Posted on 12/09/2006 4:33:07 PM PST by shrinkermd
This is a fine well thought out article than I have not been able to access so I am discussing and summarizing it here.
Alfred Regnery is the Publisher of the magazine and is the most prominent and influential conservative book publisher. His father, Henry Regnery, was similarly ensconsed and Henry Regnery wrote the introduction for Russell Kirk's classic The Conservative Mind (1986 edition published in 1953). Alfred is promising a book on conservativism and this we will have to see, but if he is as clear and able as this article it should be a best selling article.
The article summarizes by making the following points.
Democrats did not win Republicans lost.
Republican House leadership is gone and that is good.
Many newly elected Democrats ran on middle-of-the-road or even conservative platforms.
Spending by Republicans in last Congress was embarassing and is now unnecessary.
Gridlock in Washington is a good thing.
Little will change.
Democrats will be partially responsible for everything.
Neither Republicans or Democrats ran on any sort of platform
Good time for conservatives to regroup and come up with a coherent plan of action.
In conclusion, Alfred Regnery states, "The Democratic Victory was not a repudiation of conservativism but of those who betrayed conservativism."
[The Democratic Victory was not a repudiation of conservativism but of those who betrayed conservativism."]
Amen to that, and the secular humanists of the Pubs just does'nt get it at all, they live in a bubble and are getting worse and worse with time.
"This fact should not be lost on our Party. In 2004, the Democrats lost because they put all their eggs in a leftist candidate. Two elections, and two rejections of extremism. True conservative platforms will win. Americans are tired of "social" constitutional amendments, stem-cell debates, creationism in schools, prayers in school, Ten Commandments debates, anti-homosexual campaigns, and the rest of the social-right agenda, while busting budgets at a record pace."
I think he said 'middle-of-the-road'. I'm not sure most folks would agree that these are 'middle of the road' platforms.
[WHY Can't we come toghether, rather than causeing needless conflict that we DON'T need?.]
The republican party is not conservative has become the other liberal party near as I can tell and I am sick of their do nothing say nothing pretend to be conservative ways.
The republican party is dying as it should be as a useless party that it truly is.
Actually our great Nation was born out of rejection of the traditional political model of the times. We created a whole new institution never before tried unless you go back to the Greeks. Granted slavery was traditional since 1619 but that was one of the few institutions we stuck with in our transformation. Much of what we did was hardly traditional from that point on. Our dramatic expansion of the Nation by purchase and war did not follow traditional principles of maintaining "institutions". We recognized a Bill of Rights, ultimately freed the slaves and ratified the 14th Amendment, something unheard of in the world. And throughout all of it, we rejected many traditional "values" of how we looked at the Black man, women, and rejection of religious tests.
Just because you hate social conservatism doesn;t mean it ISN'T Conservative, it just means that you ARE Liberal on these issues..
I don't hate anyone...well maybe Jane Fonda. Nor do I hate what the RR stands for. That I don't accept some of their positions doesn't preclude them from bringing them out. Unfortunately they influenced Congress to the point that the Republicans lost both houses. That is where I draw the line. Their agenda became the main agenda of the Republican Party, and that is unconscionable.
Don't Re-write history to fit your vision when you KNOW perfectly well that the social institution that "social conservatives" want to preserve are merely a reaction against RADICAL LIBERAL Social Engineeering (Aka Gay Marriage which you well know is being forced upon the nation by Un-Conservative radical Judical Activist judges-
Really? Unless I'm mistaken, most states now have their own constitutional amendments or laws preventing gay marriage. That Massachusetts is still struggling with the issue says nothing about judges, but everything about a federal system of government. If they want to change their constitution they can. Outside of that, perhaps you could explain what is being "forced upon the nation" regarding gay marriage.
I wouldn't call the re-writing of our Constitution through unconstitutionally mandated court prescedent-CONSERVATIVE VERY WELL..WOULD YOU?).
Rewriting our Constitution because we reject our republican form of government is hardly conservative. Nor it is a conservative position to deny freedom of political speech either, both pushed by so-called "conservatives". A conservative supports a republican form of government, which includes the good along with the bad.
That is how much of the liberal agenda has been propogated throughout the 20th Century..(Even Fiscally if you will remeber irresponsilbe fiscal legislation was introduced by President Roosevelt and implemented by his "court packing".)
Sure, I will be up front in slamming unnecessary liberalism too. The liberal welfare state has proved ineffective and costly. But that doesn't let a misdirected Republican Congress off the hook. Apparently corruption is not more a characteristic of the left than it is the right.
Back to the point: Liberals have typically used the courts to advance their agenda such as Gay marriage (Mass 2004), Sodomy Legalization (Texas 2003), Roe V. Wade, Prayer in Schools in 1964, The so called "seperation of church and state" in 1949. If you would study history you will agree that it is PERFECTLY CONSERVTIVE TO PRESERVE/PROTECT These traditional American-Conservative institutions..
Each of those is a different issue. The Massachusetts gay marriage issue is the concern of the people of Massachusetts, not the US; Sodomy wasn't legalized; the right to privacy was emphasized. No one seems to care that consenting heterosexual adults commit sodomy all the time. They are only concerned when it is by gays or lesbians. All persons regardless of sexual preference have the same rights to privacy, due process and equal protection of the law. As to Roe, the court incorrectly used a right to privacy without consideration of the third party which could and likely should be considered a person, at least at some stage, under the Constitution; Prayer in public schools is not one I care much about either way. I simply don't want to see my legislators attempting to bypass USSC decisions in such areas.
If you suppot such activites as gayness or abortion then that simply means that you are a liberal where these issues are concerned!.
I support the rights of all adults to privacy, due process and equal protection of the law. Is that liberal? I'm not sure what you mean by supporting gayness. I certainly accept the fact that a percentage of the population is homosexual, and that they are just as productive citizens as heterosexuals. But then, most Americans believe the same thing. I don't believe they have a right to legal marriage though. But that is a state issue, and since I support our institutions which include a republican form of government, I must support decisions certain states make that I don't personally approve of. That is conservatism.
Bah: I hate "moderation" and I don't believe that only a "Moderate (Which were spanked in this last 2006 election) is the One that can have saved US in 2008..
Depends on the meaning. If it means negotiating and compromise in order to get what I want, then I have no problem with that. A president is president of all the people, not just his base. He should be the one taking the lead in working with both sides to forge legislation, especially if his side of the aisle seems entrenched and unable to work. If that's moderation, I can deal with it.
Ronald Reagan proved otherwise..he was surely not a moderate like Previous Republicans such as Ford, Nixon, even Eisenhower..Unless you would like to speak Russian that is..
You may be confusing the terms leadership with compromise. Reagan was a leader. But make no mistake he was adept at working with the other side of the aisle to achieve compromise legislation, both as governor and later as president.
Truth is we need a new Ronald Reagan to lead our nation into 2008 and I believe that would be someone of the likes of Huckabee, Gingrich, Pence, (Even Tancredo)...otherwise....
Except for Tancredo, I would concur. But you need to read a bit more on Pence and Gingrich, both of whom understand the concepts of leadership...and compromise. Those you mentioned outside of Tancredo understand you have to work with the other side, but can still lead the agenda. That is not what we had in this 109th dysfunctional Congress.
we need advocate ALL of what it takes to run the Country and become a Conservative Nation Once..again!! If we divide..do this and WE Will Surely be a MINORITY FOR 20+Years...Agreed?
I agree with the last point, but I fear it is inevitable. No longer do the Jesse Helms or Strom Thurmond, both Democrat rejects, and both racists who felt more at home in our Party, set the agenda for the future. But their legacies continue on and even today their influence is felt. The smartest thing the Democrat Party did was to reject the Dixiecrat mentality. The dumbest thing the Republican Party did was to open its arms to it. But we do agree that a new leader is needed. We likely wouldn't agree on all the characteristics of that leader.
If so, he has no business running for president, but may be better suited for the priesthood.
He can't, nor should he back off his faith, nor Conservative values that you would disagree with.
No, he should keep his faith private. It is between him and God, not him and our Nation.
WHY Can't we come toghether, rather than causeing needless conflict that we DON'T need?.
Because as long as the RR continues to posture that only a solid "Christian" that will promote the RR agenda, and refuse to take moderate positions is an acceptable candidate, there is no means to come together.
I'm not trying to write the RR out of the conservative movement. In fact classical conservatism recognizes the importance of religion in calming the masses. Nor do I question many of it's family values agenda. What I do question is its insistence on making its social values the mainstay of our legislative system. I can distinguish between those values that belong in the family and church with those that belong in a legislative agenda. That is where we part company. What is not conservative is using the Congress to attempt to deny either a republican form of government or of denying the rights guaranteed by our Constitution to some in our society. Nor is the desire for the imposition of religious tests a conservative position.
I won't try and argue that these RR positions are not conservative. Perhaps they have redefined classical conservatism. But leaving that aside, most Americans don't want those issues as the mainstay of a Republican legislative agenda, which is why they said no more of it on November 7.
If you're referring to the Blue Dogs, they did run on a platform of security, fair taxes, lowering the deficit.
True, but unless unity prevails in the Repub, conserv, Libertarian trenches, division will bring into power Obama, Hil or some other lefty which will ensure Dem rule for a generation.
I hope you are not employed as a Republican consultant or adviser, because you've gotten the November election analysis exactly wrong.
One of the factors was that Republican office holders had turned aside from conservative principles. A good number of Dims who won ran on some conservative positions that were to the right of their Republican opponents.
So, to turn a phrase, you're wrong.
'Unfettered abortion rights' are a central tenant of secular humanism as now manifesting through the democrat party and its constituencies. SH is a religion, so your basic premise is skewed to favor the religion you prefer, clearly. Keep working for your favored ruler, the clintons, as you are clearly doing on multiple threads with dissembling and mischaracterization ... we at FR are not fooled by your tactics, but I'm sure many at other forums are easy pickin's for your methodology.
Lets put the shoe on the other foot for a moment......
Hard right Conservative came into the election with their typical "all or nothing" attitude, and they have been slamming the moderates for the two years prior to the vote.
The way I see it, as a moderate conservative I voted for some conservatives that I once again had to hold my nose for, and I believed that what I was doing was in the interests of the party as I always have.. Some of the folks in my section of the party did not, and had taken all they could take. But, for the most part we remained faithful.
If you look at the Conservative Right side of the ledger, they refused to vote for the more moderate candidates because of the single issue mania that they so lovingly hold on to. They diluted the republican vote by voting for independent outsiders or not voting at all..., and their numbers equaled or exceeded the moderate defections. Most of those defections in the moderate ranks were Independent voters and not Republicans, in any case.
It was the inability of the "right" to come to agreement with the center and place the retention of power above issues they disagreed on that lost the election to the Dem's.
Unfortunately, this will continue to get worse.
As far as I am concerned, the republican party has been destroyed from within, and there will be no reconciliation in the near or midterm future.
You got what you wanted, to the letter. You pissed off the center, and they now have the power to call the elections, which they did. As a result, the candidates will be centrist's in 08, and the "Right" will once again refuse to support them. This will give the Dem's a bullet proof majority by '08, and assure a Democrat in the White House.
The moral of the story is that Conservatism does not win every time it is tried. To be more specific, your version of principle over party is a loser, and that winning political elections requires compromises. Compromises that you are unwilling to make.
If you compromise you will regain the majority. If you don't, you will remain in the minority and dig your hole deeper.
But I suspect it will take a few more of these elections to drive that point home to you. It's too bad ........really......for the country. Too bad indeed.
You're very right on that issue. But I don't know the answer. Right now the Party is hopelessly fragmented.
The Republicans lost for a lot of reasons including the war in Iraq and corruption. But they also lost because of the entrenched positions of the Republicans especially in the House where in spite of what most Americans wanted, a comprehensive immigration reform bill, the House stood firm and would not negotiate nor compromise in order to get the border security. Nor would it budge on Social Security. It's mainstay of the energy package was tax credits. And the budget busting Republicans could hardly run on that success story. But make no mistake, Americans were fed up with the RR pushing its moral agenda in place of the real issues of importance to the majority.
Very few Americans want "unfettered" abortion rights. Most favor reasonable approaches. South Dakota voted down an extremist version. I daresay even most Democrats aren't really in favor of "unfettered" rights.
SH is a religion, so your basic premise is skewed to favor the religion you prefer, clearly.
You have no idea which religion I prefer, so let's keep me out of the debate and concentrate on the issues I have laid out.
It is no argument of any validity to suggest that the statement is made by a secular humanist, and is therefore invalid.
Keep working for your favored ruler, the clintons, as you are clearly doing on multiple threads with dissembling and mischaracterization
Perhaps you could point to some evidence of that? Simply hurling baseless charges does not reflect on anything but your own lack of knowledge and debating skill.
we at FR are not fooled by your tactics, but I'm sure many at other forums are easy pickin's for your methodology.
Who is "we" at FR? I would suggest that many here are not the mindless automatons you believe everyone at FR is. Many can actually think for themselves and are not being dragged around by the nose by the RR.
Take care.
"Americans are tired of "social" constitutional amendments, stem-cell debates, creationism in schools, prayers in school, Ten Commandments debates, anti-homosexual campaigns, and the rest of the social-right agenda, while busting budgets at a record pace."
Kind of looks to me like he is a libertarian trying to convince conservatives to support the 1%er's.
For years I used to tell myself, If we only had a Republican House and Senate with a Republican President at the same time, we would really kick ass and get good things done. Boy was I wrong. We blew a chance that probably will not come our way again in 50 years (or the coming of the Lord, which ever comes first)
You keep believing all that if it helps sleep at night, but it's in a different zip code from reality.
Absolutely true! If only others could see that.
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.