Why are we divided?
Posted on 06/22/2002 9:46:05 AM PDT by quidnunc
This summer will mark the 47th year since I took my first Republican job: as public relations director for the party in Minnesota. Since then I have rarely strayed from politics, or my party. I served as a staffer to two GOP congressmen, to a GOP governor, as a federal appointee to Richard Nixon and as a corporate executive who supported in Washington and Springfield much, if not all, of the Republican agenda.
You can describe me as a conservative. Thus I am qualified to say that although I dearly love conservatives, they tend to be querulous, disagreeable and threaten revolt when Republican office-holders don't please them. So it is now with George W. Bush. Here is a president who has surprised us all with the firmness and resolve he showed after 9/11. I must tell you I voted for him with less enthusiasm than I had for many of his predecessors. But his administration has pleased me often — most notably on two issues: defense of America and social policy.
Yet, Bush has to get re-elected in a country that is evenly divided on philosophy. Thus he must occasionally — on matters that sometimes offend conservatives — dip into the other side's ideology for support. He has done so on three notable occasions: on the issue of steel protectionism, where he departed his free-market proclamations; on the signing of a campaign finance bill tailored by his enemies, and allowing his attorney general (in the words of Libertarian Nat Hentoff in the Washington Times) "to send disguised agents into religious institutions, libraries and meetings of citizens critical of government policy without a previous complaint, or reason to believe that a crime has been committed."
In a perfect political world, where conservatives are in the majority, these things would be sufficient to encourage a boycott of the polls. Either that or a protest vote for the Democratic opposition. But we are not in a perfect world. We conservatives have a president who didn't receive a majority of the votes, and has one house of Congress against him. He must make compromises to get re-elected. Conservatives who do not understand the nature of politics ought to stay in their air-conditioned ivory towers and refrain from political activity altogether. If they cannot adjudge the stakes in this election and the difference between Bush and an Al Gore or a John Kerry (D-Mass.) or a Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.), they are foolish indeed.
-snip-
To read the remainder of this op/ed open the article via the link provided in the thread's header.
2. And why do you have the insane idea that I 'blame' JR for anything?
Your own words.
Define globalism.
Well, I was hoping to get a definition. Will there be one?
Why are we divided?
So far:
Promise to lower taxes...kept.
Promise to refuse to sign on to Kyoto..kept.
Promise to pass education bill...kept except for vouchers.
Promise to go for missile defense shield...kept.
Promise to rebuild the military...in process.
Promise to uphold the dignity of the office...kept.
Promise to help steelworkers...kept (although I know a lot of people didn't like the tariffs).
Promise to have faith based initiatives...kept, waiting on the Senate.
Promise to have an energy plan....kept, waiting on the Senate.
Promise to reform Social Security....partially kept, commission appointed.
CFR...Promise to veto broken, although the bill before the Congress was not the one he discussed in the campaign. I think I would, however, consider this a flip-flop for political reasons.
Personally, I think he is doing a pretty good job in keeping his promises.
If I may put forward a humble suggestion to moderates, call the Party and tell them how much you resent the split they have caused. And bear in mind, they are the ones responsible for the fear and the protective reflex action that is going on around here on both sides of the issue. Put on a little Billy Joel, ...we didn't start the fire...it was always burning since the world's been turning...we didn't start the fire...and call your local RNC and give them a kick in the shins...do it for the "gipper".=o)
I will accept my share of the responsibility for the arguments here, but I would think that the other side could also accept a share. Instead, you are saying that it's not your fault, because the RNC and President Bush didn't do what you wanted them to do.
In my opinion, this is not any sort of concession. I call and express my opinion to the White House and the RNC on each issue. If things don't turn out the way I would like, I must assume that either more people disagreed with me OR the White House has an overriding need to go against popular opinion.
If it is the latter, time will tell whether the President was right or the popular opinion ws correct.
I don't think that's it.
We are divided, primarily, by our different reactions to President Bush's policies. Did you catch my post at #1361?
It's really not as simple as you paint it. Immature people being upset about not getting their way and deciding to be in a snit about it, or throw a tantrum. What is at stake here is a little more critical to America's future than that. We already have one liberal party, we don't need to fight two liberal parties in order to promote conservative principles, now do we?
If you don't hold conservative principles it's no problem for you, but painting those who are concerned with the direction the country, and the Party are taking with a wide brush as pouting over a single issue, misses the mark entirely and doesn't really contribute to a solution.
Shook up conservatives can't really be talked down to like children and made to get into line with a liberal agenda that they feel will destroy America. They are not going to forget they love their country are they? They won't throw down America's future just to be liked, accepted, feel like part of the gang, or earn someone's approval.
So it's really not a matter of disagreeing with a few bills passed, or a single agenda, it's a matter of the fact that Bush has made it clear that he intends to move the Republican Party far left, now and forever more, and if conservatives balk about the Party no longer being conservative then he is willing to jettison conservatives that don't fall into line. Is it ok with you for some of us to be in a snit about that?
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.