Posted on 02/28/2007 7:54:19 AM PST by Al Simmons
Wedge Issues Posted by: “Common Tator” in FreeRepublic.com April 16, 2002
The one thing that amazes me on this site is the belief by some that the conservative position is the majority position.
Mostly people tend to believe it could be the majority position if the right candidate ran, or if it weren't for the media or RINOs or etc, etc. They really don't have a clue.
Roughly 2/3 of the public has firm views. They have made up their minds and do not change them. This group is nearly equally split between the left and the right.
There are about a 1/3 of the population that is never sure. Sometimes it will go left and sometimes it will go right.
When a party restricts itself to its base it will be in a minority party. The "base only" party will be reduced to crying as the other side works its will. In some nations both the left and right restrict themselves to just their base. That nation then develops five or six parties. And all governments in that nation are coalitions of a major party and some of the minor parties. In that situation the minor party always has more influence than its numbers represent. For the Rino and Dino haters that is the worst of all worlds.
Many of Rino and Dino haters try to make ours a 3 or 4 party system. They never figure out that their splinter right or left party would never get much power in a government based on coalitions. They are too small. It is the centrist parties that have a 1/3 of the public as potential members that get the clout in the Multi Party system. As you can see in a 2 party or a 5 or 6 party system the center tends to prevail.
But in our two party system the center is an instrument the major parties use to enact their goals. In the multiparty system it is the center parties that use the right and left to enact their centrist goals. Such a system like those in Italy and France are RINO and DINO paradise.
This nation now and for all of the last 140 years has been roughly 1/3 left, 1/3 right and 1/3 in the middle. Those in the middle who run for office are what we call RINOs and DINOs.
When Republicans drive RINOs out they leave the party to become DINOs and take their political power with them. The Democrat party gets them by default.
Then the Democrats thanks to its Dino buddies have a veto proof house and senate. It was Barry Goldwater's greatest accomplishment. In my BRAIN I knew Barry would elect a lot of DINOs ... and he did.
If a party with most of the center wins the presidency too, they have a filibuster proof senate. That party then can do anything it wants to do. When the party leadership takes control they implement the parties’ core beliefs. It was what LBJ did after Goldwater drove all the RINOs into LBJ's camp. It let LBJ do the "Great Society." LBJ had to have Barry's help to do it. And Barry did what it took to give LBJ the support he needed... LBJ had all the left. Barry gave him all the center.
To win control a party must keep its base and get over half the middle. If the Republicans have more RINOs than the Democrats have DINOs the Republican agenda prevails. If the Democrats have more DINOs than the Republicans have RINOs the Democrat agenda prevails.
Those that demand the defeat of RINOs are doing all they can to enact the leftist agenda. They are the most valuable asset the left has. One of the most effective tactics in politics in the negative campaign.
Negative campaigns are not about getting votes for your candidate. They are about getting the other side's base to not vote for their candidate. Thus if you can get the right to vote against a Rino or not vote at all, you can elect a very liberal candidate.
If you can force the Republicans to nominate a right wing candidate so right wing he can't get the center voters, you elect the left candidate.
You must be about 13 years old.
It's not a Constitutional Amendment.
I don't understand your response. The federal government is only authorized to do what is specified in the Constitution. Can you please point out to me which part of the Constitution I must have missed which allows for the Federal government to be involved in education.
Would you rather your tax dollars fund schools that failed or succeeded?
Can't forget the Medicare Prescription Plan either....I'm sure a few here will really flame me when I say "GWB is an east coast liberal republican" much in the same line as Collins, Snowe and Chaffee. Come to think of it so is Rudy.
It IS gay sounding. It reminds me of the liberals whining about "Oh, we need to protect the chilllllldrennn" or "This is for the chillllllldrennnn". I like George Carlin's approach, "f$&k the children!".
Actually, it's nothing like that. Traditional (classical) conservatism leaves moral values to the individual, as it places tremendous responsibility on the individual, not other institutions to inculcate those values. They are a part of the freedom I mentioned, and are no business of others, as long as those moral values do not interfere with the rights of others. Classical conservatism recognizes and approves of religion as a part of the structure of society. But religious people support liberalism, socialism, and the nationalism of even Germany. Those political philosophies have nothing to do with conservatism, and are antithetical to it.
To interject some particular set of moral values into the workings of government has nothing to do with conservatism. That is more linked to theocracy, yet another political philosophy. Nor is libertarianism simply a version of conservatism. Libertarians deny government control; conservatives do not. Libertarians set individual freedom ahead of all other characteristics of a nation; conservatives value individual freedom, but as a part of an organized government, and recognizes that some of those freedoms are necessarily curtailed to ensure that a social structure together with the necessary security for it is maintained. Those are not insignificant differences.
t also rings of democrat efforts to paint themselves as 'just as religious' as republican conservatives, while championing abortion on demand and societal engineering.
Again, you err. Abortion is a special issue, that most conservatives do not approve of. Their disapproval revolves around the issue of the rights of an unborn, and at what point does that unborn take on sufficient human characteristics that it must be considered a "person" for constitutional purposes. So conservatives, while accepting some abortion, especially early term abortions are not to be confused with liberals who believe that a woman's right to choose overrides all else.
But conservatives do understand that liberals can be religious just as can conservatives. Finally, conservatives do not in any way accept social or societal engineering. Culture is the purview of the people and is normally changed by changes in demographics, technology, and a host of causes unrelated to governmental interference. Conservatives generally slow the changes in culture simply because they embrace tradition and institutions. They do not slow those changes by utilizing governments to enforce cultural stability. Moral viewpoints and culture are intrinsically linked. Changes in culture will usually precipitate changes in certain moral attitudes (in a macro sense).
With what you espouse for conservatism, that appears to be an explanation of why some Rudy supporters are so willing to compromise/drop treaditional conservative values as defining character in order to endorse Rudy.
What I listed for you were traditional, classical conservative values. Nor do they necessarily point to Rudy as the ideal candidate. Again, there is some, but little relationship between libertarianism and conservatism.
I do not think libertarians will be successful in taking control of the republican party for '08, but I could be wrong and republicans may end up being dumb enough or scared enough to accept the libertarian definition of conservatism.
You seem to cling to the notion that conservatives of the stature of Hume and Burke were Libertarians. They essentially defined conservative thought. So I have nothing to do with libertarianism except to the point that some libertarian thought is taken from conservatism. That you disagree with those characteristics of conservatism that I gave you earlier merely reflects that what you define as conservatism, (eg: a set of moral or religious principles)has no historical basis, especially as an influence on the selection of candidates for office.
We never touched on many other facets of conservatism including the source for the rights of man, justice and inequality to just name a few. But this is not the proper thread, because most here are quite comfortable knowing that they can distinguish between RINOs and "us right-minded people". So be it.
There's a lot of things you don't understand. If it was a state issue, why haven't the states tackled the issue? All they ever do is raise my taxes, while the schools continue to scrape the bottom of the barrel for educators. Even though I have no kids of my own, I'm still footing the bill for everyone else's kids education.
You're avoiding the question. First of all, most states HAVE "tackled" it prior to NCLB. I mean, the people who have graduated high school since 2002 are not a nation of retards.
Second, my question was which section of the Constitution authorizes the fedgov to be involved in education? You're a conservative, so surely you would not support something you found to be unconstitutional, right?
It's like putting a band-aid on a tumor, expecting that tumor to disappear.
And the section of the Constitution which authorized NCLB is......??
Since I'm having a hard time getting an answer out of another freeper on this, would you mind giving me your take on the Constitutionality of NCLB?
Who said it was a Constitutional Amendment? I sure didn't.
It's not a Constitutional Amendment, it's a federal law! You realize that federal laws have to fall within the limits of what the Constitution authorizes and that Amendments can be anything, right? You can't just go and make up any sort of federal law that you'd like!
Regards, Ivan
Wish more people like me would tell that to their Congresscritters.
Thanks, Ivan. I agree 100%.
Believe me, so would I.
We all agree. The DOE is where your problem lies.
Giuliani, to his credit, is in favour of this.
Now, as for No Child Left Behind - by providing league tables, this is actually highlighting how bad schools are, the next step is to allow parents to choose what schools their children attend - namely, with vouchers.
Regards, Ivan
You've donated to Alan Keyes?
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.