I agree with 99% of what you are saying (and no, I don’t mean it to mean stupid, phony, Big Gov “Compassionate Conservatism”).
Limited government with a free-market economy- and an understanding that charity is there to help those in need, and that the family has the responsibility to raise children, and not the amorphous “state”- is the ideal form of government.
The problem that we continually run up against is that the left has been extremely successful (especially considering that only 20% of the people identify themselves as “Liberal”) in convincing the public that it- and not Conservatism- “cares” for the people.
You know the drill: “If Conservatives had their way, six year olds would be working eighteen-hour-a-day shifts in polluting factories to ‘maximize profits’ for greedy dog-eat-dog Capitalists, autistic children would be thrown out into the streets to fend for themselves for health care, all kids in public schools would be forced to pray to Jesus (instead of doing what they are supposed to be forced into... reading about Johnny and his transgendered father), blah, blah, blah”. And the “benevolent”, socialist government is there to protect people from these eeeeevil folks.
For so long many Conservatives (not Reagan, of course) have sat back and allowed the left to position itself this way. There’s no need for this. Once Conservatives claim this mantle- and I absolutely don’t mean by pandering, or by Big Gov programs- through proper communication, the left will largely be finished.
Right. Of course we should tell people that what we stand for is the betterment of all, but it's through freedom not more government. If you go down that "compassionate" road too far, however, you're accused of not caring enough and not enough "empathy" without this or that government program. Freedom, it must be said, is not for the faint of heart. It takes guts and courage. To be the land of the free, we must be the home of the brave. This "empathy" stuff coming from government is really a weak and weakening message IMO.
Reagan won the election but also won his eight years of over-the-top popularity and skewered the Leftists because he clearly communicated directly with the American people all the time (I feel Palin is the one who does this best now). He basically communicated two things:
1) What we conservatives stand for: Freedom to keep your hard-earned money and live your lives the way you choose.
2) What the Liberals stand for: They say "empathy" but don't believe them - they use that to take power and your hard-earned money to rule over you.
By about halfway through Reagan's presidency, the term "Liberals" was pretty much a dirty word and the Leftists ran from the label. Reagan did it by constantly shining the light on who these guys really are and then who we Americans really are. Make this our message and we win. "Empathy" is off point and too "nanny state"-ish.
I'm going on and on but I have to add something. Reagan was smarter than the average bear - he just didn't let on as such. He believed in precision whether is t was precision in the intelligence community or precision in thought and message. We need precision, not vagueness. Libs love vagueness. "Empathy" in government confuses things, is vague, and tends to play into the Left.