Posted on 06/13/2011 11:30:31 AM PDT by Nonstatist
Bob Dole didn’t hesitate this weekend out in Russell when asked who the Republican Party should nominate for president next year.
Gen. David Petraeus, Dole said, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan who’s about to become CIA director.
“We need another Eisenhower,” Dole said.
He also fretted that President Obama will build a huge warchest, and the GOP nominee will be essentially starting from scratch after the primaries are over next year.
That will give Obama a huge — but not necessarily an insurmountable edge, Dole said.
As to the Tea Party? Dole said he thought he was conservative until this group came along. He’s still trying to figure them out.
(Excerpt) Read more at midwestdemocracyproject.org ...
And you might add budget was balanced. But post Reagan, Clinton's administration stands out except his wag the dog bombing aspirin factories.
But back to conservatism. Bob Taft was the opposition Republican and was beaten down by the Eastern Rockefeller wing.
You have a good grasp on what is happening. Everyone in the GOP claims 'conservative'. What do you see as the bedrock positions to define today's conservative? Appreciate your thoughts.
My aspiration is to dismantle what FDR did to the country, and restore constitutional government. (I say FDR and not Wilson, because what Wilson was largely dismantled in the 1920s. That's where we need to be). To overturn all the judicial opinions that created non-existent rights, and to eliminate progressivism from our governance. What progressivism is is mob rule and will lead ultimately to the rule of men instead of law, of tribes instead of Americans.
It will take an effort encompassing decades, not a few congresses, to accomplish what I would like to see our country achieve. It will require incremental gains, occasional setbacks, but a movement that always works towards restoration of the US Constitution, the most perfect form of government ever devised.
We can't eliminate medicare and social security overnight, and it will take decades to weed through all the substantive laws that derive from corruption of the Interstate Commerce Clause and the "necessary and proper" clause. It will take education of the legislators as to their proper role, and it will take prolonged education of the citizenry as to what to expect of government. The entire electorate will have to be weaned off the government teat. It will take efforts of citizens at every level, especially in retaking the "commanding heights" of a society, the schools, board rooms, local and state governments, media and arts, so that people who have been propagandized for 80 years can learn the truth about their country, about their government, about what works in an economy and what misplaced compassion does to the society. Frankly, I am not sure we have the committed cadre of people who have the will to see our cause through that the progressives have had to force their cause on us, but I believe that great leaders can help bring about societal change, and that there are enough good people still remaining in the core of our country that with such leadership, it can happen.
So, when I look at who I support as a conservative, it is with those goals in mind. Will they advance the ball towards constitutional government, or will they be mere caretakers for the socialist progressive movement. Caretakers, people like Mitt Romney is and Eisenhower was, are generally better as Presidents because they don't make things worse, but they squander opportunities to move the ball back to where it belongs. When they win nominations, I generally end up voting for them, because at least the ball isn't advancing farther towards that communist goal line that indicates that America as a constitutional republic is over. But sometimes, you have to give ground to get it back, and I am not sure that always supporting the lesser of two evils when both are progressive at heart is the way to go. It may at times delay the day when a conservative alternative is launched. Such would be the case for me this time if Romney is nominated. That tells me it is time for conservatives to go with a new party, and try to wipe out the Republicans, in this election or the next one. In Eisenhower's era, holding the line against the socialists still left America in a pretty decent place. Holding the line against what Obama has done is like accepting a situation that is just a nudge away from the death of freedom, and will let the next Obama tip us over. And I can't accept that. Now without fighting.
Moderates, guys whose hearts are in the right place but who can be easily swayed by pressure and the tactics of Alinsky followers, are dangerous. Moderation is a state of mind, and it tells them that they have to respect the views of those on the other side. I say, no we don't, not when the other side ultimately seeks our enslavement.
Moderates, like George Bush, start out sounding conservative, and then at some point, they just give in and let the Washington Post tell them what to do. They end up sometimes advancing the ball FOR progressives, as the TARP bill did. People like Pawlenty, Gingrich, and maybe Santorum, are in this category. They scare me. They would probably get my vote, but I would deathly fear them once they get into office, and we would have to not relax the pressure on them and just assume they will do what they said they would. None of this "No Child Left Behind" and reaching across the aisle. Go nuts and stop it, the way we eventually did with Harriet Meiers and Immigration Reform.
I look at a conservative's positions and their lifetime history of holding fast to their convictions. I want to know how they formed their world view, and is it based on electoral winds or on something in their lives that educated them to Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek on economic matters, whether they have a strategic vision that has America's security as the primary interest and understands how to maintain it in a world with real threats, like Islamic terrorists and Chinese communists. Do they pay lip service to Islam as a religion of peace, or do they not fall for that claptrap? Their stands on immigration, judicial appointments, cutting the budget, oil drilling and exploration, tax rates, and eliminating ObamaCare, are all important factors that I look at to determine whether this is a sincere conservative that we can trust to move the ball back towards constitutional government. I am also hoping for a great salesman and leader, for without that, you may have great positions, but end up like George Bush at 15% approval. That doesn't help the cause, either.
Right now, the communists have the ball on the 7 yard line, 2nd and goal to go. The 2010 election was a sack and a loss of 3 yards. They are still close to punching it in. We have to get the ball back, and then we have a VERY long march downfield just to get back to Coolidge 1925. That's where I want to be. That's a TD for me.
The candidates who meet the qualifications that I am looking for of conservative positions coupled with steadfast and implacable world views and leadership skills are: Michelle Bachmann (her hiring of Ed Rollins has me worried, though); Herman Cain; and Sarah Palin. I am not sure about Rick Santorum, but I don't think he'll be around long enough to worry about anyway. My ideal President would be Jim DeMint, but he's not running. I hope whoever is nominated picks him to be VP. I also like Rush a great deal, and wish he would look into running, but it does not seem like he wants to do that. I think the times demand people that can educate, and he can take on the media like no one else. I don't care that he got hooked on pain pills. Our president was a cokehead. Does he really want to bring that up?
You asked, so I have given my long-winded response.
Thanks for all the effort you put into your post. I’ll have to take time to digest it all! A quick read puts the country going off track with Wilson and then Roosevelt, eras of war and economic depression. Perhaps the ‘eras’ the country passes through are even more of a driver than the personalities of the times. A bigger central government becomes the problem solver of last resort.
Maybe ultimately ‘we can’t go back’ because of the recurrent happenings of war and economic difficulties. It seems so in Western civilization countries. Perhaps today’s breed of conservatives know how to break or dilute the results of war and economic troubles. Just reducing the size of government absent the reasons for big government, may be just wishing thinking. Thanks again for your thoughtful reply.
You don’t have to go back, you just have to pass amendments to the things that need to be changed. There is not much I can think of that needs to be amended to allow the federal government to do things I want it to do. FDR’s era added nothing that we need to keep. LBJ’s era added nothing that we need to keep. Nixon, with his EPA, Carter with his Dept. of Education, and Clinton and Obama, added nothing that we need to keep. Limited government is still enough to maintain America as a superpower. Restoring prosperity makes us even stronger, as a matter of fact. If you can point to anything that we need to keep, please do so. I will let you know what I think. The times didn’t demand socialism, the times overcame the failure of socialism.
We need to keep whatever can deal with wars, big and small, and economic depressions, big and small. I see China as our biggest threat, both military and economic.
The Constitution provides that Congress has the power to raise armies, and declare war. The President is the commander in chief. Nothing needs to be changed to allow us to defend ourselves and maintain a world presence.
As to dealing with economic depression, federal involvement in the economy sometimes creates them, and involvement in mitigating them only makes them worse. A good primer for you would be "The Forgotten Man". Get it on Amazon, read it, and then see if you still think we need the federal government to "deal with economic depressions, big and small". If you do, then you have been in the wrong place for 13 years. You would be a follower of JM Keynes.
While you are at it, brush up on Hayek, "The Road to Serfdom". I say this not to be condescending, but if you have not read it, you may not understand the basis of my positions. If you read it and you are still Keynesian, then we have issues. You and Krugman would be closer politically.
Hey I agree with Keynes to the extent 'that in the long run we will all be dead'. Market solutions that say 'eventually' don't work in a political democracy where the long run ends on election day and people vote on how well they are doing - majority wins and the worse it is, the more non-conservatives win. As far as war goes I want a government military that is too big too fail. My eye is on China and we won't have time to mobilize, speed is of the essence.
Keynes is not the cause of our troubles, he is just the guy who gave liberals a theory justifying big spending programs. Does it matter to you that they never have, and could never, work?
I hope Americans agree in future elections. Regards,
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.