To: durasell
"It would certainly re-define conservatism."
Conservatism is already defined as a reasonably broad notion, including "social conservatives", "economic conservatives", "libertarian" and so on. If anything, the attempt to restrict "conservatism" to its "social" branch only would be a re-definition. And since any social movement in a democratic system needs to be sufficiently attractive to the mass of electorate outside of itself, one could argue that the "base" - any base [ours, sharptonite, or moveon variety] - is good only at foaming at the mouth and scaring everyone else away. Joe Lieberman in his most recent election provided an excellent example of where the "base" rightfully belongs.
10 posted on
04/26/2007 2:34:01 AM PDT by
GSlob
To: GSlob
A discussion of the concept of “base” would be of great interest to me.
Any chance of getting a new “base” thread going?
12 posted on
04/26/2007 2:37:02 AM PDT by
durasell
(!)
To: GSlob
Conservatism is already defined as a reasonably broad notion, including "social conservatives", "economic conservatives", "libertarian" and so on."Libertarian" = conservative? BWAH-Ha-Ha-Haaaaaaa!!!
78 posted on
04/26/2007 8:08:12 AM PDT by
KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
("On 11/07/06, 'true' conservatives and 'rat traitors joined forces to bring Sharia law to America.")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson