Uniting the Conservative Movement

Brothers and sisters in arms within the conservative movement are dealing body blows to each other, and the four-decade surge conservatism had enjoyed is now suffering accordingly.

Until recently, the raucous sibling factions held their tongues and kept their political differences largely under wraps. But the disputes between the various factions of the conservative movement are becoming increasingly more public and counterproductive.

Sparring within a family isn't always a bad thing. In my own family, my brother, sister and I fought like bobcats chasing after a raccoon at midnight, but the rivalries were just as important a part of our family bonding as the more tender times we shared.

And should anyone from the outside take aim at one of us, you could count on us to watch each other's back and form a united front.

The different sibling sects of conservatism have much more in common than what divides us, although it's hard to remember that right now with the rank smell of cordite in the air from liberal attacks.

1) Economic conservatives who believe in free markets and reduced/limited government intervention and regulation.

2) Social conservatives who want to preserve a culture of Judeo-Christian values where the institution of family is cherished as the cocoon that nurtures our children with the values of decency, honesty, justice and compassion.

3) Cultural conservatives who are fighting to maintain an American identity based on democratic principles and the Melting Pot model that takes the best immigrants have to offer and making it part of the American ideal.

4) National security conservatives who helped propel the Reagan revolution with the cause of "Peace Through Strength." They are anti-communist, and non-appeasers who today advance a similar message as it relates to the threats from Islamofacism.

These four branches were not always united, and it took the ideological firepower of William F. Buckley to make the compelling case that conservatives needed to unite.

Despite noble attempts to keep these various conservative factions working together, such as the gatherings at the American Conservative Union's CPAC convention, the conservative movement is today in danger of a crackup.

For example, how is it that one of the basic tenets of conservatism, fiscal responsibility, could be the area our movement has most noticeably jumped the tracks?

After decades of liberal Democrat rule in Congress that showcased massive big-government spending and stifling tax increases, things were supposed to change with the 1990's political revolution that brought fiscally conservative Republicans to power.

But today's Republican members of Congress make the liberal Democrat drunken sailors of the past look sober by comparison.

What's worse is that the Bush White House has not only gone along with the program by refusing to veto congressional spending increases, but also helping to promote new big-government programs such as the prescription-drug plan fiasco and No Child Left Behind.

Meanwhile, the American identity is in danger of being hijacked by those who believe America should have no borders.

The La Raza crowd has taken to the streets demanding amnesty for those who break our laws and enter our nation illegally. And they believe that American taxpayers should provide them unlimited benefits.

For over 25 years, we have looked the other way when it came to securing our borders, just so corporations could enjoy a quick fix of cheap labor, even as the associated social-welfare costs bankrupted our communities.

What is most disturbing has been to watch as some conservatives are bowing to the threats of political retribution from the illegal-alien crowd. These spineless politicians are more concerned about the ramifications at the voting booth than the American principle of rule of law.

Constitutionalists and libertarians, who are abandoning the war on terrorism because they don't want to do any of the heavy lifting, must also share some of the blame for the fraying of conservatism.

When the government tried to crack down on the activities of terrorists already operating in the United States with the Patriot Act, civil libertarians screamed that this was George Orwell's "1984" Big Brother totalitarianism coming to control our lives.

Despite their predictions that private content on people's computers would be exposed or that government agents would be listening in to intimate chats with their sexual partners, there has not been a mass pattern of government misconduct and abuse. Except for those Middle Eastern members of Islamic Jihad who are here on expired visas – planning to bomb a nightclub in New York – these people have probably had their phones tapped.

The libertarians and constitutionalists have been little better in their stance on the war on terrorism on foreign shores. In spite of the incontrovertible evidence of Saddam Hussein's funding and harboring of terrorist organizations and the newly released evidence of additional ties between Iraq and al-Qaida, "conservative" opponents of the war effort have nonetheless continued their cries of protest against Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The National Libertarian Party website goes so far as to equate President Bush with Osama bin Laden. Unlike the Peace Through Strength model that many Libertarians supported in the Cold War, today the official Libertarian Party website says, "problems are solved by peaceful cooperation." Unless of course the people you are supposed to be cooperating with wish to behead you and blow up the school your children attend.

If you are going to have a values-neutral approach that equates terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism with the democratic freedoms of the West, then you will never have anything worth preserving or defending.

We can't deny that it's hot, sticky and steamy under the Big Tent of conservatism these days. Tempers are flaring, and a lot of people are smokin' mad.

But we've got to find a way to reach a broad consensus on how to move the conservative agenda forward.

On Sept. 11, 1960, conservative leaders brainstormed at William F Buckley Jr.'s estate in Sharon, Conn. The end result was pure genius in the form of a document called the "Sharon Statement," which outlined the core principles of a new conservative movement that would lead to the formation of Young Americans for Freedom.

The "Sharon Statement" outlined the conservative principles that would guide a generation of activists. Those campus activists grew up and captured the attention of a nation for their ideas and beliefs that eventually led to conservative electoral success.

Ronald Reagan's presidency provided a Shining City on a Hill that these disparate conservative groups could together take shelter in.

Now it's time for a new "Sharon Statement." The grown-ups in the conservative movement can put an end to the circular gunfire, and sketch out a path for America's future. Instead of shooting at each other, let's start taking aim at the banshees on the Left like Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Al Franken, Chuckie Schumer and Howard Dean.

If we don't get our acts together, these raccoons will be running the country. Isn't it time our family of bobcats worked out our differences to make sure this never happens?

Melanie Morgan is chairman of the conservative, pro-troop non-profit organization Move America Forward and is co-host of the "Lee Rodgers & Melanie Morgan Show" on KSFO 560 AM in San Francisco.

"There is a large, and growing, difference between the two. "

Thank you for saying that.

A lot of people confuse the two. That was the other thing that Melanie gets a lot. She'll talk about the conservative movement and people will talk about the Republican Party.

The Republican Party has certainly been the party that advanced conservatism in recent times, but it's the party straying from certain conservative principles that is part of the crackup in the conservative movement right now.

Wrong.

REPUBLICANS have no clue.

And that's because 'Republicans' can be anything from a pro choice, gun grabbing, tax and spend, big government liberal to a pro life, pro gun, small government conservative. It's now wonder we can't 'hold' power. We constantly are fighting the ideas of our liberal counterparts and they are within the party.

The GOP will never gain and retain power with such an identity crisis. A party divided cannot stand.

When people get disgusted with their party, in this case the GOP, sometimes they go third party. Most of the time they just drop out altogether because they cannot and will not abide the left wing of the party.

They will not support pro choice candidates or the party that supports them.

They will not support gun grabbers or the party that supports them.

They will not support tax and spend liberals and the party that supports them.

Are you seeing a trend here?

You may be one that disparages 'single issue' voters, but a lot of people have lines that must not be crossed. When they have nowhere to turn, they turn away totally. Again, you may be one of those who disparages that reaction too, but people of principle should never be taken lightly.

A renewed GOP centered on Constitutional principles without pandering, without special favors for certain groups, with respect for freedom, without its hands in the pockets of taxpayers would be larger than the current GOP, and stronger. Such a party would retain power for generations to come.

The Libertarian Party is not conservative. It's for liberals who are ashamed of the Democrats.

That message brought to you by a Republican Party hack who is afraid of liberty and the things that people do that he doesn't approve of, even when it doesn't effect him or anyone else. (One of which is voting for anyone other than a Republican no matter the person's beliefs, just as long as the person is an "R".)

Great way to put it.

And for too long the GOP has bought into the big tent theory whereby anyone could be part of the party until it became only about winning, not about solid principles.

The party that will stand for anything, in fact stands for nothing.

That message brought to you by a Republican Party hack who is afraid of liberty and the things that people do that he doesn't approve of, even when it doesn't effect him or anyone else.

Let me translate this for the lurkers:

Badray belongs to the party of sex, drugs, n'rock n' roll.

If some of your "family" members try to destroy the family by sharing the goals of the enemy (open borders and big spending socialism, abortion on demand, gay marriage, removal of God from the public space), then it's time to remove them from the family.

Sorry, you forgot a few.

A renewed GOP centered on Constitutional principles without pandering, without special favors for certain groups, with respect for freedom, without its hands in the pockets of taxpayers would be larger than the current GOP, and stronger. Such a party would retain power for generations to come.

And IF I had born a Rockerfeller - I wouldn't have to worry about my bills.

If pigs had wings they could fly.

The reality is - this is and always will be a two-party system. If we don't elect Republicans, then Democrats will win - its that simple.

I know there are conservatives who feel that letting the dems win will galvanize conservatives to turn the Republican Party towards the right.

What they don't realize is the terrible irreversible damage the dems would do to our nation in the interim.

The other thing that many do not realize is that only about 1/3 of Americans consider themselves to be conservative. There is no way that 1/3 will ever be able to outweigh the other 2/3s. The farther to the right we pull the Republican Party - the more voters we'll push into the Democratic Party. Not a good thing in my book.

Let me translate this for the lurkers: Badray belongs to the party of sex, drugs, n'rock n' roll.

LOL

For your information, I am a Republican who is solidly in the right wing of the Party. Ever hear of the Republican Assembly? I know, you hate them too, right?

I am a Christian who loves sex, likes rock and roll but prefers the big bands of the 40s and 50s, but I rarely even take prescribed medicines and won't take so called recrational drugs. I am pro life, pro gun, and want low taxes and small government that stays within its constitutional bounds.

But in your eyes, I'm a terrible person because I don't kiss Republican ass or worship the Party.

LOL

I love your inconsistency. In your post right above the one that I am replying to, you point out that there are those who should be excised from the party. But when I say the same thing, I'm the one who is dividing the party.

You are such an ass.

BTW, exactly which of the things that I outlined are you having a problem with? Do you think that a party should stand for certain things and against others? Or don't principles matter? Take a pick. We cannot be take all sides of an issue and expect success.

P.S. Personally I'm less interested in the health of the Republican Party than I am in the health of the conservative movement.

If the GOP ceases to be the party that advances conservative beliefs then what should I care about it's success?

So, whatever it takes to get the GOP back on track on certain issues such as federal spending, growth of government, illegal immigration, etc... is fine with me. Because in the end I want the GOP to be a conservative party or else it will no longer be the party I identify with.

Instead of "Hot Talk", the column should be "Hot Air." This sentence:

Brothers and sisters in arms within the conservative movement are dealing body blows to each other,

is demonstrably wrong. Brothers and sisters in arms within the conservative movement are, despite disagreement over individual issues, united. The problem is that the Republican party has been taken over by "compassionate conservatives", i.e., not-conservatives. The body blows are between conservatives and socialist statists.

Instead of shooting at each other, let's start taking aim at the banshees on the Left like Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Al Franken, Chuckie Schumer and Howard Dean.

The premise is flawed.

Out-of control government is the enemy, not the democrats.

Did I advocate a third party?

I only said that the party should take one side of an issue.

How does taking both sides of an argument advance your principle?

An example:

The GOP, in all of its many manifestations, whole heartedly supported pro abortion Arlen Specter when he was challenged by conservative, pro life Congressman Pat Toomey. Even 'pro life' Rick Santorum supported Specter.

Fast forward to Rick's race right now. The GOP is blasting his presumed Democrat candidate for not being pro life ENOUGH!

Do you see any inconsistency?

They support a pro abortionist, but condemn a pro life opponent for not supporting life ENOUGH!

Even if that escapes you, it hasn't escaped the attention of lots of pro life Republicans.

The GOP doesn't give a damn about what you believe as long as you support them with your money and votes. All they (or the DNC) want is power. Talk of principles are just the buttons that they push to open your wallet.

Do you really think that they care about what you think when they send those 'exclusive' surveys (that probably most people get)? No, they are just finding out what your hot buttons are so they can send you the appropriate fund raising letter with the red meat that will get you to give them money.

What are you smoking?

Or did you misplace your reading glasses.

I am a Republican.

I didn't advocate a third party here, did I?

I jsut refuse to vote for someone just because they are in the same party as I am. Is that so hard to understand?

I guess for you, it is. Sorry to have troubled you.

You need only read this thread to realize Ms. Morgan's statement was spot-on correct.

You're statement about the Republican Party and statists is further proof of this. My guess is that your "perfect world" outcome and the "perfect world" outcome of these Republican "statists" would be very similar.

But instead of taking the fight to those who have a very different view than you, you take the fight to those who largely agree with you.

The solution is to find a way to achieve unity where we DO agree. We expect the Sunni's, Shites and Kurds to do it in Iraq, yet conservatives are making little effort to do so here at home.

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.