The Death of Conservatism Is Greatly Exaggerated

wsj.com ^ | May 23, 2008 | FRED D. THOMPSON

[Free ThinkerNY]

Recent congressional losses, President George W. Bush's unpopularity, and bleak generic ballot poll numbers have conservatives fearing the "liberalization" of America – a move toward secularization, the growth of government, stagnation, mediocrity and loss of freedom.

Yet there is still a way to revive the conservative cause. Doing so will require avoiding the traps of pessimism or election-year quick fixes. Conservatives need to stand back for a moment and think about our philosophical first principles.

Conservatives value the lessons of history and respect faith and tradition. They are skeptical of mass movements, perfect solutions and what often passes for "progress." At the same time, they recognize that change is inevitable. They also know that while man is prone to err, he is capable of great things and is meant to be free in an unfettered market of ideas, not subjugated by a too-powerful government.

These were the principles relied upon by our Founding Fathers, and which paved the way for a Constitution that delineated the powers of the central government, established checks and balances among its branches, and further diffused its power through a system of federalism. These principles led to a market economy, the primacy of the rule of law and the abolition of slavery. They also helped to establish liberal trade policies and to meld idealism and realism in our foreign and military policies.

The power of conservative principles is borne out in the most strong, prosperous and free country in the history of the world.

[rockinqsranch]

Good story. Parallels my own.

[AlaskaErik]

Just curious because you are in Alaska, how would you feel about Gov. Sarah Palin for McCains’s VP ? I wouldn't have a problem with it, but I doubt it will happen. Veeps are designed to balance the ticket and maybe pull in a swing state. Alaska will go Mcain irregardless of who is veep, so Sarah Palin wouldn't bring enough balance to the ticket.

[AlaskaErik]

Just curious because you are in Alaska, how would you feel about Gov. Sarah Palin for McCains’s VP ?

I wouldn't have a problem with it, but I doubt it will happen. Veeps are designed to balance the ticket and maybe pull in a swing state. Alaska will go Mcain irregardless of who is veep, so Sarah Palin wouldn't bring enough balance to the ticket.

[matthew fuller]

"A political party that adheres to conservative principles should have continuing success – especially if its leadership believes in those principles and is able to articulate them. "

Sounds like he's saying that Conservatives no longer have a significant political party that represents their values. I totally agree.

[cva66snipe]

It’s not dead. It’s just not wanted in the Republican Party any longer.

The real root of the problem indeed. Funny Thompson can use the name Bush and Conservatism. Bush both in 2000 and 2004 ran as a left leaning Moderate {trying to be Gore Lite in 2000} and shunned the Conservatives in the GOP away from him. It was not Reagan Republicans or Independent Conservatives he embraced, rather it was the Ford/Rockefeller GOP who has had his ear for 8 solid years and have all but destroyed the party since gaining platform and leadership control in late 1995.

Conservatism isn't dead but the GOP as a party is almost in a terminal state. The GOP doesn't have exclusive ownership of Conservative voters as they come from the DEMs as well as Independents. Those are the cross over voters. If the Dems want a GOP Liberal they'll vote for their own. If they see a GOP Moderate vs their own Liberal they may stay home. If the GOP ever wants landslides in POTUS and Congressional elections again it had better get back to the basics meaning the platform that won them the 1994 congressional elections and stick to it this time. Otherwise they are nothing more than the other Democratic Party.

[matthew fuller]

"Can someone tell me again how the hell John McCain won the nomination?"

The way I see it, the first four primary elections were mainly liberal states that allowed open primaries, that is, the Republicans allowed liberals and independents to destroy the candidacy of ALL of the conservatives that were on the ballot.

[make no mistake]

But she could pull the Hillary voters over that are angry with Obama,if he gets the dem nod, for being “sexist”

[freekitty]

I couldn’t agree with you more.

[woofie]

ear-mark

[Cacique]

btt

[freekitty]

Nah, the MSM or media didn’t pick him. The powers that be did simply because he is a front. Not that the others weren’t; but he agrees with their agenda. But, more to the point; the powers that be want globalization and be dammed with America or anyone else.

[iowamark]

Can someone tell me again how the hell John McCain won the nomination?

Conservatives failed to unite behind Fred Thompson, the most conservative of the serious candidates. This was partly Thompson's fault. He did not successfully rally social conservatives behind him and did not successfully answer the constant attacks of the Left.

Many conservatives were more focused on defeating Rudy Giuliani than in electing a conservative. The McCain and Huckabee campaigns teamed up to fight Thompson and Romney.

[nathanbedford]

They also know that while man is prone to err, he is capable of great things and is meant to be free in an unfettered market of ideas, not subjugated by a too-powerful government.

standing by conservative principles does not always guarantee success at the ballot box – it did for Ronald Reagan, but not for Barry Goldwater. But abandoning these principles doesn't ensure victory either. Circumstances often play the deciding role

The anxiety which this conservative feels is that we no longer operate in an "unfettered market of ideas" but rather we are being simply engulfed by " circumstances."

In a world of political correctness, which actually means in a world of cultural Marxism, we conservatives are being philosophically, culturally, and linguistically isolated. Liberals have not only distorted our vocabulary, they have stolen our language, our epistemology. We can no longer communicate with cultural symbols or with commonly accepted expressions of principle that our fellow citizens, who are not committed conservatives, easily hear and accept as familiar. Cultural Marxism has succeeded in isolating and marginalizing the world of conservative principles so that we can no longer express in a language that will be understood those principles which Fred Thompson says are timeless.

Let me illustrate: I grew up at the time of Leave It to Beaver and Ozzie and Harriet. Despite the preoccupation by these sitcoms to undermine the role of the father, it was understood through the whole of the culture that the father was the ultimate head of the household who operated by and through collaboration with the mother. He was a figure of respect and authority. But then, in those days so was my pastor. The cultural Marxist concluded that a paternalistic society (just like a Christian society represented by the pastor) was a society prone to rejecting Marxism and equally prone to accepting fascism. So they undertook to destroy the positive image in the popular mind of both the father and the pastor and they succeeded brilliantly. What is the last time you saw any depiction of a Protestant cleric in a positive light?

In every election cycle and often in between we will see published in these threads some report about some psychiatrist or group of psychiatrists who have concluded after a study of Reagan, or Bush, and now McCain, that the current Republican leader is somehow psychologically deficient. This comes right out of their catechism which says that the paternal society is a society susceptible to fascism.

Today, a candidate, even those on the left, has to be very careful of his affiliations with any pastor. That is because symbols of our society which formally had been regarded to be positive have become radioactive. It is the left which now conditions our culture so that it reacts 180° different from the way a thinking conservative reacts to the same stimulus. The left controls our culture through the media and the Academy.

We all know how the media does it we see countless examples everyday. But the left lays the intellectual foundation for what the media does in the Academy. There the left has done away with rationality and substituted an epistemology based not on the scientific method but on Marxist "science." Thus we get the bizarro world of women's studies which has so departed from "rational" discourse to be a national disgrace. Yet the the most august academic institutions in the world, the Harvard's and the Yales, are utterly incapable themselves of addressing the cancer in their midst which is a reproach on their very reason for existence. Instead of cleaning house, Harvard fired Larry Summer for a gaffe involving a breach of Marxist etiquette and the abandonment of intellectual rationality was symbolically completed.

If Harvard cannot contrive, in Fred Thompson's words, a, "free [and] unfettered market of ideas", which is after all the very essence of their business, where can we find one? It is no good to respond that Harvard is peculiar, it is not, it is merely the head of a rotten fish.

What this means is that our academic community tells the world that you can form opinions and describe them in symbols and language which are irrational so long as they are politically correct. Conversely, the Academy tells us that we may not express opinions in language and symbols which are contrary to cultural Marxism even if they are rational. Is it not necessary to detail the application of this Orwellian doctrine to the candidacy of Barak Obama. Rush Limbaugh, for example, has brilliantly lampooned the taboos of criticism established by the media: his ears, his wife, his parents, his religion, his pastor, his voting record, and etc. etc. etc. On the other hand, this callow candidate, an empty vessel, has become a symbol into which the media pours all the positive imagery it can muster.

Name your issue, immigration? The debate has been cast by the left as a matter of racism and so the subject closes. Tax cuts? The debate has been cast by the left as a matter of class warfare. Gasoline prices? The debate has been cast by the left in anti-capitalist terms of profiteering. Homeland security? The debate has been cast as a matter of incipient fascism. Free-market values? The debate is cast as a matter of environmental crisis. The list could be extended almost indefinitely to reinforce the point that the left's response to every issue is to cast the issue in terms that are congruent with Marxism. In doing so it has the intellectual support of our universities and think tanks and the overwhelming cultural support of our media. They have succeeded so well that language and symbols no longer have recognizable meaning.

We have gone from Leave It to Beaver to Brokeback Mountain in a generation. It encapsulates a cultural revolution.

Small wonder that Fred Thompson concedes:standing by conservative principles does not always guarantee success at the ballot box

[Right Wing Assault]

Conservatism isn’t dead, just conservative ‘leaders’.

[Joe Boucher]

Fools support for amnesty may signal the death of conservative Republicans.
Hear me Juan McLame?

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

This needs to be the REAL convention revolution - dump McCain, and nominate FDT instead.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Can someone tell me again how the hell John McCain won the nomination?

A lot of Democrats and Independents voted for him in the early open primaries which carry disproportionate weight in determining the GOP nominee.

Way to fix the problem? Hold every State's primary on the same day, and close them so only Republicans can vote in them.

[jammer]

I’m still not sure it’s real.

Good point. I know, well, people from California to Colorado to Texas to Mississippi to Michigan who voted for Paul, people who voted for Thompson, people who voted for Huckabee. I know people who voted for Hillary in the Dem primary. I know people who voted for Obama.

I personally know not one person who voted for McCain. At our caucus, there was one vote for McCain (I didn't know the man).

Obviously, this "survey" is invalid, but questions arise. Did these people vote for him and now hide their stands due to buyer's remorse, lack of courage, embarrassment, or some other reason (I doubt it--they are all outspoken)? Or are the McCain votes ephemeral.

[Salgak]

Well, Silly, that's because John McCain has the OLDNESS America needs. . .
OTOH. . .

[sergeantdave]

Well, let’s see....it’s the bottom of the 9th inning, republicans are trailing 4 to 1, the runner on first base just got picked off, the runner on second died from heat stroke and the runner on third is trapped in a run-down between third and home.

McCain is at the plate. He has a bucket over his head, he’s facing the wrong way and he can’t find his bat.

Yep, looks good.