Why Conservatives Lost

Election Day is over, the votes have been counted, and it's clear that conservatives took a beating. I have always maintained that Christian leaders should not make partisan endorsements — and I never have. But I am unashamed to say that I am a conservative.

In one sense, I think, all Bible-believers are conservative, because we believe in governing our lives by revealed truth rather than by man-made, utopian ideologies. Modern liberalism wants to remove all restraints on people's behavior. Conservatives believe in the moral law. So Bible - believers might be liberal on a lot of issues, at least in the common sense of that word, like helping the poor, but they would be fundamentally conservative in their disposition toward life.

House Democratic Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., rejoices with House and Senate leaders as the Democratic Party takes control of the House of Represetatives at an election-night rally at the Hyatt Regency Hotel on Capitol Hill in Washington Tuesday, Nov. 7, 2006. Pelosi is regarded as first in line to become the next speaker of the house. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) So, what happened in Tuesday's election? The economy is strong. And it's true we're in an unpopular war, but people vote their pocketbooks most often. Yet the conservative movement, which had been gaining ground, has blown it. It has been defeated. Why?

The answer is one that may startle you. Conservatives lost because they deserved to. They failed to live up to the high standards of personal behavior they preach about. And that's what brought them down.

Is there a double standard here? Why should the case of Mark Foley have helped bring down the Republicans? After all, twenty years ago a Democratic congressman, Gerry Studds, had an affair with a male page, disclosed that he was a homosexual, got his wrist slapped by the House, and then got re - elected! Why has Foley's indiscretion turned into Foley-gate?

The answer is because it's just the tip of the iceberg. Look at how the conservatives for years railed against the Democratic liberal establishment and all of its money, the lobbying establishment, the junkets, the payoffs. The conservatives campaigned against it in 1994, only to take over Washington and do exactly the same thing. This is what is known as rank hypocrisy.

Is it unfair that when conservatives do things liberals do, that they, the conservatives, are labeled as hypocrites? No.

According to that great conservative thinker Russell Kirk, the first tenet of conservatism is the preservation of the moral order. True conservatives don't look at government as a plaything by which they can impose their latest ideas on the country; they look at political power as a guardianship, what Chesterton called the democracy of the dead. In other words, we have a debt to those who have gone before us, and the primary debt is to preserve the moral and constitutional order that our forebears fought to defend.

So when a conservative has a much - publicized affair or is outed for improper sexual behavior with pages, or digs into the congressional budget pot to hand out earmarks to his own district, he is a hypocrite to be scorned.

My hope and prayer is that conservatives in America will do some serious, sober soul - searching. We need to get our own act together before we can preach to others, or before we deserve to hold power. And if we break trust, we are breaking trust with the very essence of who we are. Our own character is at stake.

You can talk all you want about the unpopularity of President Bush, or the Iraq war, or immigration. But what this campaign really boiled down to was, well, when it comes to conservatives, it's character, stupid. If conservatives don’t learn that lesson, they will spend a long time in exile — and deservedly so.

Besides abortion on demand, drug legalization, unrestricted pornography, removing references to God from public life, what else do you like about Liberaltarians?

Awwwww,look. Straw men, how cute. And you assume I support everyone of those too. That's especially nice. Abortion on demand, drug legalization, and unrestricted pornography are all state issues. Why? Because the Constitution of these United States did not grant those powers specifically to the federal government. Under original intent (a view foreign to Republicans and Democrats) if the separate and sovereign states choose to pass laws to prohibit such actions they damn well should. The intent was not that the states were subservient to the federal government but equal to the federal government. And in that position could pass laws that found favor with the majority of their citizenry.

As for removing references to God from public life, this is a 20th century invention (thanks of course to the passage of the 14th Amendment, thanks Republicans!!). The First Amendment was not even applied to the states until 1925 and not to religion specifically until 1947. I re-checked and I didn't find one Libertarian sitting on the Supreme Court that made that decision. The First Amendment is clear. Congress shall make...not the local town council, not the state legislature, but Congress.

However this goes both ways. You cannot demand that a private company somehow incorporate God into their marketing. If a company chooses not to use Christmas or God in their marketing don't shop there. Somehow though I don't think God is too upset if Best Buy doesn't have 'Jesus is the reason for the season' over every display of the Nintendo Wii either. Don't like it? Don't shop there. And yes for the record, I am a Christian. But I also recognize individual rights.

Does Salman Pak ring a bell in your dense skull? Don't jump to conclusions not yet proven. When Ollie North came through SP with the Marines during the phase two Gulf War this decade, there were hundreds-of-thousands of pages of files gathered up and shipped back stateside ... most of which have never been translated or read yet so we really don't know if Saddam trained the highjackers at Salman Pak or not. He certainly was training terrorists at the plane and train mock ups.

Talk about "straw men"! I'm not the one writing about how "close" I feel to the Libertarians, that's YOU. And the last time I checked, the Liberaltarians didn't like the idea of states regulating dope, porn or abortions any more than they liked the Feds doing it. Not even the Confederacy (to which your true allegiance lies) would have tolerated Libertarians, they'd have lynched them right next to an "uppity" slave or a Yankee abolitionist.

I'm not the one writing about how "close" I feel to the Libertarians, that's YOU. And the last time I checked, the Liberaltarians didn't like the idea of states regulating dope, porn or abortions any more than they liked the Feds doing it.

There are different versions of Libertarians just as there are Republicans and Democrats. Should I take the ardent demands from some around here to vote Republican that they implicitly support the government waste that has been foisted upon us in the past 6 years? Government waste I would remind you that if forwarded by Democrats would have been tantamount to the return of the Anti-Christ. Howls for revolution would have echoed from every post. But it was 'our' team so that condones it I suppose...

Not even the Confederacy (to which your true allegiance lies)

Well at least you got one thing right. My ancestors stood bravely against the overpowering central government. Some died in service, some lived, but I am thankful for every one of them

There are different versions of Libertarians just as there are Republicans and Democrats.

Not really. There are bogus Libertarians (e.g. people who are "into" Libertarianism because they like part of the "message", such as drug legalization or limiting the powers of the Federal Government), but those folks are like hypocrite "conservative" Republicans who "spent like a drunken sailor" while preaching fiscal discipline. It's like an atheist who calls himself a "Christian" because he likes the "philosophy", but he just can't get into the "Son of God" part since he doesn't believe in God in the first place. If you're going to raise up the Libertarian banner, be careful where you put your hands 'cause that brown stuff on the flag staff aint mud.

There are bogus Libertarians (e.g. people who are "into" Libertarianism because they like part of the "message", such as drug legalization or limiting the powers of the Federal Government), but those folks are like hypocrite "conservative" Republicans who "spent like a drunken sailor" while preaching fiscal discipline. It's like an atheist who calls himself a "Christian" because he likes the "philosophy", but he just can't get into the "Son of God" part since he doesn't believe in God in the first place.

LOL, stop it please. I can't laugh anymore..comparing belonging to a political party to one's faith in God. Nope, no koolaid in the Republican party, no sir.

I wonder. Considering the Republican party used libertarian stances to get elected in the 1980s (i.e. Ronald Reagan) what would that make him? Republicans ran for years on limited government and yet now to be a 'good' Republican one must buy into the falsehood that the federal government should have control over education in some sense (i.e. NCLB), should have a say in religion (faith based initiatives), and should have a say in issues the Framers intended for the states (legality of drugs, abortion, end of life issues, etc.).

You may not like this but this was the intent of the Framers. These issues were to be determined at the state level at best, and in some cases, not by any government at all. Their own writings confirm this and their lack of writings on other issues confirm it was never meant to be an issue for the federal government. And comparing membership into a political party to Christianity should be a slap in the face to any decent Christian of any political stripe.

You can go off on tangents in your self imposed insulation from reality existing in a delusionary state of denial and damage control until doomsday, when the Wahhabi Kingdom of Saudi Arabian (the country is not a democracy, what is so difficult to understand?, but a demonocracy, theocracy) financiers bankroll another terrorist attack on the US most likely on a heavily populated area like New York City again (been there, done that) killing a million innocent US civilians. Then you will shift into blame the liberals scapegoat mode. If only we knew, if only we knew. The problem is WE KNOW but will not confront the problem. The political leadership in this country (both parties) is in a collective state of denial and damage control.

And I have a "dense skull"? Even Bush Jr. has admitted that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks on the US on Sept. 11, 2001. The purpose of the second war on Iraq is to divert, distract attention away, away, away from the financiers within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. FDR should have invaded Iraq after the attacks on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941

The US had virtually the whole world with us during the first Iraq War. Concerning the premature decision to end the first Gulf War, the Saudis, Qataris and other Arab Gulf countries were against Bush Sr's decision. In fact, Newsweek reported British Gulf commander Gen. Sir Peter de la Billiere went "ballistic" and British Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd--who happened to be in Washington--jumped Bush about it immediately, unfortunately to no avail."

The cease fire decision in the first Iraq War was not made by international approval. Use common sense, if you were an Arab leader living in the surrounding countries would you want Saddam Hussein (a loose cannon) to remain in power to destabilize the Middle East region?

Nonsense...IMO.

If the United States would have exceeded what was allowed by the UN resolution agreement, the next time we went to them it would be denied.

We played it by the book.

Nevertheless, here we are again, fighting an asymmetrical war...being forced to show restraint toward the enemy.

You wrote, "If by 'implemented into national policy' you mean interfering into the affairs of the states and their respective citizens..."

No, that isn't what I meant, but you knew that. You just wanted to sidestep the central argument by introducing a straw man of your own. But then, such flawless reasoning is why the Libertarian Party is the political powerhouse it is today.

The Libertarian laissez-faire approach to both economic and social issues appeals only to a very few--a few, unfortunately, who manage to draw support from Republican candidates in tight elections when those votes are needed the most.

Lastly, states' rights is a viable issue for insertion into the national debate since the federal government is seemingly in a state of perpetual overspend and overreach, but the moment proponents of states' rights start sounding like Posse Commitatus charter members is the moment that issue drops from the discussion.

Your argument is ridiculous. Bush Sr. (41) wimped out just as was explained in a previous post, MOTHER OF ALL BLUNDERS (it's ancient history and a fact) Bush Jr.'s (43) motivation for "revisiting" Iraq is to outdo his father. Unfortunately, as has been explained before, Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the terrorist attacks on the US on Sept. 21, 2001. The Iraq War serves as a diversion, distraction from shining the spotlight on the real criminals within the Wahhabi Kingdom of Saudi Arabia who bankrolled the terrorist attacks on the United States of America on September 11, 2001. In that regard, it has succeeded to the detriment of the US.

The Libertarian laissez-faire approach to both economic and social issues appeals only to a very few--a few, unfortunately, who manage to draw support from Republican candidates in tight elections when those votes are needed the most.

I see. Those that actually read the Constitution and know better draw the support away from the Republican candidates. Of course it couldn't be the Republican candidates by not running on proper platforms have anything to do with it. No sir. You'll take what one of the two main parties gives you and like it or else they'll blame you for their inefficiencies. Who cares if that candidate actually supports your views. We're playing a team sport here, don't you get it? Of course that's makes perfect sense....

Lastly, states' rights is a viable issue for insertion into the national debate since the federal government is seemingly in a state of perpetual overspend and overreach, but the moment proponents of states' rights start sounding like Posse Commitatus charter members is the moment that issue drops from the discussion.

Ah yes. States have only the rights we say they have now. Again forgoing intent as too much power to the states doesn't allow those 537 idiots in Washington to crow about what they can do for you. They may jump from mediocre to absolutely useless overnight. Then what would happen to our national team sport? That's rich. Republicans redefining states' rights to fit their agenda. Nope, that's never happened before....

You wrote, "That's rich. Republicans redefining states' rights to fit their agenda. Nope, that's never happened before...."

Unless I'm mistaken, you're making a reference to the Civil War, where the core issue was the 'state right' to impose the institution of slavery within its state borders, and to implement that 'peculiar institution' in similarly inclined territories.

And you wonder why that particular issue gains no traction in the national debate. Stating the obvious, any candidate who argues a de facto pro-Confederacy position is doomed politically, and rightfully so.

A descendant of Union veterans, I'm very, very glad the Confederacy lost, although troubled the issues igniting that conflict still somehow manage to come up--usually with sour-grapes neo-confederates who confuse the personal greatness and nobility of men like Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson with the utter moral bankruptcy of the cause they served.

Unless I'm mistaken, you're making a reference to the Civil War,

And who says Republicans are thick?

where the core issue was the 'state right' to impose the institution of slavery within its state borders,

Well you were doing so good. The right of the separate and sovereign states to determine their destinies and not be overtaxed to prop up northern industries. Republican/Whig industrial protectionism was a cause, perhaps the most important cause. But victors do write the history don't they?

This is the stance of conservative libertarians. An understanding that laws do need to be implemented at some level of government, if the majority of the citizenry agree to such laws. But nowhere in the Constitution was it intended to be at the federal level. And if all the Republican party has to offer is implementation of moral or other laws that were intended at the state level, they can rot for all I care.

You wrote, "Republican/Whig industrial protectionism was a cause, perhaps the most important cause [of the Civil War]."

Sorry, that particular argument is a feel-good rationalization, but it is not the truth. For Heaven's sake, Czarist Russia freed the serfs before American slaves were freed--and then only after bloody and sustained conflict. What does that say about your beloved Confederacy? About the vision of the men guiding succession?

And whenever I see the word 'sovereign' pop up in an argument concerning the balance of state and federal power, I know I'm dealing with a representative of the neo-confederate fringe. Hey, I know, why don't you declare yourself a 'sovereign citizen', declare your bunker a 'sovereign state', print your own money, elect your own officials, refuse to recognize state and federal authority, and then withdraw altogether from anything approaching the mainstream political life of this country? That way, your vote won't affect the outcome in legitimate elections--you're happy, I'm happy.

And don't forget to watch out for those black helicopters.

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.