Replies

What most don't know at all these days is that once upon a time (early 1900's to mid 1900's) conservatives were concentrated in the Democrat party. The first 'progressives' were concentrated in the Republican party, primarily beginning in CA with governor Hyram Johnson. It was Johnson who turned this nations political process upside-down, taking political power away from local district leadership where it had been since the beginning - and concentrating it at the top of the political pyramid.

All other states soon followed CA, but the 'progressive' Republicans were thrown out of office nationwide and soon thereafter, 'progressives' began the migration into the Democrat party. In the south however, that migration has taken quite a bit longer, as many conservative democrats have held out hoping to restore Democrat conservatism. But that just isn't going to happen any time soon.

What most don't know at all these days is that once upon a time (early 1900's to mid 1900's) conservatives were concentrated in the Democrat party.

Good point, but incomplete. Since Reagan, we have seen a GOP that leans conservative fiscally, socially, and on national defense. The Dems have leaned liberal on fiscal, social and defense issues. But that is not how it has been traditionally. Prior to Reagan, the Dems were fiscally liberal and the Republicans were fiscally conservative. But how people were on social issues and national defense was much more related to where they lived than what party they belonged to. People from the northeast, the West Coast and the northern tier of states tended to be more liberal on social issues and defense issues, regardless of party. And the people in the South, midwest and mountain states tended to be more conservative on social issues and defense issues. That is why you had "Rockerfeller Republicans" (socially liberal and fiscally conservative) and "Southern Democrats" (socially conservative and strong on defense, yet fiscally more liberal).

This is why we get into problems when we try to define a "true conservative". Are we talking about a fiscal conservative? A social conservative? A national defense conservative? All three? If one must be all three to considered a "true conservative", and we are going to chase out anyone that does not measure up, we are in trouble. Because the number of people who would qualify in all three areas is a small minority of the population. It is the combination of fiscal conservatives, social conservatives and national defense conservatives - the "three legged stool" that Ronald Reagan built - that gives us the numbers to win elections and influence change. We can have some hard and fast requirements for our national leaders - pro-life is one for me - but we can't chase off everyone who does not agree with us on every point, or we will forever be a minority party with no power.