Well, first of all, there is no conservative party, so I feel it only fair to pin big government Hoover, Eisenhower, Nixon, both Bush’s, and even Lincoln on Republicans/Conservatives. ( Or, thus Conservatives are just not able to learn from history, and haven’t noticed the GOP, or are whipped, doormats even within the GOP and thus have no business guiding anyone else, unless it is in being political doormats for the last century, or more.)
Another major, gross failure of conservatives is their political lack of involvement. Most of, if not all, court fights and victories, few as there have been, on property rights and gun rights have been by libertarians, with libertarian money, and libertarian lawyers.
Zero, no, none, by ‘conservatives’.
Further, you are pretty ignorant in that there is amongst social conservative a very strong strain of support for big government, big taxes, big bureaucracy, rules, regulations.
Much of conservatives is a inter warfare with the left over who and what a unConstitutional state ( Federal or otherwise ) should do.
In short, I see a lot of conservative opposition to the left, but only in the way the Mensheviks opposed the Bolsheviks, or the Spartacus League fought with the Nazis.
All supported a large, person and family warping by the state, for the state.
Ronald Reagan was much more of a libertarian than a conservative. Milton Friedman, Von Miese, Hayek, Rand were commonly quoted.
Another thing. The left is very idea driven, albeit poorly. That is where you defeat leftists. I don’t view present day conservatives as able or educated to enter leftists arenas and defeat them.
I’m thinking half or more so called conservatives are as addicted to suckling off the government teat as any Section 8 Baby Mommy.
Conservative talk the rugged ‘We’ll eat grass’ game, but shoulder up to the government trough like anyone else.
So, in short, conservatives have been steady losers the last hundred years, have little or no will or ability or interest in entering the arena of ideas, and all bald talk aside, haven’t been seen in many of the court fights to wrestle back encroached liberties, that they didn’t successfully at the time prevent from being usurped and in many cases were enthusiastic supporters of the usurpation.
Zero, no, none, by ‘conservatives’.
What an absolute baseless bucket of excrement.
Not surprising, Leisler, since you give no reference, no data. (And, although I once worked with groups such as Libertarians for Life and the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, I'm beginning to lose any surprise when so-called "Libertarians" will write trash backed with nothing but their own hot air and based on either a very short memory without regard to history or fact and/or a lack of research into the subject and what has transpired in real life before their own interest.)
Do a little research on the Conservative efforts of the FreeMarket in Texas (our version of the Family Resource Council), The Justice Foundation (used to be the Texas Justice Foundation), the Christian Medical Association, and any number of pro-life organizations which have been forced to protect the right not to be killed, the right not to have liberty infringed upon by re-defining who is worthy of being given public protection (who is human enough).
And then, step back a bit and look at the lawsuits, activism, and plain ol' fights that those of us here on FR have been engaging with the left for the last 14 years or so. Jim Robinson is not a "(L)ibertarian," although he is capable of forming a coalition, to function in order to support common ground and common goals shared by some Conservatives and some (L)ibertarians.
Our efforts are often mistaken for those of (L)ibertarians, when in fact they are (l)ibertarian conservative (small government with unconditional protection of the right to life, liberty and property) and illustrate or take advantage of the common beliefsof Conservatives and some Libertarians.
Of course, it is not. The role of government is to run the country in a manner that best allows people to help themselves. That leaves a lot of people who seem to need help of one kind or another.
Those people who need help should be helped by other than governmental organizations. That leaves many who will not be helped. That difficult fact has become too hard for the voters to accept, especially in the face of politicians who promise that they, and only they, can help everyone. Of course, for a while, the politicians can make it appear that they are helping some people.
Then, all of a sudden there are 100 million new Americans who are able to exchange the votes they cast, whether legally or not, in exchange for help they are taught to feel they immediately deserve.
This is no mystery. The ancient Greeks saw that all democratic republics begin to fail at the point that they start to run out of the public money politicians pass out to their supporters, and then they begin the slow, inexorable turn back into oligarchy and then eventual tyranny. The Founders knew it, too.
After the first Constitutional Convention, a lady asked Ben Franklin, "Well, Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy?"
"A Republic," replied the Doctor, "if you can keep it." We can keep it, but only if we have enough intelligent voters to halt the slide. It's painfully obvious that in the GOP's official opinion, we do not. Hence the RINO ploy of government largesse, combined with "family values." The GOP platform, "We can give you just as much, and we ain't left-wing godless crooks like those bad people over there."
That is exactly what is NOT needed to preserve the Republic. Will the electorate vote for a party that will swear to do what is needed?