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.
One of the reason I oppose NCLB so strongly is that it increases the power of the DoE tremendously.
Thanks for the link; I can listen this week as I am snowed in; but generally I try to go the Y around his show time.
BTW marklevin.com is not correct, rather marklevinfan.com. If you look at the former you'll see that mark levin is an artist of "rump table[s]"
I'd love to have the great one comment on the former site. ROFL
Wasn't it President Carter who first established the Dept. of Education as a cabinet position? Correct me if I am in error.
The ping to Jim was to share a thought regarding the libertarian stealth work here at FR which may be contributing much to the divisive nature of these Rudy threads. Don't get so paranoid, you and I are not that important.
This statement demonstrates profound ignorance of Burkean conservatism.
Regards, Ivan
You can go on for paragraphs of philosophical exegesis, but it remains true that a liberal republican president would have influence to make this society in the liberal image he holds. I don't agree to have that done, just as I would resist strongly politicians' attempts to remake this society into a strict Christian or Islamic theocracy.
"That you disagree with those characteristics of conservatism that I gave you earlier ..." You seem more than ready to read into what I don't address, so don't be surprised when I assert that your perspective is very libertarian, especially when you dodge moral values in relation to choosing a political representative. I did not in fact reject the characteristics you proposed, I pointed out that you avoided moral values as significant in the expression of conservatism.
I don't have an answer yet, because when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, there is barely a perceptible difference between their positions.
Glad to see you are staying so up-to-date. In that 1989 dictionary you've got there what are the definitions for "internet" and "blog" and "cyberspace"? How about "Neo-conservative"?
His groupies have been spreading disinformation: that he has said it was wrongly decided.
Not paranoid, realistic. I know that usually when folks do that, its to alert Jim that someone needs to be considered for banning.
From the threads I've seen, the divisiveness is being driven by the hard right. I know most of those posters.
Surely you don't mean the same Burke who despised revolution, especially when done by the French, but did make one exception in that he fully supported the American Revolution as it removed America out from under the yoke of one church, even though he fully supported monarchy?
I don't do it often, but I will ping him (and am pinging him with this post also because he is mentioned in the post) on a thread where his integrity has been impugned and a continuing debate over the rightness or wrongness of voting to nominate a candidate for whom I agree with him would be disasterous for conservatism.
ping
To be sure they can and often do at every level of government.
As a social conservative, I see the election of a Rudy Gillan as opening the door for a liberal politician to manipulate the culture, and he proved he was more than willing to do that in New York. That's why I would not vote for him in the primaries and if nominated not in the presidential election.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. If you mean leaving Roe to the courts where it belongs, or refusing to support constitutional amendments to "protect" marriage, I would say both of those issues are just the opposite. The area where government crosses over into cultural issues is in the arena of civil rights. School desegregation, the Civil Rights Act, ADA, and 14th Amendment issues have all involved cultural areas of society. Yet, as I said before, government's first duty is to protect the rights of all of its citizens. To be sure, there are a lot of areas government intrudes into the culture, some for the protection of society as a whole (obscenity and pornography), and some simply because it chooses to use its powers.
You can go on for paragraphs of philosophical exegesis, but it remains true that a liberal republican president would have influence to make this society in the liberal image he holds.
The same holds true for a far right president. Anyone in fact can impact society. I will vote for the person who understands the role of government is to stay out of cultural/moral areas, and concentrate on protection of rights, defense of our Country and bring both sides together to solve the major issues of our time including immigration, taxes, deficits, social security, and energy independence. Those are major issues that cannot be solved by individuals, but only by the government as it is currently structured. But I can no more assure Rudy or any of the candidates will not delve into areas better left for society to resolve than you can.
You seem more than ready to read into what I don't address, so don't be surprised when I assert that your perspective is very libertarian, especially when you dodge moral values in relation to choosing a political representative
I don't dodge moral values at all. I expect my candidate to possess an ethical character, but I will not look into his bedroom either. I told you why I was not a Libertarian, but you chose to ignore it. Fine, but I have looked at every major party website, as well as their agendas. I can assure you, I am no Libertarian. I don't know why Libertarians bother you so much though. Are you equally appalled at the secessionists here, the militia groups here, the "only fools pay taxes" crowd here? Are you upset at those who openly espouse a theocracy for this Nation...here? There are lots of folks here, some who offer more than others, but neither conservatives (classic) or Libertarians are your enemy. We should not be treated as such. I respect the values of the RR, but will do everything I can to keep their issues out of the political debate.
I did not in fact reject the characteristics you proposed, I pointed out that you avoided moral values as significant in the expression of conservatism.
I don't mean to suggest they be rejected. No good conservative would permit immorality to rule his life. We would reject an immoral person, but not want someone's view of morality injected into the political debate or process. The "social" conservatives do. For example, a social conservative would enforce all sodomy laws against homosexuals, but not against heterosexuals. Conservatives would not enforce such laws, or if the laws were to be enforced, enforced equally upon all. But no classical conservative would involve himself in something that was a purely social issue.
Sorry for being so long winded. But a lot more of this kind of give and take is needed on this forum, and your arguments are appreciated.
There is no such possible future: issues like abortion are in the public arena... the only question is who wins on them. You can't wish them away, and capitualting to the desires of the Left on social issues is leftism, not Libertarianism.
Nominating socially liberal Republicans hurts the interests of social conservatives. Any other claim is pretense. The Republican party should never nominate anyone who isn't conservative on social issues in specific.
The party platform is quite socially conservative. We can just stick with that as our metric for what kind of candidates we should support. That's why I made my chart a while back that shows where Giuliani stands in comparison to the platform. The Republican Party should never nominate anyone who isn't mostly consistant with its own platform. Giuliani isn't even close.
Yes, abortion is in the public arena, but I said I wanted to keep it out of the political debate. It has no place there, because it will ultimately be resolved in the courts, not the Executive Branch. Since I'm neither a leftist nor a Libertarian, but a conservative, I can safely say the laundry list I made earlier of social issues that do not belong in the debate stands, at least with me.
Okay, was that you just now on the Mark Levin Show, asking about DofE?
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.