. Clamouring for all the power all the time guarantees we will lose the battle to save the Republic.

[Frank T]

"If the ultra conservative ideologists want to leave so be it. It happened before when the Buchananite wing of the Republican party left or was kicked out, and since then the GOP has won the Congress and state governorship since 1994 then the White House in 2000 and 2004."

Now, you are talking like one of those looney liberals. It was the scary "ultra conservative ideologists" who ran - and won - in '94. It is the base thinking they are voting in "ultra conservative ideologists" that has kept the GOP in power. And it is the base, as they are seeing before their very eyes the reality of the party now, who will take it out of power.

Get in the back of the bus, RINO. All you are good for is a vote, not charting the direction and driving forward.

[Frank T]

"Pragmatism is to reach your goal without the need to bloody idealogical battles that will lead to defeat in many cases and alienate a large portion of the electorate."

So what? About half the electorate doesn't show up every four years.

If given the choice between the French Revolution (Progressive Dems) and American Revolution (Conservative Republicans) is too polarizing and "extremist" for a large portion of the electorate, that's THEIR problem.

Truth is, these extremists will decide what direction we wind up in, in the long term. Left or Right. One of the other. To cede "extremism" to the Dems, in an attempt to embrace some sort of middle of the road, big government, welfarism means precisely to cede the fight and wind up Left, down the line.

The Left will never give up. Neither will we. The mushy middle can pick sides, or just sit it out.

[Frank T]

"The small-government model is fading and the model which advocates using government to move towards desirable, socially-conservative outcomes like the ownershio society is in the ascendency."

Ownership society is small government, NOT socially conservative.

You really have not clue, do you?

[Frank T]

Then why the hell are you on the Free Republic website?

[Frank T]

"I left the Republican Party when Big George pointed us toward the New World Order...And I'm proud of it...And, as I said, without our vote, Kerry would be running the show right now..."

Well, if I can take the liberty to speak for the jveritas's and quidnunc's - the RINO branch of the party, if you will - I'll respond with these two nuggets of enlightenment:

1) The GOP is going so great now, ever since '94! We don't need you vast extreme frothing Right wingers! We have the votes!

2) But, but... (insert sad, mopey face), if you leeeave us, that means bad bad men like Al Gore or John F. Kerry would be president. How can you do that?? You don't want to be responsible for that do yoooouuu??

[Frank T]

"How about a mature adult mind that realized they will never find perfection in life? The thinking person understands that in any group interaction the individual must accept not everything can be ordered to their own personal choice."

Really? Then why not just vote Democrat, if you are not voting for what you are looking for?

[Frank T]

"I’m not going to let the democrats take over the leadership of this country because a hand full of pencil pushers didn’t get their way over a Supreme Court nomination. There are not a lot of “Pat Buchanan Republicans” out their, yet"

Strawman argument.

Since when are small government, libertarian, traditionalist, socially conservative types "Buchanan Republicans"?

He's pro-labor, pro-government activism...essentially a Copperhead Democrat. No one's bringing him up, but YOU.

[jveritas]

You are an arrogant guy. First I am more conservative than you are but one who knows how to win and not a nut case Buchananite who could not get more than 1% of the vote.