The demise of Republican conservatism

[Tex]

The ascendancy of John McCain has led some to believe that conservatives are less influential, fewer in number, or less committed than we had all previously thought. Because Limbaugh, Ingraham, Hannity, Coulter, etc. railed and railed on John McCain, and yet he remains the frontrunner, the assumption is, "Well, I guess they have no influence." I admit, I had such thoughts.

This is wrong. Wishful thinking for some, but wrong.

I've come to realization this week that conservatism is the victim of its own demands for purity. All these commentators have not spent as much time being for someone as they have against, and that doesn't gin up the base. Rick Santorum said as much this morning on Ingraham's show.

For whatever reason, the base didn't rally to a candidate. Romney, Thompson, Huckabee, and reaching back even to Brownback, Frist, Santorum, Allen ... all couldn't make it happen for one reason or another. Left in the wake, was John McCain.

Subsequently, some have concluded that conservatism is dead or dying, and that the Rudy-McCain-Schwartzneggar wing of the party is the new ideology. This is also a false notion.

We may yet in the future have an ideologically pure candidate who embodies Reagan and rallies strong conservative emotion in the base. But until that day comes, conservatives need to learn to make do with the best of what they have. In this case, Mitt Romney. Maybe in another year, some other partially flawed-candidate.

This is the lesson conservatives will end up being force fed this season by a McCain candidacy. It's too bad, but I suppose it had to happen. But it doesn't mean conservative influence of the Republican party is over ... far from it.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

The ascendancy of John McCain has led some to believe that conservatives are less influential, fewer in number, or less committed than we had all previously thought. Because Limbaugh, Ingraham, Hannity, Coulter, etc. railed and railed on John McCain, and yet he remains the frontrunner, the assumption is, "Well, I guess they have no influence." I admit, I had such thoughts.

This is wrong. Wishful thinking for some, but wrong.

I've come to realization this week that conservatism is the victim of its own demands for purity. All these commentators have not spent as much time being for someone as they have against, and that doesn't gin up the base. Rick Santorum said as much this morning on Ingraham's show.

For whatever reason, the base didn't rally to a candidate. Romney, Thompson, Huckabee, and reaching back even to Brownback, Frist, Santorum, Allen ... all couldn't make it happen for one reason or another. Left in the wake, was John McCain.

Subsequently, some have concluded that conservatism is dead or dying, and that the Rudy-McCain-Schwartzneggar wing of the party is the new ideology. This is also a false notion.

We may yet in the future have an ideologically pure candidate who embodies Reagan and rallies strong conservative emotion in the base. But until that day comes, conservatives need to learn to make do with the best of what they have. In this case, Mitt Romney. Maybe in another year, some other partially flawed-candidate.

This is the lesson conservatives will end up being force fed this season by a McCain candidacy. It's too bad, but I suppose it had to happen. But it doesn't mean conservative influence of the Republican party is over ... far from it.

The reason it is in trouble is because it never was a philosophy. The only candidate with something of a philosophy is Ron Paul. And then he gets criticized for taking his philosophy (strict constitutionalism) to an extreme.

What does an amendment to ban flag burning have to do with conservatism? What does invading Iran have to do with conservatism?

Conservatism is bankrupt because not even the self-proclaimed conservatives really believe in it. If you don't believe me, look back to when the House, Senate, and WH were all controlled by the GOP.

Here's another example: I thought conservatives were the ones who believed in civil liberties, that they could be counted on to fight big brother tendencies that would be tools for dictatorial-impulses. Instead the GOP fights for the opposite, in the name of fighting a guy in cave in Pakistan.

The GOP is bankrupt.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The reason it is in trouble is because it never was a philosophy. The only candidate with something of a philosophy is Ron Paul. And then he gets criticized for taking his philosophy (strict constitutionalism) to an extreme.

What does an amendment to ban flag burning have to do with conservatism? What does invading Iran have to do with conservatism?

Conservatism is bankrupt because not even the self-proclaimed conservatives really believe in it. If you don't believe me, look back to when the House, Senate, and WH were all controlled by the GOP.

Here's another example: I thought conservatives were the ones who believed in civil liberties, that they could be counted on to fight big brother tendencies that would be tools for dictatorial-impulses. Instead the GOP fights for the opposite, in the name of fighting a guy in cave in Pakistan.

The GOP is bankrupt.

I agree with much of this. Thank George W. Bush for John McCain. Have you ever read The Quiet American? Invading Iraq was quintesentially liberal--international social engineering, an ill-fated effort to impose utopia through federal power. Consitutional amendments to impose morality are not much different, and probably even more immoral. If there is such a thing as hell in my opinion W. is headed there.

You know, I have to give our very own Barbara credit for calling this a year ago. She said even the Bible belt is kind of sick of all this evangelizing by neocons and the religious right politicians. Islam itself has turned out to an object lesson to Americans, even Christians, on the excesses of ideology.

Tex, Limbaugh and the rest of them are soulless. They're liars at bottom. Really what I think is that they're a cottage industry. They say what they say because it earns them a nice living. I believe there is no more substance to them than that. They're despicable. I'll never forgive Romney for selling his soul to that den of theives.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The reason it is in trouble is because it never was a philosophy. The only candidate with something of a philosophy is Ron Paul. And then he gets criticized for taking his philosophy (strict constitutionalism) to an extreme.

What does an amendment to ban flag burning have to do with conservatism? What does invading Iran have to do with conservatism?

Conservatism is bankrupt because not even the self-proclaimed conservatives really believe in it. If you don't believe me, look back to when the House, Senate, and WH were all controlled by the GOP.

Here's another example: I thought conservatives were the ones who believed in civil liberties, that they could be counted on to fight big brother tendencies that would be tools for dictatorial-impulses. Instead the GOP fights for the opposite, in the name of fighting a guy in cave in Pakistan.

The GOP is bankrupt.

Bingo. You're exactly right.

[SeattleUte]

When Romney went whoring for the religious right the only viable candidates became Giuliani and McCain. I heard an analysis on NPR by a close Giuliani adviser that it was a zero sum game between him and McCain. McCain rose in direct proportin to Giuliani's fall. But America wasn't going to elect another GWB, not even in South Carolina.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The reason it is in trouble is because it never was a philosophy. The only candidate with something of a philosophy is Ron Paul. And then he gets criticized for taking his philosophy (strict constitutionalism) to an extreme.

What does an amendment to ban flag burning have to do with conservatism? What does invading Iran have to do with conservatism?

Conservatism is bankrupt because not even the self-proclaimed conservatives really believe in it. If you don't believe me, look back to when the House, Senate, and WH were all controlled by the GOP.

Here's another example: I thought conservatives were the ones who believed in civil liberties, that they could be counted on to fight big brother tendencies that would be tools for dictatorial-impulses. Instead the GOP fights for the opposite, in the name of fighting a guy in cave in Pakistan.

The GOP is bankrupt.

Heh, well there's a lot of bull in there and I don't really have the energy to refute it all, except to say that conservativism has goverened the party and the nation for the better part of near 30 years now. Even Bill Clinton, no conservative he, governed more to the right than either of the two current leftist contenders; and certainly to the right of all it's losers (Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry).

It's because we have a conservative nation. The odd thing about this election cycle is the way the demand for a "real" conservative whittled out otherwise acceptable but flawed candidates. I suspect that no matter what happens in '08, we'll see a change in how the Republican electorate looks at its candidates in '12. Maybe "Remember McCain" will go down with "Remember the Alamo".

[woot]

Originally Posted by Tex

Heh, well there's a lot of bull in there and I don't really have the energy to refute it all, except to say that conservativism has goverened the party and the nation for the better part of near 30 years now.

If you believe that, then you will admit that Bush is conservative. If the most fiscally and militarily irresponsible president in our nation's history is your idea of conservatism, then your party really is in trouble.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by woot

If you believe that, then you will admit that Bush is conservative. If the most fiscally and militarily irresponsible president in our nation's history is your idea of conservatism, then your party really is in trouble.

See, this is the problem with purists ... the problem we're having now in choosing a candidate. If someone isn't able to check ALL categories, then "he is not a conservative."

Bush has not perfectly followed conservatism, but he's done a pretty good job all things considered. He put two conservative judges on SCOTUS, and nominated scores of qualified conservative lower-court judges, cut taxes more than once, and strengthened the military. He has done a superb job of protecting the homeland. He tried to take on the most fiscally irresponsible gov't program of our time: Social Security. He was firm on social issues: stem cell research, gay marriage, abortion.

Was he a "small gov't" conservative? No, not really. Is he a "movement" conservative? No, not really. But he is a conservative president, and anyone who says otherwise is just blowing smoke.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Tex

The ascendancy of John McCain has led some to believe that conservatives are less influential, fewer in number, or less committed than we had all previously thought. Because Limbaugh, Ingraham, Hannity, Coulter, etc. railed and railed on John McCain, and yet he remains the frontrunner, the assumption is, "Well, I guess they have no influence." I admit, I had such thoughts.

This is wrong. Wishful thinking for some, but wrong.

I've come to realization this week that conservatism is the victim of its own demands for purity. All these commentators have not spent as much time being for someone as they have against, and that doesn't gin up the base. Rick Santorum said as much this morning on Ingraham's show.

For whatever reason, the base didn't rally to a candidate. Romney, Thompson, Huckabee, and reaching back even to Brownback, Frist, Santorum, Allen ... all couldn't make it happen for one reason or another. Left in the wake, was John McCain.

Subsequently, some have concluded that conservatism is dead or dying, and that the Rudy-McCain-Schwartzneggar wing of the party is the new ideology. This is also a false notion.

We may yet in the future have an ideologically pure candidate who embodies Reagan and rallies strong conservative emotion in the base. But until that day comes, conservatives need to learn to make do with the best of what they have. In this case, Mitt Romney. Maybe in another year, some other partially flawed-candidate.

This is the lesson conservatives will end up being force fed this season by a McCain candidacy. It's too bad, but I suppose it had to happen. But it doesn't mean conservative influence of the Republican party is over ... far from it.

The underlying reason for the failure to back one candidate is religous bigotry. It's that simple. Romney is not as flawed as he is portrayed. Assertions to the contrary are merely rationalizations. He is the best Republican candidate ... if only he was not a Mormon.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Tex

See, this is the problem with purists ... the problem we're having now in choosing a candidate. If someone isn't able to check ALL categories, then "he is not a conservative."

Bush has not perfectly followed conservatism, but he's done a pretty good job all things considered. He put two conservative judges on SCOTUS, and nominated scores of qualified conservative lower-court judges, cut taxes more than once, and strengthened the military. He has done a superb job of protecting the homeland. He tried to take on the most fiscally irresponsible gov't program of our time: Social Security. He was firm on social issues: stem cell research, gay marriage, abortion.

Was he a "small gov't" conservative? No, not really. Is he a "movement" conservative? No, not really. But he is a conservative president, and anyone who says otherwise is just blowing smoke.

So your idea of a conservative is one who attempts to get Roe vs Wade overthrown and amend the constitution to disallow gay marriage? He "did a pretty good job"? Are you batshit, man? He accomplished absolutely nothing as far as your pathetic social agenda is concerned, while racking up more national debt than all previous presidents combined.

He's done "a superb job of protecting the homeland"!? You mean other than ignoring the warnings and subsequently allowing the worst terrorist attack ever, right? Oh, you're referring to the way he invaded Iraq, who never had any ability to attack us while ignoring the actual perpetrators. Good lord you're deluded.

Is it the confiscated lighters and "random" searches that make you feel safe?