I agree. That's what seems to fracture FReepers, however.
I've seen it - two people who are both pro-life, but will roundly condemn each other as "RINOs" because the one wants to use federalism to end abortion, but the other thinks it's either go all out for a Human Life Amendment, or nothing. Likewise, two people, both of whom want America economically strong, but the one supports free trade, and the other wants some protections on manufacturing base - each accusing each other of being dirty, charging RINOs.
This junk's got to stop.
We conservatives can have all the arguments about the particulars of policy implementation....AFTER we're in a position to make policy in the first place. Until then, let's organise around a coherent, common sense set of principles and get busy winning America back for conservatism!
Your suggested approach is part of what got conservatives into their present situation in the first place.
Implementation is important. Small, limited government—and that *is* implementation right there—in accordance with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and other foundational U.S. social contracts is, and ought to be, the heart of the conservative movement. In more philosophical terms, small, limited government that protects the individual's God-given rights to life, to liberty, and to the pursuit of happiness...that's the real core of conservatism, that's the real "coherent, common set of principles" that conservatives ought to rally around.
Otherwise, all you've got is a bunch of folks who are willing to install their views on their country and their states, by any means necessary, including resorting to the machinations of Big Government, thereby creating a political machinery that can be later turned against them, and in service of a different yet contradictory set of views to their own.
Both parties have displayed a certain willingness (or, in the case of the Democratic Party, explicit desire) to resort to collectivist, Big Government principles in order to fulfill their own agendas. If you want to differentiate the conservative movement, and its primary, yet not only, political vehicle, the Republican Party, from the left-wing forces of evil, then you ought to take up the cross of small, limited, Constitutional government.
To me, the baseline principles around which we’re organizing are fairly obvious and not likely to cause much internecine bickering. Go back to Conscience of a Conservative by Goldwater or Reagan’s great 1964 speech or any number of Buckley tracts, etc. For a modern text, I bet Mark Levin’s new book will fill the bill nicely. Rush’s CPAC speech hit most of the points that really matter.
As for how we lost our way, I don’t think we did. I think W. got painted by the Left as a conservative and we ended up taking his lumps as if they were ours. I like W. and all, but when he called himself a “compassionate conservative” I understood I was being insulted. But I think every conservative should be allowed to leave the ranch and go wobbly on one issue and still be allowed to retain their conservative credentials. Tammy Bruce is pro-abort but I still love listening to her and agree with almost everything else she says.
Electoral politics ends up being a pragmatic exercise no matter how idelogical you are at the outset. I worked as part of team that converted Democrats to Reagan in 1980. We’d go into union, Dem households (in Pa. and Md.) and talk to people about meat and potatoes issues. You don’t get very far if you are iron-fisted about hundreds of issues.
The idea is: get a conservative nominated and go out and win. The conservative spoils will follow. Hell, Reagan took down the Soviets. If I had to bite my tongue a little on the abortion issue while sitting in a living room in Allentown to have helped make THAT happen....
Stop making sense. Many Freepers won’t like it.