The whole concept of comparing conservatives on a spectrum is a ruse designed to disable the opposition to liberalism. There are three essential characteristics to any elected conservative or non-liberal representative: 1) their positions; 2) the relative weight they place on each issue; 3) the doggedness with which they oppose liberal positions and liberal politicians. The spectrum of “conservatism” focuses only on the first characteristic when, in practice, it is the least important of the three. But what the spectrum does is allow those who nominally take the “conservative” positions to appear similar or even preferable to those that either don’t do anything about those positions, or refuse to oppose liberalism (or fascism, or any other variant of the left).
This is the secret to UKIP, and why UKIP succeeds where the Tea Party fails. By organizing around the third characteristic (100% commitment to opposing the EU, and to opposing the more egregious displays of the left), even if it means sacrificing on the first two points, they have created a unified, powerful opposition to the left.
I would much rather support a Rudy Giuliani — who is a street fighter when opposing the left, than a nominal conservative who says the right things but accomplishes nothing. Even though certain positions of Giuliani’s are liberal in and of themselves, there are two things I am certain of. He will in general oppose liberalism with every fiber of his being; and on those issues where he is “liberal”, he will not assign the same weight as issues where he finds common ground with other 100% committed anti-liberals. He is far more committed to the constitution, and to the values that made this country what it is, than 90% of nominally conservative GOPe types.
Obviously, Rudy is not a viable candidate nationally, and that wasn’t the point. The point is that liberalism will run roughshod over this country until we focus more on supporting those who truly oppose liberalism, and less on the conservative “scorecard”. Just like UKIP is doing. And in a manner wholly different than Republican voters have been doing thus far.
What matters about Ronald Reagan is that he was effective in opposing the left. His exact positions (or, worse yet, his “scorecard” results) aren’t particularly relevant. He was as committed to the constitution, and to American values, as anyone, and he was effective. That is what matters. Not some superficial rundown of issues.
IMHO, I consider that some of the best political analysis I have read in a while.
Very well said.