Yes, Reagan was great, but it's time to move on

Chicago Sun Times ^ | Feb 11, 2004 | George Will

[PhiKapMom]

In this winter of their discontents, nostalgia for Ronald Reagan has become for many conservatives a substitute for thinking. This mental paralysis -- gratitude decaying into idolatry -- is sterile: Neither the man nor his moment will recur. Conservatives should face the fact that Reaganism cannot define conservatism.

[LowCountryJoe]

Judeo-Christian moral values then what are we left with?

Kind of dangerous depending on which portions of this Judeo-Christian philosophy one subscribes to. If it comes from primarily the Pentateuch, then I want no part of those kinds of pious values infecting legislation. If it is more of the NT, hands off, do your thing as long as it hurts no one else; don't let those in power pervert meanings and become tyrannical, then yes, I am all for those values becoming -- no, perhaps repealing -- current legislation.

Jim, the Republicans are deeply split along classical liberal and populist lines. Big tent conservatism can be dangerous if the true focus isn't personal freedom, lower taxes, and a championing for capitalism. The so-called base is running further away from those particular principles. If they really are the base, it will not be long before a major shakeup happens where authoritarian leaning Democrats can pick them off once this "base" outnumbers the so-called and poorly named "progressives".

[Lead Moderator]

You're welcome :)

[Torie]

Your post is a rather crude attempt to make Giuliani into some Godless anti-Christ death cultist anti American socialist. And that is all because of his previous comments about the legal status of abortion. It won't work, not even on your very own site. It would be more straight forward, to just say you can't support Giuliani as a matter of conscience on an issue that is of seminal importance to you, which trumps all else, because you think a fetus at any stage of development is entitled to the same legal protections as one who is actually born, because both are one and the same. That would be a calmer and more accurate statement, of what really animates you. The rest is hyperbole. JMO.

[Jim Robinson]

The party either stands for life and liberty or it doesn't.

[wagglebee]

Wonderful post, thanks.

George Will has been a wishy-washy conservative at best for a long time, so it's not surprising to see him to start cheering for the likes of Giuliani and Romney.

Here are a few FACTS that the "we need to sell out our principles" crowd needs to consider:
- NO pro-abortion Republican has ever been elected president.
- NO Mayor of NYC has ever been elected to any post higher than Mayor of NYC.
- The only Governor of Massachusetts to ever become president was Calvin Coolidge and it needs to be noted that he became president on the death of Harding and the 1924 election was going to be a GOP landslide no matter who was nominated.

[AmishDude]

Jim, with all due respect, the "party" doesn't stand for anything. It isn't a top-down organization, it's the loosest of organizations.

Have you met my tagline, BTW?

[facedown]

Buh^ump!

[AmishDude]

Your first bullet point is OK. The last two are dumb. I could reducto ad absurdum 'em, but why bother?

[LexBaird]

We need to think outside the box and look to new approaches when we choose our next President.

Such as? Without specifics to debate, that's just talk-talk. What approaches do you think need to be taken to drive the Conservative agenda?

[wagglebee]

Saying that about a governor of Georgia or Arkansas before Carter or Clinton would have been dumb. However, the posts of governor of Mass, and mayor of NYC are perceived as important jobs. But, you're right, the most important fact is that no pro-abortion Republican has ever been elected president. And the "yeah but he's popular and he can win, who cares if he's not really a conservative, so let's nominate him" attitude failed miserably with Gerald Fords and Bob Dole.

[logician2u]

You gotta understand, Joe, that many of these faux conservatives, here and elsewhere, became Republicans out of a sense of family duty rather than any ideological attraction. Ma and Pa were Republicans, so their offspring are inclined that way, too.

As the Republican Party historically was the party of high tariffs, strictly controlled immigration and blue laws, you might say these people are just getting back to their roots. That would be "true conservatism" in the traditional sense.

These days, labels are next to useless when describing a person's political leanings. One of the favorite "conservative" Republican candidates for president on this forum, Rep. Duncan Hunter, is a protectionist, is anti-immigration and worries about the effects of internet porn, for example.

How does he differ in any substantive way from Pat Buchanan, whose fan club deserted Free Republic years ago (or were booted off, I'm not sure)?

Hunter is a militarist and supports the Indefinite War on Terror.

So he's apparently a real conservative, while Pat is a "paleo."

[Jim Robinson]

If it's no longer the party of Lincoln or the party of Reagan, then you may be right. The party stands for nothing.

[LexBaird]

I was against the gang of 14 too - but with 20/20 hindsight now, I was wrong, it worked out well. it prevented Roberts and most especially Alito, from being fillibustered.

I disagree strongly. What it did was perpetuate the "gentleman's filibuster", which has no place in a Constitutional Senate. Roberts and Alito would have survived a filibuster of the standard type, as the harsh light of the process revealed how baseless the Kennedy type attacks were. Instead, we got two USSC justices through without a real fight, but allowed the Dems to scuttle many, many more good appointments in the dark.

[AmishDude]

Now you're just defending your previous dumbness. Don't. I realize you want to make an argument that if your favorite also-ran isn't nominated then a Hillary presidency is inevitable, but it doesn't work. Sorry.

[AmishDude]

Neither of the major parties "stands" for anything. They are each loose confederations that shift with time. There is no enforcer saying who can be in and who cannot. That's true of the British Labour party, but not American parties.

I stand by my tagline. And it will follow me to November 2008.

[wagglebee]

I don't think for a minute that Rudy or Mitt can beat Hillary, but then again I don't think the 'Rats are going to nominate her in the first place.

[AmishDude]

You are wrong. Both Rudy and Mitt can beat Hillary.

I hate that I will ask this, but who -- praytell -- do you think can beat the Dem candidate?

[LowCountryJoe]

Excellent reply!

[Delphinium]

We need to think outside the box and look to new approaches when we choose our next President.

Your right, why don't we choose a soldier?

[LowCountryJoe]

The party better stand for liberty first. Life issues can and should be creatively legislated at the state level, where they should have remained and where they desperately belong. This is the only way to reduce the amount of abortions...if need be through financial incentives that facilitate women to have their children and then give them up for adoption or changing the definition of when a child is technically born (hence creative legislation).

Someone like Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo is not going to be an advocate for liberty...and, Jim, whether you like it or not, the GOP needs its libertarian leaning folks. The only solution: embracing the 10th amendment -- as Rudi does -- and learning how to deal with the decision of the local people, largely free of the Washington DC leviathan.