Posted on 11/28/2009 7:56:03 AM PST by publius1
... The so-called purity test is a 10-point checklist -- a suicide pact, really -- of alleged Republican positions...
James Bopp Jr., chief sponsor of the resolution and a committee member from Indiana, has said that "the problem is that many conservatives have lost trust in the conservative credentials of the Republican Party."
Actually, no, the problem is that many conservatives have lost faith in the ability of Republican leaders to think. The resolutions aren't so much statements of principle as dogmatic responses to complex issues that may, occasionally, require more than a Sharpie check in a little square.
It's too bad that "elite" and "nuance" have become bad words in the Republican lexicon. Elites are viewed in Republican circles as "those people" who are out of touch with "real Americans." And "nuance," the definition of which suggests a sophisticated approach to understanding (as opposed to "Because I said so, case closed") has come to be viewed as a Frenchified word Republicans successfully hung on presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004. His flip-floppery on issues became associated with nuance, a.k.a. lack of decisiveness. Ergo, a lack of leadership skills.
It was superb message manipulation, if you go for that sort of thing. But it was also pandering to America's inner simpleton....
Most of us know that decisiveness isn't always a virtue, yet those pushing the purity test seem to view nuance as an enemy of conservatism. The old elite corps of the conservative movement, men such as William F. Buckley and Russell Kirk, undoubtedly would find this attitude both dangerous and bizarre. When did thinking go out of style?...
Whatever the intent of the authors, the message is clear: Thinking people need not apply. The formerly elite party of nuanced conservatism might do well to revisit its nonideological roots.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Exactly. Nothing controversial in this list (it could go farther). A party must stand for something or it stands for nothing (like Dem-lite KP who must want to ditch 8&9).
This list exposes KP and her ilk to be even worse than the old Rockefeller Republicans.
A typical WaPo diverting/deflecting from the Dems own suicide pact...
Principles must be broad.
In my view this principle may be too narrow.
In my view this principle should read more like
"We support victory in all military engagements once troops are committed to the fight by supporting military-recommended troop surges and material logistical support."
Once troops have been committed to the fight the country owes it to the troops to give them every opportunity to succeed. This applies to every engagement not just Afghanistan and Iraq.
It is also absolutely necessary for the prestige and security of this country.
But as a general rule when one is writing down the principles by which one will judge ones comrades by they must be necessarily broad because the future holds unknown trials and one must have the freedom to act with in those principles.
To me this shows that Ms. Parker has a very poor grasp of logic. She states that Bopp’s principles are overly broad and then gives as an example a principle that is very specific.
Kathleen Parker is a Colin Powell/Lincoln Chafee Republican.
...NOT to be taken seriously at all.
....Obama supporter....
I think actually she was a Rommney supporter....same difference.
People need to be educated that there are liberal newspaper columnists who give Republicans erroneous advice?
Why are you so reluctant to patronize conservative newspapers and writers?
President Reagan was also a staunch defender of protecting the integrity of private property rights from government regulation. See March 22, 1988 Presidential Executive Order 12630 (E.O. 12630), and June 30, 1988 “Attorney General’s Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings”
Regulation should be founded on protecting the general public health, safety and morals from substantial injury. The Constitution of the United States defers the vast majority of the power to regulate to the states, not the federal government. Eminent domain should be anchored in serving a legitimate public purpose.
Advancement of a public benefit through regulation constitutes a fifth amendment takings that is subject to the payment of just compensation. Property rights were a significant political issue in President Reagan’s administration. It deserves to be included in the ten.
The liberals never seem to tire of giving advice to conservatives. It’s like having the Big Bad Wolf at the door as he explains why you should let him come inside. And I love how they abuse the word ‘nuance’, which now is code speech for why you shoud not believe what you see. It’s absolutely Orwellian and as big a lie as ‘Arbeit Macht Frei’.
Nailed it...8 and 9 just stick in Parker’s craw...the party would be much better off without her...and some others I know..
Or not...
(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;
(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing, denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership
Those seem like bedrock Republican principles to me. I’m not sure what got KP’s panties in a wad, but that seems to be their permanent state.
“I was startled when I read another article attacking them at how UNcontroversial they were.”
The proof is in their application. Which RINOs would these ten principles ensnare, based upon their voting records? Which would get through? Which Democrats could meet these criteria?
My sense is that these are too broad to have much empirical import; but I pose this more as a question than a criticism.
My sense is that litmus tests such as this are counterproductive because to have any bite they must make be much more narrowly and emphatically posed — and then you weed out allies along with adversaries even as you give ammunition to the Left who can then make us out to appear inflexible and close-minded.
I know I’m going to get flamed, as always. But I think I ask a reasonable question about TACTICS. I am with the majority here on the PRINCIPLES.
"Kathleen Parker: After Interviews, Palin Should Bow Out"
You ask why I posted this. Fair question.
I am shocked, actually — shocked — that this far into the reign of Obama, post Scozzafava, post NJ and Va., and with the crowds swelling for Palin’s book tour, that anyone could be so dense as to object to the ten principles, and cite Buckley and Kirk in defense of that position. Kirk’s “Conscience of a Conservative” and Buckley’s “Up from Liberalism” should be enough to make anyone understand that using them that way is historically libelous.
Parker at one time considered herself a conservative. Somehow she jumped the tracks and went off the rails, as did David Brooks. I was curious as to how others would react to this latest of hers. I keep thinking—maybe I’m wrong about this—but I keep thinking that somehow it all comes down to abortion. I note that none of the FR commentators raised it as an issue, so maybe I’m off base, but increasingly I think that the real dividing line between political philosophies and parties and people in this country is abortion, and that most of the rest is so many cars being pulled behind that train. I mean that in the sense that many things can be compromised or agreed by reasonable people, but abortion cannot be, and that its non-negotiable nature affects the willingness of people to come to agreement on other issues and their ability to judge the other side.
If you think I’m a trog because I’m pro-life, then why would you even try to agree with me or find common ground on immigration, or the war on terror, etc. To do so would taint you, because you’d be agreeing with an idiot, and what would that make you?
I have thought that that’s a large part of whgat’;s behind the attack on Palin. She’s demonstrably, not just rhetorically, pro-life, therefore must be an idiot, about whom to say anything nice is to contaminate oneself. It’s an idiotic position, and I’m not even sure it’s a conscious one for the other side, but I believe that it’s there.
Anyway, I posted to see what others would say, and I posted not cynically but in innocence (& frustration). I hope that answers your question.
Conservative Lite worked so well for us in the last two elections.
- JP
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.