Posted on 07/24/2003 4:00:40 AM PDT by RJCogburn
Edited on 07/24/2003 4:39:12 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
THIS IS THE is the summer of conservatives? discontent. Conservatism has been disoriented by events in the last several weeks. Cumulatively, foreign and domestic developments constitute an identity crisis of conservatism, which is being recast ? and perhaps rendered incoherent.
George W. Bush may be the most conservative person to serve as President since Calvin Coolidge. Yet his Presidency is coinciding with, and is in some instances initiating or ratifying, developments disconcerting to four factions within conservatism. The faction that focuses on foreign policy has four core principles: Preserve U.S. sovereignty and freedom of action by marginalizing the United Nations. Reserve military interventions for reasons of U.S. national security, not altruism. Avoid peacekeeping operations that compromise the military?s war-fighting proficiencies. Beware of the political hubris inherent in the intensely unconservative project of ?nation-building.?
This looks more like a reference to a "temperamental conservatism" than a political one. He's saying Bush is the President least likely to make waves or turn things around and the President most given to obeying precedent since Coolidge. I doubt it's true. Eisenhower and Ford certainly had that temperamental conservatism and moderation. It looks more like a compliment -- maybe an empty or even backhanded one -- to soften the blow of Will's criticism.
You are right. And the failure to use the "Bully Pulpit" to speak out against that course, is to surrender the major thing, that we should have had going for us, to try to turn things around. While Reagan did not accomplish everything he spoke out for from 1964 to 1980, he continued to use the platform to advocate Conservative principles, as President.
It is one thing to admit that you cannot get certain things through Congress, at a particular moment in time. It is something totally different to pretend to join the other side, and endorse an egalitarian Socialist view of human society.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
He is probably a dysron, as I have defined the term.
What is the definition, if I may ask?
Can't; &, they'll destroy anyone who tries.
What'd be infinitely easier (and make a lot more sense) would be for those who feel betrayed to do something totally innovative, completely unsuspected.
Take over the 'Rat party.
Sure would restore the orginal meaning of the word "Liberal," wouldn't it.
You (or anyone else) think that sounds crazy?
Well maybe it is, at that.
While it's no less crazy believing (& blindly supporting) a "conservative party" who's purporting to be advancing conservative ideals when in fact their own actions indicate they're doing anything but.
I think a (damned) good argument could be made to classify people who'd support such a position, too.
...as acute "schitzophrenics."
I see no such poll.
If true, that's messed up.
The academic steam-roller, based upon the absurd propaganda of men like Ashley Montagu and Gordon Allport--men active in the Communist Front movement in America, but treated as gurus by academcic "Liberals"--has frightened many College graduates to the point where they would not admit that they see the obvious differences between people, if their whole careers depended upon it. This leads to a lot of "Emperor's New Clothes" type scenarios.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Take a look at the very bottom of the sidebar. Currently Bush has an approval rate of 87% on FR.
Wromg... Wrong.... and Wrong.... Three wrongs don't make a right. Try to keep the ideal you want (and will never get) and the real (the world we live in) in proper perspective. It takes time to change generations of Democrat control. There is much to be undone.
I really don't care what or how the mainstream media is playing things.
Neither do I.
The President and Administration have enjoyed...
It doesn't matter to me.
Historically speaking, Congress and the press are hesitant to take on a sitting President with high numbers.
Not true. Watch C-SPAN1 and 2 when Congress is in session and read any newspaper or watch the network news or CNN or CNBC or MSNBC, etc.
At what time, did the President pressure Congress to reduce the size and scope of the federal government?
As I said, for example, I think the merger of the 20+ agencies will save money and require fewer positions over the long run. It's too soon to tell.
Congressmen may turn a deaf ear to what I have to say, but they will not ignore a President with a 75% approval rating. But it's all okay with you.
You're whining again.
Creeping socialism still means socialism in the end. If that is what you are for, then fine. Cheer on socialism. I will be fighting for more important things like holding our leaders accountable to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Disgruntled, panicked Ideologically Correct people like you gave socialism a big boost in '92 when you enabled and empowered the DEMs to take the White House back. You hurt this country for decades to come. That's one of the reasons many of us don't pay much attention to you. You are unreliable when it comes to keeping the Liberals out of control. You are too irratic. You abuse idealism.
Do you not think the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are important?
When did they get separated?
Yeah, the fact that Bush Sr. lost conservative votes is not his fault, it's his voters' fault.
JMO, but those "pure conservatives" who voted for Perot have no reason to complain about Clinton and the damage Clinton did. They helped elect him, IMO.
Perhaps. Who has given socialism the big boost in the past couple of years....regarding the Medicare bill, the farm bill, the education bill.....?
Whatever, I have a clear conscience. I voted for Clinton's main general election opponent in 92 and 96.
You all on the other hand wring your hands and rationalize your helping the Clintons take the White House.
No way.
If so, war was waged to strengthen the United Nations as author and enforcer of international norms of behavior.
If that is the case, then it was wrong. I backed the war for a different reason.(ties to Al Qaida[sp])
That may be one reason why consideration is being given to a quite optional intervention — regime change, actually — in Liberia.
And we DO NOT belong in Liberia. There is no US security interest there. Protect our embassey, and go home.
(in fact, he has vetoed nothing)
And that shows that Bush is not a leader by any stretch of the imagination when it comes to domestic issues. When has he taken a stand?
Actually, the administration is eager to approve the largest expansion of the welfare state since the Great Society 40 years ago.
WHICH WE CAN NOT AFFORD WITH OUR BUDGET DEFECIT!!!!!!!!!
The President is rightly reluctant to endorse a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a heterosexual institution: constitutionalizing social policy is generally unwise.
I agree with Bush here.
Two weeks ago the administration reaffirmed the irrational and unfair implementation standards of the Title IX ban on sex discrimination in college athletics.
Title IX is bad since there is no football exception.
What blow will befall conservatives next? Watch the Supreme Court
If Bush appoints a liberal to Scotus, I will not vote for him.
Bush has me missing John Engler's 3rd term...his bad one.
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.