Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: nofriendofbills
It's been over twenty years since Ronald Reagan was elected, and almost ten since the "Republican Revolution" of Newt Gingrich. The old issues don't have the same power and appeal now. The situations that led unideological people to vote heavily for Republicans or conservatives -- we could sum those conditions up by "Carter" and "Clinton" -- don't exist now. And the issues that make the press now -- internal security and corporate corruption -- tend to promote more government, rather than less. The conclusion that I draw is that the votes aren't there for a more conservative agenda. The Republicans of 1994 and 1980 were relatively inactive on immigration issues, anyway.

Perhaps a more dynamic and imaginative leader could create the conditions for a more conservative agenda. I doubt it would make very much difference just now, but Bush isn't that leader. He's not without talents, but they are more those of a national, rather than a party or factional, leader. In this, he's more in the mold of his father or Eisenhower or Washington, than of Reagan or the Roosevelts, who were as skilled at partisan and ideological command, as at national leadership.

75 posted on 07/28/2002 7:57:41 AM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: x
I highly disagree. I just think that the moderates (read: liberals) once again have decided that conservatives are too controversial to handle. Remember, when Reagan ran, most of the the Reps. at the time thought he was far too conservative a candidate to win.

The issues that make the press? Don't you mean, the issues the press decides should make the press? The mainstream media is always going to run stories that benefit their liberal agenda.

The issues that conservatives win on are (mostly) the very same issues that Bush won the election on (and, again, I'm counting Bush as a conservative -- although *not* the weaklings in Congress). Tax cuts, limited but effective government, personal accountability, increased military spending, school vouchers, a ban on partial-birth abortion...those are conservative issues. And they still resonate with most of the country. The danger is when the moderates/RINOs start tapdancing around with social security, or education spending, or ANYTHING that has to do with spending -- liberals will always be willing to outspend conservatives. As for immigration issues, even within the conservatives, there's a great deal of disagreement on it. Isolationism and conservatism do NOT go hand in hand (for instance, I'm livid over the steel tariffs).

That being said, I will readily admit that Bush doesn't have the bully-pulpit oratory power that Reagan had; however, he's far more conservative than his father ever was (good god, we lost so many damn seats -- *overnight* -- when he broke his "no new taxes" pledge -- it ain't even funny). Bush is more of a Truman or maybe even a Coolidge; not particularly fond or great at over-arching oratory but a very effective "manager" of power. All I care about with Bush is that he gets the majority of the issues I care about as a conservative taken care of -- which he has. Tax cuts -- done. Increased military spending -- done. Partial birth abortion ban -- on the way.

And let's not forget the single most important reason to have a conservative president -- appointments to the courts. Now, don't get me wrong, we've had some real f'ing idiots put on the courts by Republicans -- David Sou...I can't even say his name :p -- but, on the par, Bush's nominees are conservative. Which is why it drives me absolutely bats**t when a basically liberal RINO like McLame comes along and sides with the Dems on blocking his nominees. We've got to get those nominees appointed.

Okay, this thing is rambling all over the place, but er, you get some of my points. I don't think conservatism is dead. I think it's feared by the Republicans in Congress as again, being too "dangerous" to pursue -- but then again, even if they lost control of the congress, it was a conservative who gave them that control in the first place -- Newt.

--KL

76 posted on 07/28/2002 12:38:40 PM PDT by Kip Lange
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson