Can the Right Unite? (FreeRepublic.com is mentioned here!)

FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | June 10, 2K2 | Michael P. Tremoglie

[rdb3]

Doesn't this article ignore the rift between the Democrats and the Green Party?

Indeed it does, but I can't even guess as to why. I think the Greens pose little, if any, threat to the RATS.

[rdb3]

It seems that there should be some kind of punishment for people who begin essays with the word "INDUBITABLY".

I see. This statement is offered, all while totally ignoring (apparently) the substance of the piece.

Interesting. Thank you for your (non) contribution.

[rdb3]

Thanks for the ping, good friend! Let us unite, brothers-in-arms to take back our republic!

You and I most certainly will keep trying, BANNER-MAN!

;-)

[Egregious Philbin]

Ahh, but rdb3, there are plenty of Democrats who are still irate with the Green Party for "giving" Bush the election!

I sometimes wonder if the right can unite- it seems too easy to bash each other over 1-2 issues when there are so many more out there. Same thing happens on the left, but the effect isn't as bad because, IMO, folx in the middle seem to choose the left over the right. I think most moderates and undecideds are more scared of the right than they are of the left, which is why disunity on the right hurts conservative candidates more than disunity on the left hurts liberal candidates.

I thought what mafree wrote was interesting, and had some good points. Being a fairly (shh!) liberal guy, I can tell you that the diversity of opinion on FR is refreshing after the Clinton-loving lockstep of DU! Do you really think folks in the middle favor the left, mafree? Hmm, maybe. Part of it could be the tendency on the right to always be in opposition, as this article demonstrates - the Right unites against the Left. And another potential reason is also shown in this article - all left-leaning groups are "Socialists"? Serious exaggeration, and over-the-top rhetoric, are a little alienating, and a hallmark of the writing on FrontPage.

[Willie Green]

This statement is offered, all while totally ignoring (apparently) the substance of the piece.

Substance?

Do you think statements such as the following have substance?

Lucianne.com is a conservative website forum similar to Free Republic’s website.

[Ohioan]

I think that your writer, here, has a point to make--certainly--but that the operative word should not be "unite." Conservatives, by their very nature, will emphasize different aspects of our heritage. They will be very loath to give up those individual emphases.

I would focus instead on "cooperation." The real strength of our enemies has come in their instinctive cooperation on a wide variety of issues, without necessarily compromising any aspect of what is important to individual organizations. It would be well if we could work together generally, without the need to try to force all into one mold, wherever individual consciences will allow. At the very least, we should apply Ronald Reagan's Eleventh Commandment--proposed for Republicans as to other Republicans, but equally applicable (really more applicable) to our ideological fellow Conservatives)--and not speak ill of one another.

But well beyond such mutual acceptance, there are a wide range of issues, where most Conservative groups could cooperate, very well indeed. And it is one of the major keys to reversing the trends that threaten everything that we believe in.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[Isadora Duncan]

I have a theory that there are some people in this country that have fallen victim to many who use the phrase that our country is a Democracy (although we know it is not, it is a Republic). However, the term Democracy is tossed about from media to politicians. Therefore, there are many people 'out there' who connotate the term Democratic Party to Democracy. I believe they honestly think that the Democratic Party stands for "democracy". They haven't a clue as to liberal/conservative or what any other party stands for. They only know the word Democracy, ergo democratic party represents America and Freedom.

Just a theory, mind you. But not every one is politically savvy. Some go on headlines and Brokaw/Rather/Jennings news. They simply hear Democratic Party and automatically think Democracy. I think it's why they can form these numerous groups of people - ignorance is bliss folks - and actually control their direction. These poor saps think they're doing it for Democracy.

Does this make sense?

[rdb3]

There will never be unity between libertarians and "social conservatives" because the first group is not willing to compromise freedom for political ends, while the second is more than willing to do so.

"Social conservatives" are often their own worst enemy. While I desire a moral society, I'm not convinced that the way to go about it is through legislation. Autonomous people will do what they want to do, regardless of what I or anyone else think.

For example, I think homosexuality is both unnatural and an absolute abomination. Yet I'm against sodomy laws. Does this make me a libertarian?

Hardly!

I can bring any number of issues up that deal with our society and its moral decay. However, stacking up the number of laws in our society really makes our society corrupt, moreso than what "social conservative" legislation would hope to alleviate. Ultimately, the individual and his or her homosexuality will be dealt with by God. In the meantime, let we who oppose the homosexualization of our culture speak out loudly! Let us speak with both our voices and our money. Too many of us will complain amongst ourselves, but not where it counts the most. I believe that more will come about through active participation in society with our actions than will by attempting to go through D.C.

If legislative action for social conservatives is of utmost importance, then get involved locally to create the type of community within you desire to live.

There's more.

Take the drug issue. As a Christian, I think that if one plant that grows naturally is legal (tobacco), then another (marijuana) which grows naturally should NOT be illegal.

Does that mean that I'm pro-weed? Nope. Just logically consistent. And far more suffer from lung cancer than do from the affects of marijuana. Harder narcotics? That's a whole different discussion. But the libertarian right is just radically indifferent to honest debate on the issue (read: their way or the highway).

I'd like to work on a roadmap towards unification of the Right, with the goal of resecuring our freedom and the destruction of the Left's stranglehold over America as a whole.

We have conservatives, social conservatives, paleos, neos, and libertarians who comprise the overall Right. What combination of issues can we all agree upon and work to realize the accomplishment of their fruition which then serves as a springboard towards the other areas within which we disagree?

Hmmm...

One, I think that each and everyone of us must realize that our continued fractured state is akin to a football team with only 8 players. How successful is an 8-player football team going to be against a full 11-player team? You may get two first downs in four quarters, if you're lucky.

I'm open for suggestions, just for kicks. I'm in no position to influence anyone anywhere.

[rdb3]

Out of the entire piece, one sentence invalidates the rest of it or the gist of it?

Okay.

Can two walk except they be agreed? Amos 3:3

If you can't see the forest for one branch, I can't walk with you, and have no desire to do so, either.

RTR.

[rdb3]

Therefore, there are many people 'out there' who connotate the term Democratic Party to Democracy. I believe they honestly think that the Democratic Party stands for "democracy".

Bingo!

Remember last year when some GOP legislators began to, and correctly I might add, refer to the RATS as the "Democrat Party?" The RATS raised a ruckus over it because of what you state here. They count on "Democrat" and "Democratic" being subconsciously connected with "democracy."

Excellent point.

[mafree]

Do you really think folks in the middle favor the left, mafree?

I wouldn't say that's always the case but it is when the choices are ideologically far apart.

[mafree]

Thanks for the flag.

We have conservatives, social conservatives, paleos, neos, and libertarians who comprise the overall Right. What combination of issues can we all agree upon and work to realize the accomplishment of their fruition which then serves as a springboard towards the other areas within which we disagree?

I think taxes may be the best issue- these guys are too far apart on most social issues and not all of them are constitutionalists.

[mafree]

..I'd like to work on a roadmap towards unification of the Right, with the goal of resecuring our freedom and the destruction of the Left's stranglehold over America as a whole..

A worthy goal for sure. I'll help if I can.

[Willie Green]

If you can't see the forest for one branch, I can't walk with you, and have no desire to do so, either.

Well, as I see it, my initial comment on this thread criticized the author's pretentious writing style.

OTOH, your responses to me have once again taken the form of a personal attack.

Your inability and lack of desire "to walk with me" is not MY problem.

[rdb3]

I would focus instead on "cooperation."

I think that slight change in terms is significant. "Unite" does have a manefeso-ish ring to it.

P.S. Everytime I see your username I get homesick!

[Reagan Man]

Can the Right Unite?

I think the right is united and like never before. Of course, if you go by the vocal loud mouths on FreeRepublic, you'd think the world is coming to end for the political rightwing. That isn't the case. If you discount the rants from all the fringe extremists, you know, the political malcontents and social misfits, conservative-Republicans are still a very powerful force. Our conservative President, enjoys 95% approval from Republicans and since conservatives make up, the majority base for the Republican Party, Bush probably gets about 90% support from conservatives. Republicans have controlled the full Congress six of the last seven years and with some hard workd and a little luck, will take back control of the Senate this November. The just over one million votes given to Buchanan, Browne, Hagelin and Phillips in the 2000 general election, are the dissatisfied fringe element on the political right. Nothing to fear from those folks, except high volume rehtoric, that leads nowhere and can't win any elections.

[billybudd]

Your political opinions are close to mine, not just the principles, but also the approach and perspective. I consider myself conservative, rather than libertarian, because I hold socially conservative views. However, logical consistency, as you say, compells me to believe, for example, that banning marijuana use is wrong (though smoking marijuana is also wrong). People who want to enforce a moral society don't bother to think that this will simply mask people's corrupt tendencies. The only way to have a moral society is to change the minds of individuals, not to have a stack of laws against all possible deviancy.
About uniting the Right, this is simply not possible, at least in the way you describe. The neocons, libertarians, social cons, etc., are not really interest groups, so cannot be grouped into a coalition of interest. These conservative groups are defined by ideology, so the only thing that could unite them is an idea. However, I don't believe there is one idea like this, because there are irreconcileable differences at the most fundamental level. The only thing that can be done is to find the idea which would alienate the fewest "conservatives" in the hopes of forging a strong coalition. However, I don't think uncompromising freedom is this idea.