One of the greatest things about attending the University of Vriginia School of Law was the school’s collegial atmosphere where conservative students regularly interacted with our liberal peers, often engaging in thoughtful discussion of political and legal issues in a most civil atmosphere.
A law student during the 1992 election, I had some great conversations with my (Bill) Clinton-supporting peers, many of whom pointed out that with their man’s election, the Reagan era was over and conservatism was in decline. I thought of those conversations earlier today, I read National Review editor Ramesh Ponnuru’s Time column, “In Carter’s Shadow” where he wrote, “conservatism is fading now as liberalism was fading in the ’70s.”
But, is it fading, I wonder, or does it merely appear to be fading as my classmates contended in 1992 due to a president named Bush who while a conservative in name, governed as a moderate? Would conservatism have been perceived to be in disarray if both Presidents Bush had been more principled conservatives?
That is, would conservative still be perceived as fading if the unpopular incumbent president were not perceived to be a conservative?
From the 1930s until 1968, liberalism was in the ascent and the federal government grew ever larger, expanding its scope and increasing its role in American society. But, even with conservatism in the ascent (at least) since 1980, we have not achieved the successes liberals achieved in the half-century prior to our rise.
In those five decades, the Democrats (often with Republican help) erected a great variety of social programs which, even in the period of conservative ascent, Republicans failed to dismantle even though there was strong public support for smaller government.
So, I wonder do the American people still favor smaller government, consistent with conservative principles, or are they now comfortable with the status quo? Or do they favor even more state control of society? Or are they just unhappy with the current Administration?
I love Bush 43 because he has been singularly focused since he climbed that pile of rubble and accepted the badge from the fallen cops mother. Promising to never forget. He has spent 7 years trying to make sure we didn’t lose another 3,000 or 30,000 citizens. He is not a conservative though. Our conservative values show through with limited government and limited spending. 9/11 and the bloated governments failure after Katrina, Bush 43 lost any motivation for smaller and more effecient government. You can’t cut useless spending while handing out $1,000 gift cards to anyone claiming them within 1000 miles of New Orleans. You can’t have a conservative government when throwing money at tons of 9/11 patches and fixes…..most were just buearucratic nightmares. Frankly if W had made a case for limited government….the MSM would have crucified him even worse than they have.
Isht, of course it’s not fading. Look at the special elections for House seats that the Dems like to bandy about as “proof”, all won by Democrat candidates who were anti-abortion, pro-gun, against gay marriage, and insisting on reining in spending.
The amusing part will be in the next two years when either Pelosi neuters them and they have to go back to their districts explaining why they lied…..or when they decide no amount of fundraising dollars from her is worth losing their seats over.
Well how commited have the limited government forces been in actually doing what they set out do to? Both parties expand the state in different ways for different reasons. The country is moving in a more liberal direction on some issues and in a conversative direction on other issues. This election can be important because of a new generation of voters coming in and which party or ideology offers the solutions for our problems.
If liberal solutions solve the problems, we will move that way and vice versa.
conservative, by nature, is always moving toward liberal. the knuckle drags as the brain moves forward.
What the Republican politicans dont understand (that in itself is all the reason not to support them) is that the Republcian Party is held to a much higher standard than the Pathological Liarcrat Party
The Republican base hold them to a high moral and ethical standard
The Media are usually always against them
The Democrats can say just about anything they want about Republicans with absolutely no concern for the truth.
So considering all these things, that the GOP acts the way it does doesn’t surprise me at all that Conservatives are staying away.
There is no way in hell I will ever support a Democratesque Party
Academia and the media are more open about their Left politics than they’ve ever been.
Of course, they’re not America. They can only confuse it for awhile. This, too, shall pass. “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”
Wow, I’m shocked at Ponnuru. That column was just a mess of sloppy thinking.
First of all, the idea that being succeeded by a member of one’s own party is the benchmark for presidential success is ridiculous. By that measure, the majority of American presidents have been failures. Indeed, by that measure, Warren Harding would be considered a “success” while Truman and Eisenhower would both be considered “failures.” And if you discount presidents who were succeeded by fellow party members because they died in office, that would mean almost all presidents have been failures.
Secondly, the idea that the success of a party is dependent on the perceptions of their last president is silly. If that were the case, Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush would have had Republican congresses and the current President Bush would have had a Democrat congress from 2000-present, instead of spanking Democrats in 2000, 2002, and 2004.
And the idea that liberalism is on the rise and conservatism is in decline because Bush is currently unpopular is only so much fortune telling and relies on the backwards thinking of the entire article.
The popularity of presidents and parties is dependent on current events and their performance in respect to them, not the perceptions of past leaders.
Jimmy Carter was a failure because his policies failed, not because of perceptions of Johnson. Ronald Reagan was an overwhelming success, not because Carter was a failure, but because he was able to implement conservative principles over the objections of the liberal congress.
If Obama becomes president, his success will not be determined by President Bush’s unpopularity, but by the success of Democrats policies. And considering they favor massive tax hikes, massive new regulation, and over a trillion dollars in new spending, the chances of his presidency being successful are very low.
Indeed, if Obama wins the White House, the American people will likely have an entirely different opinion of George W Bush within a few years. I’d even say Obama’s best chance to become a successful president is if Democrats screw things up so much and so fast that Republicans retake the Congress in 2010.
Conservatism works. Thats why it succeeds insofar as it is implemented. Liberalism doesn’t. Jimmy Carter was an abysmal failure because he was a full fledged liberal, with a liberal congress who implemented liberal policies, Bill Clinton is viewed as a success because he had a very conservative Republican congress passing very conservative legislation that worked, and the very good fortune of being president during the dot.com boom. There is almost nothing Bill Clinton did himself that is responsible for the “success” of his presidency. Likewise, George W Bush has been a success where ever he has implemented conservative principles, his failures have come when he either pushed liberal policy or failed to implement conservative policy — for example, he was never able to pass conservative energy reform — none of it — and we have never been more dependent on foreign energy and prices are higher than, well, since Carter.
You don’t read Rasmussen? Check this week’s polls. The answer to your question is there.
If Bush and the Republican Congress had actually governed as conservatives… that is, with fiscal restraint, resisting the temptation to embiggen government, and kept our nation and borders secure… they would not be in this mess.
The Republican brand is damaged, and Bush is a big part of the reason. Domestically, he has been the most profligate big spender since LBJ; unwilling to use his veto pen on even the most outrageous spending requests. There’s also the matter of a certain back-stabbing ‘maverick’ senator from Arizona who has routinely given Democrats cover as they smear conservatives.
Both the GOP and the Conservative elite are out of touch with mainstream Americans. Thus, they are unable to connect with the middle class on how conservative ideas are good for them. Democrats have it easy. They just say, ‘we’re going to spend more money to give you more presents.’ (Like Hillary’s Christmas Campaign Commercial.) It takes more explanation to tell people how freedom to choose the schools their kids go to is good for them, how developing oil resources in the USA will reduce the price of gas, how it’s better to let people choose their own doctors than have the government choose for them. No one in the GOP or the right is really making the case to the middle class of how Conservatism Is Good For You. And as such, they allow the far left media and Democrats to smear and distort what conservatism means.
The problem is that liberalism is accepted as being America rather than being rejected as Marxist socialism. Liberalism is being presented a legitimate function of our government, that government is here to take care of its people. And people are being lulled by it, educated by it and entertained by it! Liberalism is not being presented as a danger to our freedoms. A few talk show host will hint at it, but not one will go on a full-blown, nonstop anti-socialism schtick. The class warfare rhetoric, the unions, global warming, the energy crisis, the non-existing medical crisis (which is an insurance scam), all of this needs to be explained in terms of socialism and why socialism is un-American and dangerous to every single one of us and our way of life!
If conservativism is going to survive at all, it’s the dangers of socialist liberalism that needs to be the drum.
Elephant, you have it there and reveal the foundation of the Steyn sort of “Happy Warrior” outlook. If you believe in the principle you espouse and even more, in the foolishness of the oppositions’ policies, then the success utlimately of those principles, as opposed to specific policies or politicians, is unavoidable. One can look to the international explosion of flat tax nations, the depraved failures of NK, Cuba and China; the pushback against socialized medicine abroad, the advance of global cooling in the face of the media juggernaut; Global Warming. So be of good cheer. There have been McClellans and there have been Clintons and Obamas and McCains too, as well as the Compassionate Conservative himself, who I have lots of respect for but not for that. In the end, if we are right, our policies will prevail. More accurately, their’s will crash and burn. Clinton told us ten years ago that ANWR drilling was no solution to energy shortages because it would take ten years to get that oil into your car. I guess he was hoping cold fusion or some such would be on line sooner. And here we are. Price controls and punitive taxes? Friends, we know that cannot do anything but make things worse. You think even your hippie neighbor won’t feel that? The problems for Reps and the Conservative brand are not due to zealous adherence to principle but rather its subbornation to what is sometimes cold electoral calculus but more often just generic mushy-headedness founded on a desire to be liked, rather than respected. Or feared. Or even hated.
Conservatism’s problem is that it’s split in two somewhat mutally-hostile but overlapping camps; the religious, anti-abortion “family values”-faction and the small-government low tax business-faction. This has been true since the Carter-Reagan years and the rise of the Religious Right….and it’s an unhappy marriage since it can’t reconcile it’s opposing views on government involvement and societal-reach.
And additional burden to both camps is Bush-fatigue syndrome…exemplified by natural-Republicans’ mutterings of “bullsh*t” at their TV-sets everytime there’s some statement issued from the White House, State or the Pentagon.
If you mean a free economy under a small government that focuses on basics like national security… then hell yes. Libertarian-conservative ideas have a built-in edge: they correspond to reality.
Oh, by the way everyone – THE SURGE WORKED. Even WaPo is now reporting it.
I believe what most of you call “conservatism” is on the decline.
Most voters bought into the idea that George W. Bush, the House and Senate majorities 2005-2007 and the Republican Party represent what “conservatism” is. They’ve seen that “conservative” president and Congress spend (and borrow to pay for it) like drunken sailors (somewhere in heaven Lyndon Johnson must be smiling). They’ve seen Republican policy making often dominated by a religious right that is perceived by many as using the political process to try to impose their beliefs, that is perceived as “morality police” or “thought police”.
I think we need new definitions of who’s who in political thought. Some definitions don’t apply the same as they once did.
When I first got active in politics Barry M. Goldwater was clearly considered a conservative. His conservative philosophy was then in the minority but it was still an honorable thing to be. He believed in limited government, balanced budgets, human liberty and dignity, freedom of the individual from intrusion by government into his personal life, a strong national defense, the wise and cautious use of military forces, a sound foreign policy.
It’s hard to find a contemporary “conservative” who fits the Goldwater mold. I’m still basically a Goldwaterite and that’s why I prefer to use the term “right-wingers” for most of those who today call themselves “conservatives”.
In those days, Hubert H. Humphrey was my idea of a liberal, which then also seemed an honorable thing to be. He believed in expanding social safety nets and increasing federal spending on many programs. He believed federal revenues should be sufficient to fund what Congress chose to spend (as opposed to borrowing). He too believed in human liberty and dignity and was an aggressive advocate of civil rights. While he was more willing to regulate business, like Goldwater he believed in individual freedom and limits on government intrusion into personal lives. Humphrey also believed in a strong national defense, the wise and cautious use of military force and a sound foreign policy.
I’ve gone into a little more detail about Humphrey to emphasize that almost none of those we call “liberal” today fit the mold of Humphrey. And since liberal was once not a dirty word, I prefer to use the term “leftist” for most of those who today call themselves “liberals”.
But I would guess that at least during my remaining time on earth we won’t see the various factions in the two major political parties agree on what to call the ranges of political thought. For example, Goldwater was sure that someday historians would write that he had been a liberal.
Regarding one of the points you made, Dan, I would guess that any polling firm we’d want to use would find that a majority of Americans will say, yes, they want smaller government. But there would be an unspoken exception: “I don’t want to lose government programs benefitting me.”
We spend our summers in a small town on the Great Plains. I am surrounded by anti-tax, anti-government farmers and get a kick listening to them cuss welfare and every other program that benefits people in the big cities. But, by god, don’t you even think of cutting that huge per gallon subsidy taxpayers have to give the ethanol plants to make production “profitable”. And don’t cut the farm programs. Appropriate more federal money for grants to send their kids to college.
When we return home in the fall I know as sure as I breath that the cocktail hours and dinner parties will be dominated by talk of cutting federal spending and talk of even more tax cuts. But, of course, that doesn’t mean cutting federal money for cancer research. (Rich ladies who spend a lot time out in the sun are big on cancer research.) I don’t know why well-to-do people even want the money, but as sure as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west there will be loud complaints that the Social Security cost of living increase isn’t enough and Congress ought to increase the dollar amount of drugs they get before the “donut” in the Medicare drug program kicks in. And if there has been a hurricane one will lose track of the many federal programs that need more money to help those who’ve suffered storm damages.
And people will never change. That’s why the country is in such a mess. Two-faced politicians have an advantage in most elections because their constituents just love politicians who’re going to Washington to cut taxes at the same time they bring home all the bacon they can haul.
No, it is distress over W. A relentless media harrassing this president, who is prosucting a war against a bloodthristy enemy, radical Islamofacsism, and no willingness to fight back. Had W done what the Great Whoremonger, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, had done with his “War room” et al, W would have the similar popularity numbers. But, despite the whinings of Snotty Scotty McClellan, W had a lot more class. He, like Ronald Reagan believes that history will judge him better. I believe that. But, on a lot of policies, we conservatives feel, dare I say, somewhat disilusioned. Take border security. Look at where W wanted to go. He had the pre-9/11 mindset on that issue. BTW, I am still waiting for that fence. And, there is Harriet Miers. What W has done is get everyone upset with him. And somehow, we ended up with Sen. John “F— You” McCain as the GOP nominee. There is a Reagan II out there. I know there is.
If you are looking for Goldwater Conservatives today, they’ll be found along with the T. Roosevelt liberal Republicans calling themselves “Progressive Republicans” these days….not amongst Conservatives of today’s GOP. The “Progressives” also includes many of the LCR-types outside the incestuous Nat’l LCR inner circle; not that they self-identify as-such. And the LCR’s failure to politically-comprehend this explains Nat’l. LCR’s fumbled dealings with the RNC, and it’s own LCR Chapters. Rather than trying to ram the “Progressive” square peg in a round hole of “Conservatism”, they should be pushing back as “Republicans” with the solicted help of the small government, pro-business faction.
There’s a congitive disconnect between having to be a “true conservative”…and being a good Republican. Reagan understood this, but it was all hidden under the table-cloth of “Reaganism” and most missed the opening of the cracks between the factions.
I think as a governing philsophy, conservativism is more important than ever.
Unfortunately, The Republcian Party seems to be vessel thatbrings it into government. After 20 years of being the Lucy for the conservative Charlie Brown.. Charlie Brown is leaving.
I would love to know what the business case is for a non-conservative republican party.. what would be the point.
The big question facing our future is this… will America return to its original Constitutionalism and roll back the Collusus Federal Govt.. or will the people continue to demand goodies from the emaciated hen.
Republics do not last long in history
Editor- Please substitute “LCR sqaure peg” for “Progressive square peg”.
After re-reading, that better explains my intent. Many of us in the G/L community need to consider re-branding ourselves as Progressives and stop worrying about justifying” our “Conservative” credentials…we shoud be justifying our REPUBLICAN credientials. By G/L standards…and those of the general population…we may be “Conservative”, but we are actually “Progessives” by Republican standards and we shoud embrace that, not disallow it.
I assocaite Progressives with the fascist movment in the early 1900s, and the neofascist movement of today.
HELL NO!
The Republicans pissed in the faces of Americans who believe in limited, constitutional government. That is the source of the GOP’s present woes. They would have seen it coming if they had the brains God gave geese.
The Democrats have been more successful at getting things done because they have the courage of their convictions. The Republicans do not. Or as I often like to say: The Dems have balls the size of Jupiter; the Repubs have balls the size of raisins.
I dont think the Dems have accomplished much of anything. And I certainly dont see them having any courage or convinction.
Especially when video surfaces saying that they had no intentionk of actually stoppping the war.. they just said taht tto get elected
#12
I couldn’t disagree more. I don’t see social conservatives pushing for federal government involvement in any way. If anything, they are pushing for the federal government to be less involved, by pushing for originalist judges who will respect the limited role of the federal government.
#14
Perhaps that is how they are perceived by some, but only because thats how they are portrayed by media. And it would be a completely ignorant perception. Other than wanting to keep Janet Jacksons tits off the public airwaves (for which I thank them heartily), I can think of absolutely nothing the “religious right” has done to impose their beliefs. If anything they are trying to keep others beliefs from being rammed down their throats. I’d love to hear where I’m wrong.
#21
I think that is quite intentional. I think they’re laying low on purpose til after the election — don’t rock the boat, don’t give voters any reason not to vote for them — when they hope to have larger majorities and a Democrat in the White House. Then I think all hell will break loose. Socialized medicine, Kyoto (and worse), tax hikes on top of the expiration of the Bush Tax cuts, the “fairness” doctrine (aka the Ministry of Truth), amnesty, immigration and all manners of election reforms designed to keep them in power for good. In fact, if Democrats increase their majorities and capture the White House, the first thing on their agenda will be making absolutely certain they never lose power again. Then they will move to usher in a whole new “great society”, the expanse of which we have only begun to imagine. …in fact, given the crowd running the party, i’d put money on it.
ILC,
Drudge linked to that for about 30 seconds then took it down. It was weird.
And although my writing is often sloppy, especially in comments, the “[only]” is superfluous 😉
Without a doubt. And the stupid Republicans will let them pull it off. The Republicans should be on the airwaves every day warning America what the Dems are doing.
That’s why Reps suck, they’re weak.
Yeah, even I am not sure why
I changed my– oops, why Drudge changed his mind. 😉Blue Blood Republicans are the problem. They sit in their paneled studies drinking high dollar single malt Scotch and deign to mediate the wars between socialists and true conservatives. For them, all is negotiable; there are no core principles. And now, they are usurping Goldwater as their model!
Conservatism is just fine. It is the blue blood Republicans who want to gussy it up with a new “brand” such as “compassionate.”
When a special interest goes after the deep pockets of Uncle Sam, it is acting in its own interest and doing what all special interests do through their lobbying efforts. That is fundamental to government and the public treasury. Blue blood Republicans, however, act no differently than the socialists in tossing other people’s money (taken at gunpoint) to their selected beggars.
I will not go into the ancient BS about farm subsidies, the Grange, greenbacks, the Cross of Gold, fighting farm monopolies, supporting milk and making government cheese, Ethanol, etc. Suffice it to say, it was ever thus and will always be a part of the sausage making that is the legislative process.
I write this from New York City where I am again reminded of how complicated the trash system is. At home, I have a big green bin on wheels. I put the trash in and for some reason related to paying a monthly bill, I never have to make any other effort. I handle my trash problems privately. New York City would be a shambles without all manner of regulation for the pickup and removal of trash. That is practical problem that is neither particularly conservative nor socialist.
Cancer research, as an example, is also neither particularly a conservative nor socialist issue. But for a blue blood Republican, it becomes a gospel of wealth factor in the school of noblesse oblige.
Conservatism hardly depends on the philosophy of the moderate to moderately conservative Volvo and Brie crowd. Conservatism is a mind set. It is very giving and caring.
I come from a blue blood Republican family and I know their country club chatter very well. If anything, they tend to have a bunker mentality. They loathe socialism, but they fear not giving small tributes to the masses. They believe they have learned the parameters of the golden mean and that they can draw the country inside its borders.
Currently, blue blood Republicanism is on the ascendency. But, the true conservative voice will return. I do not hear it anywhere within the Congress and only from Bobby Jindal from among the states. So I expect that we will lose seats in Congress and governorships as the blue bloods cocktail party the Republicans into minority oblivion. And then, another Goldwater or Reagan will come along and have the guts to say what he believes and stick with the core issues.
Meanwhile, if the blue blood Republicans want to adopt Goldwater as their hood ornament, why not? He is totally dead and can not fight back. Why not morph him into some type of Nelson Rockefeller glad hander mixed with John McCain quirkiness?
Conservatism is indeed the stabilizing force of nature which sets a balance between continuity and change.
Liberalism is steeped in the tradition of abrupt change which does not take a second look, but rushes headlong into the miasma of tomorrow. It is taking the interchange ramp in the belief that the construction will be finished by the time you reach the end.
The Soviet Union, China, state owned industries, great leaps forward, socialized medicine, etc are all examples of the brain leaping forward without enough knuckles dragging to ensure the practical guardrails and guidance necessary to ensure success.
Did you notice that both Canada and England are seriously toying with opening the door to access to private medicine? How very unbrainmovingforward of them.
I have not seen the brain moving forward on saving social security, medicare, prescription drug plans and other entitlements. Or is a deeper per cent of government confiscation of private wealth equivalent to “the brain moving forward?”
So, I guess it is the lemmings (brain moving forward) against the great apes (knuckle draggers.) We will try to wave at you as you go over the cliffs. If we can lift our knuckles from the ground. If not, please accept a smile.
a knuckle dragger wouldn’t know that his knuckles are dragging.
Why wouldn’t he know that his knuckles are dragging?
markie, how come you are the “go to” authority on knuckle draggers? I would expect that, by your lights, I am a knuckle dragger. Ergo, I might well know more about myself than you know. Now, of course, if you define a “knuckle dragger” as a brain dead, barely knowing fool who can not understand his knuckles are dragging, then conservatism could not or ever be a political force. That means, all the conservative gibberish on this site is of no consequence and a colossal waste of your time.
However, dragging your knuckles makes you itch. And, itches have to be scratched. So our gibberish, quaint and uselessly ignorant as it may be, will go on. And we will use our money (which properly belongs to the government) to fund knuckle draggers to clunk around the halls of power to try to stop socialism dead in its tracks.
You have seen the villagers and they are carrying pitchforks and torches. I am hiding behind every tree you pass. Keep a wary eye out. I want to limit your government. Boo!!!!
Let me count the ways;
1. Anti-abortionism.
2. Opposition at gay marriage and gay rights.
3. Opposition to G/L military service.
4. Returning religion to the public arena.
5. School prayer.
. . . . just for a start.
1. Anti-abortionism.
Abortion is illegal? is it wrong to fight against the murder of the unborn?
2. Opposition at gay marriage and gay rights.
You can get married , you jsut can’t get the state to recongize it. And I haven’t heard of any movement to strip gays of thier “rights”.
3. Opposition to G/L military service.
That was imposed by a Democrat Congress and President. I’m confused.
4. Returning religion to the public arena.
You mean lifting your blockcade of thier free speech?
5. School prayer.
You mean lifting your blockcade of their free speech?
Ted, you have a very strange definition of imposition to be sure:
1. Life cannot be imposed. If you are dead, I cannot impose life upon you. Life can only be defended. More than that, life is one of the three inherant rights mentioned in our founding documents, which is more than I can say for abortion, which isn’t mentioned in any of them.
Moreover, abortion, it would seem to me, is the ultimate imposition of one person’s will over another’s. Not only is the mother imposing her “right” to “choose” to have sex without consequences upon her unborn child by killing it, but what would happen if doctors simply refused to stop performing the operation? No doubt liberals would try to force them to perform them, the way they are trying to force pharmicists who dont want to to sell Ru487. You see, something that is inherant about rights, is that you cannot have a right to anything you cannot do for yourself. Speech, silence, religious practice, self defense, association, etc… these are all things an individual can do for themselves. Abortion is an imposition of will in this sense as well.
But life is an inherant right given to each of us by God, and no, thats not a “right wing religious” point of view, it’s a recognition of natural law, found, almost word for word, in the Declaration of Independence.
Defending a God given right can never be an imposition.
2. Forgive me, but it is gays and lesbians trying to impose their will on the American people on this issue, not the religious right.
First of all, the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage. You blame the religious right because it gives you a convenient bogeyman, but if the “religious right” comprized such a large portion of society, then there really would be no need for elections, Republicans would always win, everywhere.
But again, you misunderstand “imposition” because you misunderstand what rights are. When you boil it all down, marriage is society giving their approval and tax dollars to married couples to encourage marriage. No one can, nor do they ever, have a right to other people’s approval or money.
But social conservatives and the majority of Americans are not imposing anything on anyone. All your God given rights are intact. They are simply trying to prevent gay activists from imposing their will on them.
3. Opposition to gays serving openly in the military comes primarily from the military, not the religious right. Indeed, it is the status quo, and always has been. So what exactly is it that the religious right is supposedly trying to impose here?
4. Im not exactly sure what you mean by this since you distinguish it from prayer in public school, but tell me, where are religious conservatives trying to force you to practice their religion? All i see is them trying to regain their right to practice their religion freely. What part of “Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]” is an imposition on anyone?
5. Again, who is trying to force anyone to pray in school? All social conservatives want is to lift unlawful restrictions on their right to free speech and free exercise of religion imposed on them by a bastardization of the establishment clause.
You have named no way in which anyone but the left is trying to impose anything on anyone. You have a very backwards idea of what imposition means.
If anyone is imposing their values on everyone it’s the Left.. be it Hate Crimes, or Global Warming nonsense, they want to enact laws that effect everything we do in life.. all in the name of thier do-good-ism which end up wrecking whatever it is they thought it would fix.
Viva la Revolution! When does the Right ever try to upset the existing order?
Liberals are saprophytic by definition. They never stop restructuring the existing order until they finally kill the host. One day they wake up and discover that the treasury in empty and the people have been taxed out. Viva la Revolution!
And as Heliotrope pointed out above, the “blue blood” Republicans, so eager to compromise with the left that they, and not the right, are the arm of the Republlican party imposing their will upon others.
Well the Social Conservatives are another segment of the right which has the potential to pursuit values laws.
We wont be hearing much from them for a while until the culture/education/ecomony hits such a low point that a revolt against the impoverishing-causing Left happens.
I’m not going to take the space it would require to respond to those who have attacked me as a “blue blood” Republican who’s “eager to compromise with the left” because it is not worth the time it would take. I am comfortable in my skin and have no reason to apologize for tilting toward the center in many of my core beliefs. (Just as I will never apologize to my centrist and liberal friends — and two gay sons — for working my butt off for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 and George W. Bush in 2000, although I regret the latter.)
With one exception: Several of you have obviously not spent much time styudying everything Barry M. Goldwater said or wrote during and after his long career. (There are reasons why “conservatives” in Arizona tried in past years to strip Goldwater’s name off buildings, etc.)
I don’t know about other “blue blood” or “country club” Republicans, but you’re wrong, heliotrope #26, that this here Republican is “usurping” Goldwater as a model or using him as a “hood ornament”.
Barry, whom I knew, and I had two things in common. First, just as he did, I developed my core beliefs as a young man and, except for a small tweak here and there as the world we live in has changed, still hold dear those core beliefs. Second, with just a couple of exceptions, my core beliefs were and are in line with the core beliefs Barry held dear from the day he took over the family’s business until the day he died.
Heliotrope said that someday another Goldwater or Reagan will come along. God, I hope so (in fact, I wish we had a Goldwater to turn to in this election year when so many of us are turned off by the choice we have in November). But, heliotrope, if you really know what Goldwater stood for you (and a number of those who make comments at this website) wouldn’t be happy with him. He opposed many of the positions you and others take in your comments.
He’d have a hell of good time (like he couldn’t have late in his career as old age sapped him physically). I don’t know who he’d go after first, the 16th Street lobbyists, the me-first-Americans-last corporate CEOs, the appease Islam crowd or James Dobson et al, but if you thought Jesus running the money changers out of the temple caused a stir it couldn’t compare to a young, vigorous Goldwater kicking the above-named out of the Capitol.
No one can speak for the dead, but based on what Barry Goldwater believed when he was alive I’d take a wild guess that — unless he would put the Republican Party above his own principles — he would not have supported the war in Iraq, might have gone camping in the desert rather than make a choice in the 2004 election and might very well be planning a camping trip this year (since he did not think highly of John McCain).
The Vulcans have an ancient proverb, Only Nixon Can Go To China
Trace, I suspect that Goldwater would have been fairly quiet on lobbyists and others who would threaten to stir up the pot of names like Kemper Marley Sr, Peter Licavoli, Moe Dalitz, Willie Bioff, Gus Greenbaum, Mike Newman, Marshal Caifano, Harry Rosenzweig, Paul Ricca.
Goldwater was no William F. Buckley and certainly lacked the experience of polished oratory that Ronald Reagan developed over the many years speaking on the road under his GE contract.
Goldwater was far more conservative than Nelson Rockefeller, who he beat out for the nomination. He also swamped Dr. Walter Judd. I had extensive interviews with Dr. Judd and William Scranton over several years regarding the Goldwater candidacy and his brand of conservatism.
My two interviews with Goldwater were full of colorful language and Trumanesque salvos at those who did not please him. I certainly did not know him well enough to have any comfort whatsoever predicting what he would do or say next.
I give Goldwater great credit for boldly going where no Republican nominee dared enter since the 1920’s. He was our first post-war conservative candidate and was the vanguard for the Reagan candidacy.
Modern conservatism is defined by Buckley and Reagan. Goldwater did not leave much of a conservative legacy. We conservatives honor him, but we hardly turn to his scant writings or even rarer oratory for guidance.
As I said before, if the Rockefeller Republicans want to shape him as their own, he will be whatever they make of him. Goldwater is only a landmark to modern conservatives.
Indeed, Trace. So why are you trying to do it? Tell you what – Let’s let the dead speak for himself:
Somehow I doubt Goldwater would be part of the mushy political center, on anything. How about this:
A perfect description of the terrorists, right? You know Trace… those bad guys our troops are successfully fighting in Iraq? Then there was Goldwater’s _Why Not Victory?_ speech, whose train of thought began along these lines:
So Trace, your claiming that Goldwater “would not have supported the war in Iraq”, is wishful thinking at best. You say, “No one can speak for the dead, BUT… ” In other words, “BUT I, Trace, can.” That’s pretty outrageous, Trace.
More of Goldwater’s own words against mushy centrism:
This next one is interesting, because it could cut a couple of different ways:
Goldwater clearly was willing for America to fight abroad in the defense of freedom. Even in places like Vietnam. But among his qualms, were a strong belief that America must do the job right, and fight-to-win. I could see Goldwater ripping on the bungling we’ve had in Iraq after Tommy Franks left and before David Petraeus came back – while still strongly supporting American victory. Kinda like McCain has done.
conservative ways brought us child labor, the suppression of women and non-whites.
i think brainless markie is confusing the Democrat party with conservatives
#43 Oh bullshit.
Child labor was brought about by life. It has existed in every pre-industrial society in the world throughout history, because life is hard and families in the undeveloped world need every penny they can scratch together. Conservative ways, that is free-market ways brought the innovation and wealth necessary to end child labor. Nor did conservatism bring about suppression of women or non-whites. The “supression” of women was also brought about by life and the necessity in undeveloped nations and pre-industrial times, for someone to stay home and take care of the children. Work was more often than not manual labor. Sex roles developed because of the natural abilities of the sexes. Again, it was free-market principles, and wealth creation that negated the necessity of the traditional gender roles. And it was God-fearing, pious, religious Christians and Constitutional originalists who brought about the end to both, not secular and atheist collectivists. Indeed, much of the leftist (communist) world still employs child labor. Such ignorant claptrap.
Ah, yes, the BIG THREE core prinicples of modern conservatism. Isn’t it just a crying shame that slavery ever got dropped from the list?
I am beginning to think that markie has trouble with his synaptic connections in the frontal lobe. Perhaps second hand inhalants magnified by localized global warming has caused some type of injury.
bushco single-handedly killed conservatism. The overwhelming victory the left will enjoy in November will all be dumped at bushco’s feet. Not only will he be remembered for starting an immoral and illegal war, for shreding our constitution and rights, and now will be forever remembered as pushing the stake into the republican’s hearts.
Way to go bushie. Your legacy as worst president ever is secured.
To be precise, guys: Capitalism ended slavery, child labor, the suppression of woman. Capitalism, the system of individual initiative, is and always has been opposed to slavery. Capitalism gave the North its productive and logistical edge over the South, and the U.S. its similar edge in defending freedom since then. The laws against child labor weren’t passed until capitalism had raised living standards to the point where such laws could begin to make sense and child labor was already >90% ended.
Conservatism, as a political movement or tendency, has not consistently supported capitalism. In the Republican Party, major candidates such as McCain, Huckabee and Bush 43 gain major success as “conservatives”, yet they support policies and rhetoric that are largely anti-capitalist.
But, to the extent that conservatism has supported capitalism, then you can say conservatism has helped end slavery, child labor, and the suppression of women. Meanwhile, the Democrats, the anti-capitalists, have consistently been America’s party of backward-looking racism: first the Democrats supported slavery, then the Democrats gave us Jim Crow, and today, by way of making up for those plagues, the Democrats want to give us the plague of racial quotas.
As for markie: yeah…
Oh, and rightiswrong as well as markie… But let’s face it, we get a thrill from the frission of their stupidity 😉
It is exceedingly hard to digest this bit of crystal ball gazing:
Wow, oh, wow!!!! Goldwater would have permitted the likes of John Kerry to take the Presidency? Wow! It would appear, if this wild assertion can be made with a straight face, that Goldwater was as nuts as the Democrats claimed he was.
Your mistake is that neither conservatism nor the conservative movement are defined by individual candidates, it is a set of ideas to which different people subscribe in differing degrees.
AE, your mistake is to not to effectively address what I said. I said:
Did I offer some evidence in favor of that assertion? Yes. Could I offer a lot more, if I wanted? Yes. Catholic conservatives, for example, go around stating such IDEAS as ‘Money is the root of all evil” which is the height of anti-capitalism. Meanwhile, did you offer any evidence against my assertion? No, just a general assertion of your own that conservatism “is a set of ideas”… which surely is beyond all dispute here. Poor try.
type, “to not effectively address”
P.S. If conservatism, as a political movement or tendency, did consistently support capitalism, then we would call it “capitalism”. Capitalism is a set of ideas, that conservatives then subscribe to in differing degrees. Edmund Burke, pretty much the founder of Anglo-American conservatism, mixed free-trade precepts with the rule of titled aristocracy, government-licensed monopolies, opposition to industrialization, etc.
ILC, I do not believe that a political conservative in the US can support policies that are “anti-capitalist.”
McCain, Huckabee, Bush 43, Romney, all claimed to be conservatives. Not one of them is a conservative. They may be religious conservatives or hold a few social conservative views, but they do not adhere to the whole package of conservative core principles.
At the same time, being an ardent capitalist does not make one a conservative.
Governments do have to interfere with the free market. The difference between capitalists who do not espouse the political conservative principles and conservative capitalists is the permissiveness the mere capitalists will grant the government to usurp markets in order to nourish the government or to directly control a market.
When I meet a capitalist who claims not to be conservative, I suspect I am dealing with someone who is basically a fan of what has traditionally been called a “mixed economy.”
Indeed, which is why I have stressed for years, on this blog and to anyone else who will listen, that I am no conservative (and thus merely a tolerated guest here). Calling me a conservative would be unfair. It would warp the meaning of the word. Likewise, claiming that *NONE* of Bush, Romney, McCain or Huckabee may be called a conservative warps the meaning of words.
You have it reversed. Alleged capitalists such as Bush, Romney (a bit less), McCain and Huckabee (the most) who espouse political conservative principles do not truly believe in tiny government, or in other words, will grant the government a great deal of latitude to usurp markets, whether it be in the name of law and order, social cohesion, Christian compassion, or whatever conservative principle is their favorite. Laissez-faire purists, such as myself, will not grant that to government.
How interesting. As a non-conservative capitalist, I am hardly interested in preserving – or *conserving* – the current order, which is the mixed economy; rather, I want to end it. When I meet a capitalist who claims to be a consistent and thorough-going conservative, I know (from logic and from experience) that I am dealing with a fan of the mixed economy.
I am not sure we disagree. I would not call Bush, Romney, McCain, Huckabee, et. al “capitalists” and I would not call them “conservatives” either. They are mostly moderate pragmatists, which means they settle for second best or worse.
P.J. O’Rourke has written a great book on Adam Smith. In doing so, he has exposed the juxtaposition between the Adam Smith liberal and the current day liberal.
As I read your posts, I find that you are an Adam Smith liberal vis a vis capitalism. However, you seem to shun any identity with current conservatism. That is your call. But in reality, modern liberalism argues for massive state control and market intervention. Since libertarianism is limited to a basic corps of nut cases, that is no place for political refuge.
It must be very lonely being an Adam Smith Capitalist with no political force to cleave to.
LOL – You have no idea.