Posted on 01/01/2008 7:33:05 PM PST by Reaganesque
In this campaign and here on FR there has been a great debate going on over who is a "real" Republican and who is not. Indeed, this debate has become very intense but one critical thing has been missing in all of this hot rhetoric. Is there a general, accepted definition as to what constitutes are "real" Conservative? If so, what is it and who gets to decide this?
So fellow Freepers, what do you think? What characteristics, beliefs, practices, actions or qualification must a candidate have in order to be considered a "real" Conservative?
Or is the definition simply "well, your candidate isn't!"?
Thanks.
I just realized that GMTA isn’t in the lexicon, so I think I’ll put it there.
Ain’t that the truth? That’s part of the problem. I consider myself an arch-conservative; yet I am sympathetic to the AWB. In my world, it makes perfect sense.
Yet, that one issue alone would cause some conservatives to label me a liberal RINO.
So, an ostensibly conservative politician has an impossible task - be consistently conservative when the definition of “conservative” is inconsistent. As a result, a politician can NEVER please everybody. We will never have a leader who is PERFECTLY conservative, because it is not entirely settled as to just what “conservative” means.
The durability of Conservatism has depended, to a great extent, on it being a disposition rather than a philosophy. What marks Conservatives out, across the generations, and whatever the environment they operate in, is an attitude of mind rather than an adherence to dogma. And that disposition — sceptical, cautious, pragmatic, sensitive to the local and the particular — has been politically successful because it has been in tune with human nature.
I agree with the beautiful Ann on all three points.
Revolting cat! for President!
>>>The purpose of government is limited to governing, not micromanaging people’s lives.
Say no to social engineering :)
Theoretically sure, practically not even close. Anybody that can’t poll around random chance (ie with 4 people in the race around 25%, with 8 contenders around 12% etc etc) probably can’t win, and anybody that can’t poll better than the published margin of error absolutely cannot win.
Ann is real close
1-Pro-life
2-Limited Government
3-Strong National Defense
4-Protect and Defend The Constitution of the United States and the Sovereign Nation which it represents.
But Conservative is not an absolute term. Rather, it is relative. Nor is the scale linear, but multi-axis. Thus, you can have those who couldn’t care less about financial conservatism, but have great interest in social value conservation, or those who value conservation of traditional liberties, but not much concern about social traditions.
Still and all, the varieties of Conservatives are natural allies in the face of radical change agents; those who believe any change is good and experimenting with society is a grand idea. Those who see the status quo as a problem to be addressed rather than a virtue to be perfected.
Oh great. Another opportunity for people to get on their soapboxes and preach to the choir.
For the most part, I agree with that. Unfortunately, that is not entirely the case with several posters here on FR. That's why I started this thread.
Polls aren’t as big a farce as people wish they were. Taken individually sure they can often be in error, but given the way the polls have been flying for the last 13 months, and given the consistency of the picture they’re painting down at the bottom end, they add up to fairly solid information on exactly who cannot win the election.
Unfortunately too many people approach their candidates like they do a sports team and think lying to themselves is a show of loyalty.
A real conservative’s got rocks for teeth and coal for eyes!
Constitutitionally, a strict constructionist.
Morally, a firm believer in personal responsibility for my actions.
Spiritually, acceptance of the Judeo-Christian belief system.
Ethically, Objectivist.
Politically, the least government is the best government.
No he’s right. Conservative is a relative term, relative to the times and situations. Way back when in the far gone days of yesteryear environmentalism (then called conservationism) was a conservative platform, now the libs own it. JFK started the citizen marksmanship program, Clinton ended it. JFK hammered through a huge tax cut. What’s conservative and liberal this year might or might not have any relationship to how the terms were applied 40 years ago, 20 years ago, or sometimes even just a few years ago. Look at the short history of bye-line veto and fast track treaty negotiation, those are two issues that switch with the White House, conservatives are for them when the GOP owns the Oval Office Libs love them when the Dems are at the top.
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.