ON FREEPERS AND CALIFORNIA

3 October 2003 | Egon

[Egon]

ON FREEPERS AND CALIFORNIA

I was recently directed to FreeRepublic by my Dad, who has been using it as his primary source of news for quite awhile now. I've been reading it extensively now for a month or so, picking up on familiar names, starting to understand the nuances and the lingo. I'm even able to recognize people by their previous views and predict which ones are going to respond in which way. It's a really fun exercise in getting to know new people.

As I come up to speed in this medium, however, it's amazing to me how quickly some of the forums degenerate so quickly into derision, name calling, and rhetoric. The gubernatorial recall race in California, for example.

In every related forum that I've read, the respondents can best be classified into three groups of people: Liberals, "pragmatic" conservatives, and "principled" conservatives. I haven't read much, if anything, from actual liberals here, but it's amazing how quickly the other two groups label each other as liberals. Here's my take on how the groups are actually divided:

Liberals

These people either want Davis to stay in office, or they want Cruz to win. They LOVE the way the Republicans are divided between Arnold and Tom. At first, they were willing to sit back and watch, laugh at us, and occasionally stick their fingers in to stir up some controversy to keep us divided. Lately, as both Davis and Cruz have sunk in the polls, they've gotten a bit more desperate.

"Pragmatic" Conservatives

These are either moderate Republicans (or Independents) who like Arnold, or any Republican who thinks Tom doesn't stand a chance of winning and, therefore, Arnold is the only option. These people tend to be labeled as "RINO"s by the "principled" conservatives. Accordingly, they view the "principled" conservatives as either failing to take into account the real world, or closet Liberals who simply want to throw the election-- or they just call them that for purposes of vitriolic argument.

"Principled" Conservatives

These tend to be the farther right of the conservative Republicans. They have decided that enough is enough. They're tired of compromising their principles by voting for more elect-able, moderate candidates. They see the state/country as having been dragged too far to the left and want it to stop. Anyone who is either farther left than they, or who compromises their principles is labeled either a Liberal or a "RINO".

My Two Cents

First, let me clarify something. I live in Minnesota. I was born in San Francisco, and spent the first (roughly) 18 years of my life in the Bay Area. I "escaped" as soon as I was able, and moved to the Midwest. My parents and one brother, unfortunately, haven't been so lucky. Not trying to disparage California-- it's just not my cup of tea. Aside from having family directly affected by California politics, I could also argue that I've got a dog in this fight because California represents the world's 5th largest economy and, arguably, whatever happens there affects everybody.

I tend to automatically identify myself as a "principled" conservative. My Dad is a VERY principled conservative. After watching events in California unfold, however, I've found myself drifting over into the pragmatic end of things, much to the dismay of my Dad.

California has been dragged inexorably toward the left by the liberal establishment. California has always been a strong-bed for liberalism in this country, so that's not much of a surprise. But what strikes me about this migration is that it's been slow and steady. Californians didn't suddenly wake up one day and exclaim, "Today, let's elect Vladimir Lenin as our leader!" No, it was a gradual, incremental process.

Now I could say something really derogatory about liberals like: "Sure! They can compromise their principles and elect progressively more liberal, moderate Democrats because they have no principles." But I don't believe that to be the case. I DO think, however, that they have taken a more reasoned, far-sighted approach to politics than we have been able to. They understand the old axiom that it's much easier to boil frogs when you turn the heat up slowly.

I think Republicans need to learn this lesson. Instead of suddenly reaching to the farther right and selecting a candidate that represents the ideal of conservative values, we need to recognize that it took a long period to get to where we are now, and the road back is not going to be traveled instantaneously either. Additionally, as we've slowly drifted left, the lines distinguishing what's moderate and what's considered extreme have also drifted left. 20 years ago, Tom might have been considered a moderate candidate. Heck, most Democrats of 50 years ago would be considered Republicans today.

Complicating matters is that "principled" conservatives are being forced to choke down another issue: If Arnold wins, he's either going to win again in the next election, or he's going to lose to a Democrat. There is no apparent way for another, farther-right conservative to nose into the process anytime soon. In fact, many "principled" conservatives would argue that as we keep electing moderate Republicans, it'll become harder and harder to introduce a true conservative candidate.

On the Rantings

Aside from the name calling by the conservative groups back and forth, I've also heard it put forward that not only should Tom get out of the race, that he should never have entered it in the first place. Now, I suppose an argument could be made for him to withdraw at this point, especially as this is not a primary, but a general election. But never to have run at all? At this point, with Arnold having a comfortable margin over Cruz, regardless of Tom's draw on the conservative base, I guess I'd say to Tom: You've already alienated (hopefully not permanently) a portion of the Republican base by staying in, why drop out now and alienate the rest?

Arnold: Despite my misgivings about your stand on some core issues, the advisors you're surrounding yourself with, and the way you've conducted yourself in the past, we're counting on you to steer the state of California back toward its former glory.

Tom: I admire your principles and your moral will. I hope we can figure out a way to allow you to represent our values, if not in 2006, or in this venue, then certainly again in the future.

To the rest of the conservatives (myself included), I guess I'd say this: We all believe in something, we all make decisions, we all get frustrated at other people who hold different views from ours; but we all want basically the same thing in the end. Intelligent, civilized people can disagree without over-the-top rhetoric, and without burning too many bridges.

[sarasota]

"Intelligent, civilized" take on the subject. Well done.

[Support Free Republic]

Raise Your Hand If You Want To Donate To Free Republic!
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[Tamzee]

My, you're good :-)

Well stated!

[SteveH]

ping

[sauropod]

Well written. I happen to disagree with you btw.

Your father should have told you that if you don't have a thick skin, you should not be frequenting FR.

[Congressman Billybob]

I thoroughly agree. These comments are intelligent, literate, on point, and brief. Nobody should get their dander up over these comments. Nobody should feel their time was wasted on a long screed. This is the opposite of a post that is all heat and no light.

Welcome to FreeRepublic. Keep up the good work.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Two Degrees of Separation and a Double Sawbuck," discussion thread on FR. IF YOU WANT A FREEPER IN CONGRESS, CLICK HERE.

[Humidston]

Welcome to FR. And BRAVO!

[Sabertooth]

Liberals
"Pragmatic" Conservatives
"Principled" Conservatives
My Two Cents

No fair, you got your own category.

[Egon]

Thanks!

My skin is actually pretty thick. My major concern after following a few of the bigger threads, though, is the original intent of the debate is lost in the noise.

That said, the humor drives on through!

[M Kehoe]

it's amazing to me how quickly some of the forums degenerate so quickly into derision, name calling, and rhetoric.

You should have been here five years ago. "Derision, name calling, etc." were the nicer exchanges on this board. (And no, I won't list any monikers).

Welcome to FR.

5.56mm

[68 grunt]

I appreciate your take. Welcome aboard.

[Bikers4Bush]

You pretty much nailed it Egon.

Well done.

[Egon]

No fair, you got your own category.

Heh. That may just because I'm not smart enough yet to know any better.

[Rabid Dog]

You should have been posting earlier!!

[Conservative4Ever]

Well said. You have expressed my thoughts exactly.

Red

[Conservative4Ever]

One other thing....Republicans are going to have to learn a lesson from the dems....they have to learn to circle the SUV's and stop eating each other alive. I believe the phrase is United we stand. Just my thought.

Red

[Bob J]

Well said.

[John Jorsett]

If you want to see 'discourse' that'll peel paint, visit Democratic Underground. People here are downright genteel compared to them. I can see why the left is against guns: they'd kill each other in a minute if they were armed.

[AmericanInTokyo]

nice job, kid.

(agreeing with some of your treatise)