Posted on 11/04/2008 10:20:52 PM PST by paudio
I know this view is not popular here, but we need to have an honest discussion after what happened last night. There has been many calls to throw 'RINOs' out of the party. Yesterday's results, however, show that we cannot do that. Like it or not, conservatism is a word with many meanings: social, economic, libertarian, 'patriotic' conservatism, etc. Recently, it's obvious that whatever coalition that Reagan put together has fallen apart. Dubya, ran as a conservative,managed to bring all factions together, but as a president, he gave privilege to one or two factions, and left the others cold.
Sarah Palin may be the darling of social conservatives, but not necessarily of the other conservatives. When we said 'she rallies the base', it seems now that we only meant 'she rallies the social conservatives'. It should be clear now that there are just not enough social conservative voters to win a national election. With her on McCain ticket, we cannot argue that 'the base' stayed home tonight.
The way I see it, in order to rebuild the party, we need to start from one of two assumptions: (1) there exists a conservative idea that encompass all factions of 'conservatism', or (2) Such idea doesn't exist, but we only had good communicator that managed to bring different people together. I used to think it was number one, but recently I started to doubt about it. It seems to me that the second one is much more important. Reagan, Newt, and candidate Bush (not the president) did a good job in their time.
So, in my opinion, in order to be able to compete with the Dims again, we need to find a person that can unite the whole factions back. Perhaps, we also need an issue to do so.
The other problem we have now is the tarnished brand of conservatism and Republican party that was caused by Dubya's inability or unwillingness to counter the media's narratives. At this moment, more than ever, we need to win the independents and moderates. Hoping them to vote for conservative candidates while throwing the 'moderates' in the party is really a misplaced hope.
OK, let’s think about this for a bit. For the last few elections, the democrats have run far left-wing candidates who are openly contemptuous of Republicans, fight dirty to advance partisan ideas, and appeal to the left-wing extremist base. The Republicans for the last few elections have run “Big Tent” moderates who reach across the aisle, preach bi-partisanship and tell the base “we’re a tiny bit more conservative than the communist”.
Which strategy worked?
Or we could simply end all entitlement programs since we wouldn’t lose any votes and could reduce taxes on “the rich.”
All that is fine and well, but there is 900 pound gorilla in the room that conservatives WILL NOT ACKNOWLEDGE: the hard-left.
We’ve gone from the extreme of McCarthy’s witch-hunt to total and utter willful blindness that the hard-left is taking over our country.
They have our schools and universities (have you seen the data on young people’s voting for this election?).
They have the media (I’m sure I don’t have to support this one).
They have pushed the government far enough to where the masses now know they can vote themselves “free” stuff — do you have any idea how dangerous this is?
Does this mean the ‘communists’ are doing this? Well, yes, and no. They have willing liberals pulling strings and starting the paradigm shift.
Once the liberals, through the schools, the media propaganda and the “free” stuff from the pols have marginalized the Republicans then it becomes the liberals versus the hard-left — who do you suppose wins this war?
You couldn’t even get the public to fear Ayers, Wright, the black Klan or any of the very hard-left statements made by president-elect 0bama.
Um, call me extreme, but I’m real nervous about the coming decade and what it will mean for my children.
I think we’re in a world of hurt if nothing changes.
I don't expect the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan; but I do not believe that there can never again be a charismatic conservative voice to call the people back to their roots together.
The little tent of Reagan, Thatcher, John Paul II and maybe a couple others defeated the evil empire, where generations of accommodationists and platoons of State Department wordsmiths had gotten nowhere. I see nothing in the current threat that supercedes those dangerous and lethal Soviet foes.
You could be right.
CaribouCrossing: “Hell knows that the “little tent” full of purists didn’t save America. Big tent time? You bet.”
Be serious. How much more big tent can you get than McCain?
Lindsey Graham got reelected - that’s one.
CaribouCrossing: “If only we had had a SOLID CONSERVATIVE we would have beat Obama?”
Maybe not. Maybe we would have lost. Oh, wait. WE DID LOSE...WITH A MODERATE/RINO/BIG TENT REPUBLICAN like the one you say we need.
What are you even doing on Free Republic? Seriously! This is a conservative forum.
Lay out the platform and sell it. The voters will come from all walks of life.
Quit copying policies from the left or you’ll end up with more losses like we saw today.
Pandering in the name of “big tent” Republicanism is a proven loser.
Well... I don’t know about all that happening! If it does, I guess I’m toast anyway. Yeah, my comments are made under the assumption that we still get to vote, etc. I doubt we’ll turn in the USSR because Obama was elected... who knows what will happen really, maybe he’ll be an all around dud. Maybe he’ll destroy everything - we really don’t know. He could barely win an election with 700 million bucks and the whole MSM behind him. He might not be that efficient in destroying our whole culture, ya know.
Principled conservatism wouldn’t really defeat anything under the circumstances you describe, though - if we can’t vote or present ideas in the media, etc. how is being a conseervative going to defeat anything?
“Dubya, ran as a conservative”
and then never governed as one. That’s the lesson you need to learn.
Lukewarm Establishment “moderates” like Dubya have been the destruction of the Republican Party.
Considering the fact that a man who we are not sure is a real American with a Muslim name and a wife who is so full of hate; I would say the American people had no say.
Considering the fact; the Democratic and Republican Congress has done it’s best to keep the voter down and take away our God given rights; I would say the American people had no say.
Considering the disgraceful behavior of the media and the inclusion of celebrities who are not even close to knowing the real America; I would say the American people had no say.
Does any real American believe what these losers have to say? The answer is no.
It sure sounds like a One World Order to me.
It’s the One World Order. If you believe that people really liked Obama better; you are wrong. You could put Mickey Mouse up to vote and if that is what the One World Order wants he would be President.
The last thing we need is another La Raza Man of Year like that idiot Rove.
That sums it up exactly.
There is only one view that is truly conservative. That view encompasses small government, individual liberty and social morality. You can’t go about eliminating one of these without destroying the rest. For example, a society without social conservatism (individual morality) cannot long maintain small government or individual liberty. An immoral population will eventually demand largess from the government to insure against the results of their sins. By the same token, social conservatives won’t have social conservatism for long if they create big government. Why? Because large bureaucracies are always inefficient and corrupt, and the division of spoils encourages immorality. And, of course, individual liberty doesn’t last if people cannot resist their own selfish/immoral temptations.
Bottom line: Social conservatism, small government, and individual liberty. All are required for those who realistically want to achieve any one of them.
well, that makes two of us Pelham
In 1980 Reagan ran Conservative even Social Conservative and He Won. In 1984 Reagan ran Conservative He won again. Both times by landslides. In 1994 the GOP ran Conservative on house and senate seats and won landslide two majority takeovers. By 1996 they switched to the Big Top and that's when the beginning of the end started. You see some Liberals moved into the tent and made it their home kicking the Conservatives out and telling them not to be seen or heard till election time. The GOP never recovered as it was Two Parties non compatible inside one.
What finally likely cost McCain this election more than anything? Being a Rockefeller Republican both he and Bush ignored Conservative Doctorines & joined with Barney Frank to sell our grand-kids into fiscal slavery for some rich Rockefeller Republicans and Liberal Dem Investors personal gains. That was likely the straw that broke the camels back. Bush and the GOP got the blame from Barney and the DEMs got a Scapegoat. Bush gets nice comfy USA/China based Corp Board Seats in a few months. Isn't Big Tent politics fun?
The Big Tent Republicans let Bush, his appointed Sec of Treasury {a DEM}, and Barney Frank run a GOP Freak Show trying to convince people The Right was wrong the Wrongs were right and so the two headed elephant rolled over in disgust and yesterday it died.
If I want a Big Tent I'll go to a circus or state fair. If I want Constitutional Conservative politicians I'll go to the political party offering such as I did yesterday. Sad to say that in my states ballot on a national level in the GOP none were to be found but rather long time political Big Tent Freaks who had SOLD OUT.
Carnivals with Big Tents and snake oil salesmen are a real good place to watch your wallet and everything you value. A lot of thieves and swindlers hang out at them. Maybe that's why I avoid them. Big Tent = Big Loss.
paudio: “What if we have a small government conservative candidate but is okay with Roe vs Wade?”
Your question is utter nonsense. How can a “small government conservative” be OK with Roe v Wade which epitomizes a large government power grab over the states? Roe v Wade is an abomination to anyone who believes in federalism, aka small government.
I think your post hits on some good points. Rather than trying to strictly define what conservatism means, a better approach might be to single out the issues that the party should be focused on and try to establish some agreement on how to tackle them as a way of uniting folks.
I always thought the big-tent concept was all wrong because it put emphasis on people and the kinds of people instead of the limited and common sense kind of government we stand for. I think that’s how people got confused about what being a Republican really means. What we stand for needs to have way more emphasis than it did so we don’t end up being infiltrated by liberals. If they want to go liberal on us, in any way, shape or form, the place for them is NOT in the Republican Party, and that has to be loud and clear.
Just a short, and possibly over simplified mantra could be:
If you value individual freedom of all kinds and security more than more massive government spending and programs that do more harm than good you can find a home here, black, brown, white, or purple spotted.
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.