Why Conservatives Lost

townhall.com ^ | November 9, 2006 | Chuck Colson

[Tribune7]

bump

[billbears]

For Heaven's sake, Czarist Russia freed the serfs before American slaves were freed--and then only after bloody and sustained conflict

Have to hand it to you Straussians. Can't find a Western nation that went through a war over slavery so you jump to Russia. Good

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.

Good, more labeling. I so love Republicans paintbrushes. Don't believe in a bit of that. But I've found here on FR when you don't actually have an argument it's much easier to throw out non-sequiturs and expect the other person to spend time overcoming them. Suffice it to say, you're off the mark junior. Far, far, off the mark.

And in the meantime it allows you to continue your blame game of why Republicans lost the election instead of owning up to the fact that the general populace recognized the Republican party dropped the ball and has become nothing more than a pack of political hacks

[ARealMothersSonForever]

Conservatives did not lose. Obstinate Republicans lost. If one bothers to research the Dems that won, they ran on a more conservative platform. Es tut mir leid.

[Revolting cat!]

Why Conservatives Lost

[ARealMothersSonForever]

Letter to Joshua F. Speed Abraham Lincoln
Aug. 24, 1855
Dear Speed,
You know what a poor correspondent I am. Ever since I received your very agreeable letter of the 22nd of May I have been intending to write you in answer to it. You suggest that in political action now, you and I would differ. I suppose we would; not quite as much, however, as you may think. You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it. So far there is no cause of difference. But you say that sooner than yield your legal right to the slave--especially at the bidding of those who are not themselves interested, you would see the Union dissolved. I am not aware that any one is bidding you to yield that right; very certainly I am not. I leave that matter entirely to yourself. I also acknowledge your rights and my obligations, under the constitution, in regard to your slaves. I confess I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down, and caught, and carried back to their stripes, and unrewarded toils; but I bite my lip and keep quiet. In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continual torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border. It is hardly fair for you to assume, that I have no interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the constitution and the Union.

I do oppose the extension of slavery, because my judgment and feelings so prompt me; and I am under no obligation to the contrary. If for this you and I must differ, differ we must. You say if you were President, you would send an army and hang the leaders of the Missouri outrages upon the Kansas elections; still, if Kansas fairly votes herself a slave state, she must be admitted, or the Union must be dissolved. But how if she votes herself a slave state unfairly--that is, by the very means for which you say you would hang men? Must she still be admitted, or the Union be dissolved? That will be the phase of the question when it first becomes a practical one. In your assumption that there may be a fair decision of the slavery question in Kansas, I plainly see you and I would differ about the Nebraska-law. I look upon that enactment not as a law, but as violence from the beginning. It was conceived in violence, passed in violence, is maintained in violence, and is being executed in violence. I say it was conceived in violence, because the destruction of the Missouri Compromise, under the circumstances, was nothing less than violence. It was passed in violence, because it could not have passed at all but for the votes of many members, in violent disregard of the known will of their constituents. It is maintained in violence because the elections since, clearly demand it's repeal, and this demand is openly disregarded. You say men ought to be hung for the way they are executing that law; and I say the way it is being executed is quite as good as any of its antecedents. It is being executed in the precise way which was intended from the first; else why does no Nebraska man express astonishment or condemnation? Poor Reeder is the only public man who has been silly enough to believe that any thing like fairness was ever intended; and he has been bravely undeceived.

That Kansas will form a Slave constitution, and, with it, will ask to be admitted into the Union, I take to be an already settled question; and so settled by the very means you so pointedly condemn. By every principle of law, ever held by any court, North or South, every negro taken to Kansas is free; yet in utter disregard of this--in the spirit of violence merely--that beautiful Legislature gravely passes a law to hang men who shall venture to inform a negro of his legal rights. This is the substance, and real object of the law. If, like Haman, they should hang upon the gallows of their own building, I shall not be among the mourners for their fate.

In my humble sphere, I shall advocate the restoration of the Missouri Compromise, so long as Kansas remains a territory; and when, by all these foul means, it seeks to come into the Union as a Slave-state, I shall oppose it. I am very loth, in any case, to withhold my assent to the enjoyment of property acquired, or located, in good faith; but I do not admit that good faith, in taking a negro to Kansas, to be held in slavery, is a possibility with any man. Any man who has sense enough to be the controller of his own property, has too much sense to misunderstand the outrageous character of this whole Nebraska business. But I digress. In my opposition to the admission of Kansas I shall have some company; but we may be beaten. If we are, I shall not, on that account, attempt to dissolve the Union. On the contrary, if we succeed, there will be enough of us to take care of the Union. I think it probable, however, we shall be beaten. Standing as a unit among yourselves, you can, directly, and indirectly, bribe enough of our men to carry the day--as you could on an open proposition to establish monarchy. Get hold of some man in the North, whose position and ability is such, that he can make the support of your measure--whatever it may be--a democratic party necessity, and the thing is done. Appropos of this, let me tell you an anecdote. Douglas introduced the Nebraska bill in January. In February afterwards, there was a call session of the Illinois Legislature. Of the one hundred members composing the two branches of that body, about seventy were democrats. These latter held a caucus, in which the Nebraska bill was talked of, if not formally discussed. It was thereby discovered that just three, and no more, were in favor of the measure. In a day or two Douglas' orders came on to have resolutions passed approving the bill; and they were passed by large majorities!!! The truth of this is vouched for by a bolting democratic member. The masses too, democratic as well as whig, were even, nearer unanamous against it; but as soon as the party necessity of supporting it, became apparent, the way the democracy began to see the wisdom and justice of it, was perfectly astonishing.

You say if Kansas fairly votes herself a free state, as a christian you will rather rejoice at it. All decent slave-holders talk that way; and I do not doubt their candor. But they never vote that way. Although in a private letter, or conversation, you will express your preference that Kansas shall be free, you would vote for no man for Congress who would say the same thing publicly. No such man could be elected from any district in any slave-state. You think Stringfellow & Co. ought to be hung; and yet, at the next presidential election you will vote for the exact type and representative of Stringfellow. The slave-breeders and slave-traders, are a small, odious and detested class, among you; and yet in politics, they dictate the course of all of you, and are as completely your masters, as you are the masters of your own negroes.

You enquire where I now stand. That is a disputed point. I think I am a whig; but others say there are no whigs, and that I am an abolitionist. When I was at Washington I voted for the Wilmot Proviso as good as forty times, and I never heard of any one attempting to unwhig me for that. I now do no more than oppose the extension of slavery.

I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that “all men are created equal.” We now practically read it “all men are created equal, except negroes.” When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read “all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics.” When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty--to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy.

Mary will probably pass a day or two in Louisville in October. My kindest regards to Mrs. Speed. On the leading subject of this letter, I have more of her sympathy than I have of yours.

And yet let say I am Your friend forever
A. Lincoln--

Rembrandt, you have it wrong. You, sir, are not a Lincoln Republican, nor do you have a base comprehension of the Whigs. Just sayin'. Please KMSA.

[Rembrandt_fan]

Don't call me 'junior', sport. Patronizing an opponent does not address the argument.

You wrote, "Can't find a Western nation that went through a war over slavery so you jump to Russia."

That wasn't my argument. My point was clear: your beloved leaders of 'The Cause' were so morally crippled and culturally backward as to be behind even Czarist Russia in recognizing the evil of one man owning another, but again, you awkwardly attempt to rephrase in order to dodge the central issue.

Further, it was you who threw out that 'Northern industrialist' angle as the cause of the Civil War, which is no more than a way for you self-styled sons of the Confederacy to soft-pedal slavery. 'War of Northern Aggression', my foot.

I've counted many friends from the South, particularly when I was in the Service, and I respected their love of home and heritage, but outright apologists for the Confederacy are another thing entirely and I've no patience with them and no respect for them. You cannot defend the practice of a great, self-evident evil in the name of states' rights. That particular argument has already been settled. And you know what? Lincoln out-thought and out-fought the lot of your idealogical kin--Davis and Lee and all the rest--and it galls you to this day.

[Rembrandt_fan]

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here. I'm sure you have a point, but if you do, you're playing it close to the vest.

Oh, and KMNA.

[ARealMothersSonForever]

You have degenerated from quasi-pseudo Marxist to full blown Marxist. Congratulations, and have a good life.

[Rembrandt_fan]

You wrote, "You have degenerated from quasi-pseudo Marxist to full blown Marxist."

Just like one of you sons of the Confederacy to start name-calling. You always do at about this point--you know, the point at which you can no longer coherently defend your position--not that it held much coherence in the first place but at least it bore the rudiments of reasoning ability, sort of like watching monkeys poking a stick into a termite mound and wondering if they're operating by instinct or actually using learned behavior.

[pawdoggie]

I wonder. Considering the Republican party used libertarian stances to get elected in the 1980s (i.e. Ronald Reagan) what would that make him? It would make him what he was, a conservative Republican. I know you don't like facts intruding on your circular arguments, but the modern Conservative movement, which has always emphasized limited government and the 10th Amendment was founded in 1951. The Libertarian Party has been around since 1971. If anyone is stealing someone else's thunder it's the Libertarians.

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.). As Ronald Reagan would say, "there you go again". The Libertarians don't believe that the states, or any government, should "have a say" in the above listed "issues", so trying to stamp their imprimatur on your "Dixiecrat" view of the Articles of Confederation (which are a dead letter, get over it) is disingenuous to the extreme.

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. I didn't know you were channeling the Framers, but riddle me this, what would have happened if some good proto-Libertarian had been distributing porno or drugs, burning the American flag, performing an abortion or denouncing Christianity outside Liberty Hall when the Continental Congress was debating the US Constitution? Tar and Feathers? The stocks? On the spot execution? Do you think, or don't you?

[TheThinker]

Conservatives didn't lose because of moral issues or corruption. The danger to many Americans is too far removed and they're tired of hearing the same message. Sometimes voters want a change but Democrats will fall on their face although they may lie to cover it up and buy votes through handouts. Republicans today tend to look back at Republican losses with horror because there is so much at stake and Democrats have a record of holding power for far longer than Republicans through cheating and deep corruption that is hard to fight because it exists on so many levels. Yet we have new tools like the bloggers and the shadow of Nixon is a distant memory that can't dog us anymore. Republicans just need to find the truth about Democrats and themselves. Republicans need to ask themselves, "why do I believe what I believe". New answers need to be given to the public to preserve some of the traditional values that are endangered. We need clarity and we need spokesmen to proclaim it.

[billbears]

It would make him what he was, a conservative Republican. I know you don't like facts intruding on your circular arguments, but the modern Conservative movement, which has always emphasized limited government and the 10th Amendment was founded in 1951. The Libertarian Party has been around since 1971. If anyone is stealing someone else's thunder it's the Libertarians.

You hacks really are into belonging to a party aren't you? Jefferson, Adams, to an extent Washington were Classical Liberals. They would be considered libertarian then as well as today. Just because the name changes doesn't mean the ideology has necessarily changed. Because someone has a party affiliation by their name does not mean their ideas or even themself are owned by the party.

As Ronald Reagan would say, "there you go again". The Libertarians don't believe that the states, or any government, should "have a say" in the above listed "issues", so trying to stamp their imprimatur on your "Dixiecrat" view of the Articles of Confederation (which are a dead letter, get over it) is disingenuous to the extreme.

Ah, good, more non-sequiturs. You can't defend your party so you attack others. For the record at no point did I advocate or support the national Libertarian Party. I support the ideals of libertarianism. Returning to the values and limitations found within the Constitution of these United States. Something neither party advocates, supports, or even speaks of anymore. Sure for a good 20-25 years Republicans talked a good game. And yet when they were elected very rarely did they do anything different.

I didn't know you were channeling the Framers, but riddle me this, what would have happened if some good proto-Libertarian had been distributing porno or drugs

Sigh, I'm going to state this one more time but it will go over your head (again). The 10th Amendment is crystal clear. If that power does not belong to the federal government it belongs to the separate states and the citizens thereof. Give Federalist 45 a read (since you've never read it). Hamilton is clear what powers belong to the states and what powers belong to the government. Pornography, drugs, etc. are issues that would fall under 'The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.' It would seem that the Framers understood it and yet the national moral warriors want a standard from 'sea to shining sea'

I have no problem with establishing some moral laws within the states. I would support a few myself. But it was never, is not, and never will be under the intention of the Framers for the federal government to pass moral laws that would suit you.

As for your flag issue? Find me a majority of Framers that would advocate saying pledges to national symbols why don't you? What would they say of precious 'conservatives' that are so gung ho on protection of a symbol while destroying the rights it's supposed to represent?

[pawdoggie]

Sigh, I'm going to state this one more time but it will go over your head (again).

I got your "over my head" right here in my hip pocket. Since you won't address any of my questions (e.g. what 'remedy' would the Framers recommend for pornographers, blasphemers, drug pushers, abortionists...?), and since you change the goal posts at will ("I'm in line with the Libertarians...well, I don't really support a lot of what the Libertarians believe...Ronald Reagan adopted 'libertarian' themes...I didn't mean Libertarian libertarian themes, I meant "classic liberal" libertarian themes, as I intuit them"), I think we've gone as far as we need go. Besides I wouldn't want to wake you from you dreams of the Articles of Confederation, mint juleps on the veranda, your "house servant" fanning away the blue-tailed fly, while the "field hands" bring in your cotton crop...

[Syncro]

He's putting you on.

He's out on the West Coast in Frisco.

A California boy doncha know...

[billbears]

Since you won't address any of my questions (e.g. what 'remedy' would the Framers recommend for pornographers, blasphemers, drug pushers, abortionists...?)

I answered your question. Should I put the answer in a hooked on phonics format for you? From my previous post

Pornography, drugs, etc. are issues that would fall under 'The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.'

meaning, for those in Republican world, the Framers probably wouldn't have done a dern thing about it. Well other than notify the local authorities. You see they were working on a federal document and, as the Federalist Papers point out (from which I quoted), they saw what you are railing about as a state issue. If the citizens of the state of Pennsylvania had deemed that laws should be enacted against such actions, I would expect those in the wrong would be prosecuted. If not, then nothing would be done about it.

since you change the goal posts at will ("I'm in line with the Libertarians...well, I don't really support a lot of what the Libertarians believe...Ronald Reagan adopted 'libertarian' themes...I didn't mean Libertarian libertarian themes, I meant "classic liberal" libertarian themes, as I intuit them")

Ah, I see the confusion here. Well you see, unlike Republicans and Democrats, libertarians think for themselves. They don't have to toe a party line nor are they necessarily locked to a national party line to be considered faithful to their ideals. So yes being able to hold some views from the party while disagreeing with others would be a foreign idea to a 'conservative' such as yourself

I think we've gone as far as we need go. Besides I wouldn't want to wake you from you dreams of the Articles of Confederation, mint juleps on the veranda, your "house servant" fanning away the blue-tailed fly, while the "field hands" bring in your cotton crop...

Ah yes, back to the assumptions, I could expect no less

For the record I have answered your question as succintly and as clear as I possibly can. You asked what the Framers would have done about the concerns you have and I have laid out exactly what would have been done