Unity
Members of both political parties love the idea of unity, but find it elusive, even within membership ranks. Personality differences, ideological tension, sense of priorities create dissension most often resolved by the application of power and money, the application of which is most often expressed as “pragmatism.”
But power and money, always chief armaments of any political party, ultimately fail to achieve unity. That is because a unified party can only be established among people of identical or nearly identical beliefs.
Whether the unity based on ideals holds individuals’ loyalty and attention depends on the comprehensiveness and depth of the party’s foundational bases.
Over the last ten decades or so, the cultural hegemony of the Judeo/Christian ethic was gradually eroded by the progressive vision birthed during the nineteenth century. The erosion of the former cultural hegemony has meant the major institutions of the West, including those within the US, have been absorbed by progressivism.
The process of absorption by progressive thought has affected political parties, dividing camps of thought into two major and conflicting political philosophies: progressive and conservative. While the Democratic Party has been taken over almost without exception by leftist progressivism, particularly as regards the current administration, the Republican Party is in the midst of a titanic struggle for its ideological soul.
Progressives and conservatives are fighting for the ideological/philosophical heart of the Party.
Generally speaking, however, the fight is not defined as a battle between progressivism and conservatism. It is most often defined by the terms “moderate” and “conservative.” “Moderates,” who are actually progressives at heart, proclaim themselves reasonable pragmatists who are interested only in fiscal conservatism.
Conservatives, on the other hand, do not see the ideological pie as easily sliced and are interested in a broader agenda which addresses the marked deterioration of Western culture, including but not confined to the political culture.
In addition to their concerns over government’s fiscal responsibility, conservatives are pro-life, strict interpreters and upholders of the constitution, interested in retaining national identity and sovereignty, anti-statist and strong advocates for individual freedoms.
In other words, conservatives are interested in the reform of the entire culture; and for Republican conservatives, that reform starts with the political culture.
Particularly germane to this essay, conservatives do not see economics as divisible from other issues. However, moderates/progressives do see economics/fiscal conservatism as divisible from what are broadly (and I believe mistakenly termed) “social” issues.
How did economic issues become conceived as separable from the cloth of culture at large? What is the reasoning behind the idea that fiscal conservatism is separable from the rest of conservative beliefs?
I believe fiscal conservatives have at the heart of their beliefs in the separateness of economics from the rest of culture an irrational belief that economics is an objective science based on mathematics and statistics and therefore not subject to value judgments. For them, the measure of society and mankind is material.
Therefore, the reasoning goes, it is possible to apply objectively the science of economics to politics without concern for the value judgments and the moral freight “social” issues inevitably bring with them. As we shall see in another essay regarding the test case of public education, such an assumption is wrong.
But first, what is the reasoning behind the idea that fiscal conservatism is separable from social/cultural issues?
Those who follow the philosophy of science will know that the effort to find a formula to reconcile the seemingly contradictory theories of quantum mechanics and general relativity has at the heart of the efforts to reconcile, a Theory of Everything; that is, a formula the explicates and links together all known physical phenomena. The formula is then supposed to have predictive power to explain any particular phenomenon.
Forgotten in the impulse to explicate the entirety of the universe in mathematical terms is Kant’s admonition in his Third Critique that higher (“pure”) mathematics, while capable of much seduction, elegance and beauty, may not bear any particular resemblance to reality.
In brief, there are many other facets to be considered in the interpretation of the complexities and meaning of the universe. A mathematical formula may not contain the universe nor serve as a total explicatory device.
What does the above mean concerning for “fiscal conservatism?”
It means, among other things, that the mathematics and statistics attendant to economics do not define or “objectify” economics; which, after all, is a human activity and which is fraught with moral judgments.
It means that the economic measure of humanity (economics being defined as an “objective” science with universal applicability to human history and culture) is an insufficient and truncated means of measure.
It also means that the mere material, economic measure of humanity, when applied universally, creates destruction of society, as has often been noted by historians who have observed the results of communism, which used as its measure the sole factors of economics; that is, humans as purely material being measured by economics. Thus, each person is assigned a particular economic value, which in progressive/socialist/communist terms means equal distribution of wealth since equality is defined as equal material possessions.
But the presumed objectivity and certainty of economics gives, as it has given to socialists and communists, a wedge whereby value judgments contrary to political conservatism may be inserted into the political structure. In other words, supposedly objective economic issues become the proverbial nose of the camel in the tent. The real but most often unstated purpose of “fiscal conservatives” is to get the whole camel in the tent in order to obtain control of the rest of the conservative agenda, substituting progressive values for conservative values.
The above is the reason why conservatives must resist the idea that economics is a thread separable from the rest of the societal fabric; that it alone is the objectifying measure of humankind and human culture. On the contrary, every economic decision, every facet of fiscal responsibility carries with it a value judgment. The only question remaining, then, is whose value judgment will infrom economic policy; whose value judgment will prevail?
For the conservative, the value judgments undergirding economic policies are the same value judgments which are the foundational beliefs of conservatives, most of whom believe those values were most ably articulated by the founders of this nation.
Part II: Delaware’s Public Schools as a case example of the impossibility of separating out fiscal conservatism and value judgments based on conservative political philosophy.
(To be written, hopefully, next week.)
Fay
It took me a while to digest this essay but it was well worth the time to reflect on the several points that you made.
“Particularly germane to this essay, conservatives do not see economics as divisible from other issues. However, moderates/progressives do see economics/fiscal conservatism as divisible from what are broadly (and I believe mistakenly termed) “social” issues.”
As I thought about the point that you made here, i believe that is generally true but in the last six months, I have personally separated these issues in my mind to understand what kind of compromise I could live with to bring the party together into a cohesive unit that could win elections.
I’ve personally found that giving in on “social conservatism” (I still comfortably use that term) is much more difficult that giving a little on fiscal issues, because morals and family values are at stake. I refuse to give an inch on these issues.
You make far too many great points for me to completely digest at this time. I will copy and save this post as a doc. to read later with more leisure time.
Thanks for the post.
This is a work of beauty. I have to post it on the facebook side. I really think this is your best ever on either blog. I hope you send this one to a national publication.
“What is the reasoning behind the idea that fiscal conservatism is separable from the rest of conservative beliefs?”
Because most conservatives believe in liberty and freedom, not just as words in a campaign, but as real life principles, and don’t see government-sanctioned behavior management (which is what “social conservatism” is) as doing anything for liberty or freedom.
The government spends 85+% of its time immersed in issues of a fiscal or economic nature. People in poll after poll, including Delaware, list economic and fiscal issues at the top of what they’re concerned about. The most recent poll I saw showed 45% of people list jobs & the economy as their most important issue. 1% listed social/cultural issues.
Until we deal with the issues that people are actually concerned about, we won’t win. So the ideas need not necessarily be separated, just prioritized for the public sphere.
““Moderates,” who are actually progressives at heart”
more kook talk from the conspiracy mongers.
how about:
“Moderates,” who are actually Maoists at heart
“Moderates,” who are actually Marxists at heart
“Moderates,” who are actually Martians at heart
Fay
Another section of your essay has piqued my interest.
“The process of absorption by progressive thought has affected political parties, dividing camps of thought into two major and conflicting political philosophies: progressive and conservative. While the Democratic Party has been taken over almost without exception by leftist progressivism, particularly as regards the current administration, the Republican Party is in the midst of a titanic struggle for its ideological soul.”
When I studied “Currents in Political Theory,” at the U of D, one of the political philosophers that I studied was a French Socialist named, Michel Foucault, who wrote, “Discipline & Punish, The Birth of the Prison.” This man was born in 1926 and died in 1984. He was director at the “Institut Francdais in Hamburg Germany and lectured through Europe. He held a chair at France’s most prestigious institution, the College de France.
From my studies, I’ve deduced that this man was instrumental in bringing about Europe’s modern day Socialism.
Today, we are divided into two camps of thought because the progressives want to proceed to the next level which is socialism in its purest form.
True conservatives want to retain the republic according to the constitution and the Bill of Rights.
And the people that don’t fit into either of these two groups, just don’t have a clue what is going on.
The civil war between these two emerging ideologies has just begun in Delaware and threatens to explode into extreme polarization.
ANON, you don’t understand what social conservatisim is or what it stands for.
The idea of “family values” originated with efforts to get the government to *STOP* interfering in people’s lives…. to stop breaking up families as a condition of getting welfare, to stop punishing marriage in the tax code, to stop pushing a liberal agenda on our kids in public schools.
The conservative social agenda is mainly a “leave us alone” agenda.
The only exceptions are that preventing the killing of a human life is a mandatory responsiblity of the government, and also it has always been part of society’s responsibilities to protect children, such as protecting them from pornography and similar influences
Our Party was founded on INTERFERING in the commercial relationships of people engaged in SLAVERY. The Republican Party was founded on the belief that private business transactions should be PROHIBITED with regard to people then regarded by most as LESS THAN HUMAN.
We put certain values above all others, and saw the protection of individuals as more important than business transactions, private property, or any other right or value.
The protection of a human life is the one time when it is the government’s responsibility to stand up and intervene.
Even on the question of homosexuality, homosexuals have everything they need or want in this society…. except the power to *FORCE* other people to express approval of them.
We hear about inheritance (right a will), visits in hospitals (write an advance medical directive), etc. Total nonsense.
But again gays want to *FORCE* their agenda on other people who want to be LEFT ALONE.
We don’t want to be forced to approve of what we don’t approve of.
Changing the traditions of thousands of years is doing violence to the rest of our culture and society.
For gays to do whatever they want is not an issue.
For gays to FORCE other people to applaud for them and express approval is what this is all about.
Oh, that and soaking employers for spousal benefits as fringe benefits.
“The conservative social agenda is mainly a “leave us alone” agenda.”
Bull. Shit.
“The only exceptions are that preventing the killing of a human life is a mandatory responsiblity of the government”
Except for when it’s okay, like war, the death penalty, lax business regulations, lax scrutiny of imports, etc.
“it has always been part of society’s responsibilities to protect children, such as protecting them from pornography and similar influences”
Not through the government, it hasn’t. That’s a completely indefensible statement. Using the “defending children” statement as cover for your desire to legislate YOUR morality on other people is pathetic. Somebody else’s gay marriage doesn’t hurt my children (or my marriage for that matter). And abortion is and will be the law of the land for at least the next 20 years without major SCOTUS changes, so that issue needs to be relegated to the non-government realm — reaching the hearts of pregnant women and offering them alternatives, counseling and ministry.
Social conservatism needs to take a back seat in today’s politics. If we’re litmus-testing people on their views on social issues, we are committing a grave error.
“We don’t want to be forced to approve of what we don’t approve of.”
That is legislating YOUR morality on other people. The fact that you should have the right to approve of someone else’s life is the complete opposite of being left alone.
anon says in #8: Except for when it’s okay, like war, the death penalty, lax business regulations, lax scrutiny of imports, etc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So we now see anon unmasked as a flaming, full-on Leftist. Pretending to care about the future of the Republican party is a fraud. Anon is in here simply trying to harm, not help, the Republican party.
Any one complaining in this way about
– the war
–the death penalty
—lax business regulations
– lax scrutiny of imports, etc.
Is not a fiscal conservative Republican, who wants to promote a fiscally conservative agenda.
Anon is a fake. He is a liberal Democrat.
HE DISAGREES with the statement:
“it has always been part of society’s responsibilities to protect children, such as protecting them from pornography and similar influences”
So I’m embarrassing you and you’re admitting it through your ridiculous comment, one that is not worthy of a response. I forced you to apply your silly claims with consistency, and since you can’t, you resort to accusing me of things I am not and of saying things I did not.
Go back to Virginia.
Anon
Nobody is forcing you to believe what you don’t want to believe.
We are caught between two diametrically opposed forces and there is no middle ground. Those caught in the middle don’t have a clue. The progressives want us to compromise a little at a time until we feel we are comfortable with their compromise. The next time they ask us to compromise, we lose a little of our civil rights and self respect.
Your must understand that an ideological civil has broken out in Delaware and some other hot spots in America, and soon it will be nationwide.
If we give and compromise, we will lose a little at a time. If we stand our ground, as in this last election, we will eventually win but compromising our principles is not the answer. It just seems like the answer right now.
Read Fay’s complete post. She make some very important and relevant points.
Don, you write “We are caught between two diametrically opposed forces and there is no middle ground.”
I have to say I agree with you. It’s my belief that we are as ideologically divided as this nation was before the Civil War. The philosophies of prgressivism and conservatism are diametrically opposed. I am, however, hopeful that conservative political philosophy will prevail. What this will take, however, is nothing short of heroic efforts cutting across culture.
As you might guess, it is my opnion the churches have fallen down on their mission to address the culture as a whole and have, by and large, retreated to privatization, remaining within the turf assigned them. But my hope is that the quietism and passivity is being broken at last.
Thank you for your engagement with the points I am trying to make. Also, it’s been a while since I’ve examined Foucault’s thinking, but you are encouraging me to take a new look at his writing.
David, thank you for your tremendous compliment and your support. I hope to eventually get the article published. We’ll see if it connects somewhere. I’ve never been savvy about connections, that’s for sure.
anon, you are exposing yourself as a liberal who has no interest in the success of the Republican party.
The point is that your advice about how the Republican party can best in is tainted by the fact that you don’t want the Republican Party to win.
Do you think the Delaware Democrat Party should take advice from me on what they should do? And so why should we take advice from you, anon?
If I may, I’d like to address the statement that social conservativism is “government-sanctioned behavior management.”
Anyone who has been awake during the last couple years (and before that) has to have seen the government taking charge of more and more realms of human behavior; i.e., “government sanctioned behavior management.”
The resultant protest depends on whose ox is being gored.
Most progressives see nothing wrong with the government managing what Americans eat, what kind of cars they drive, what kind of homes they live in, what sort of health care they should receive, and on and on.
The latest regulations and procedures put into place by the TSA are, I think, a perfect example of behavior management. Here is where you by means of a peeping Tom machine have your clothes taken off. Here is where you stand when I grope your private parts. Here is where you pay your fine if you resist.
I’ve yet to hear a leftist utter a peep against the incredible intrusion into the private lives of Americans–citizens who are guaranteed by their country’s constitution that they are not to be subject to seizure and search without reason.
On the contrary, the whole nightmare is being defended by the Left!
The truth is the Delaware GOP has never had a platform. The need for one has been negated by the Castle team who always wanted to make sure Castle to be Castle at the expense of the party.
Yes, there are more D’s than R’s but there are many more people right of moderate than left of moderate. I still think Protack would have been the guy to bridge that gap. We will have to wait to 2012 to see.
“The point is that your advice about how the Republican party can best in is tainted by the fact that you don’t want the Republican Party to win.”
You can say what you want, but I’ve done more to help the Republican Party win in Delaware than you could in three lifetimes.
I exposed you, and you’re trying to misrepresent what I said (i.e. government does not equal society) and paint me for that which I am not. As soon as you began attacking the messenger instead of debating the message, you proved to any informed reader that you were waving the white flag.
I would think you’d be better at this. You’re boring me.
“The truth is the Delaware GOP has never had a platform.”
Then it needs to formulate one; otherwise, the GOP will continue to endure mere personal power grabs by people who have no regard as to what the fights are all about but who are just interested in “winning.”
Whatever “winning” means.
“The truth is the Delaware GOP has never had a platform.”
Not true. The GOP completed an exhaustive process under Terry Strine and John Clatworthy that produced a document at the ’08 convention. It was largely ignored because it’s hard to have a strict platform followed by all comers, but to say it wasn’t done is more untruth.
“Whatever “winning” means.”
Winning means building a coalition that allows you to govern. Ronald Reagan understood it, built a majority with conservatives and moderates and passed conservative legislation. Newt Gingrich understood it, built a majority with conservatives and moderates and passed conservative legislation. Rahm Emanuel understood it (when we did not), and he built a majority with liberals and moderates, which resulted in the stimulus and Obamacare.
So, yeah, winning matters. Governing matters. And to do it, it takes a coalition bigger than the hardest of the hard right. Reagan and Gingrich understood that. The hard right in the Delaware GOP does not.
I think you may have misunderstood what I meant by the phrase: “Whatever ‘winning’ means.
I was referring to purely personal power plays which are made without regard to principles; that is, winning just for the sake of winning.
That kind of “winning” doesn’t really mean much.
Understood. But when some of us talk about winning being important, it’s not just personal power plays. It’s realism.
You guys act like you’re winning. You have been losing for a long time. You sabotaged someone else and complained that they loss. Give us a decade then we will talk.
Fay, we are again in agreement. I have written the same line of thought here myself. Maybe not as eloquently. There is no such thing as fiscal conservatism, there is no such thing as social conservatism, there is only conservatism. You either apply it in all cases or you have abandoned it completely.
Frank,
Yes, I’ve seen we’re in agreement. I read your and Don’s posts on the subject.
I hope I can convince a few “moderates” their position is untenable when it comes to “fiscal conservatism.”
we’ll see.
Terry Strine and John Clatworthy that produced a document at the ’08 convention.
Pure plagiarism and a rip off from “50 Ideas for Delaware” , the whole project was a total farce.
Anon you are such a total fool.
Clatworthy’s campaign in the primary and general was very negative and he lost a safe R seat. The plan he had was a fraud.
“There is no such thing as fiscal conservatism, there is no such thing as social conservatism, there is only conservatism. You either apply it in all cases or you have abandoned it completely.”
Says who? Certainly not Burke or Kirk or Buckley. Certainly not the people who created conservatism, back before it was hijacked. You people are lost in your own world. Who are you to revise what they created over decades to suit your simple needs?
Created conservatism? Conservatism didn’t pop into existence with the Buckley brothers or even Burke. What we call conservatism has been a part of human experience for ages. Faith in GOD, Traditional marriage, the value of private property, family, and dignity of humanity have long existed. GOD himself imparted these values to Adam and Eve.
There have been many times these values where under assault and they are again. We have prevailed against all comers and will continue to do so because society cannot exist based upon progressive garbage.
It is the culture, stupid.
“It is the culture, stupid.”
But it’s not up to the government to fix the culture, and when you give primacy to social issues inside government, you elevate the government to the status of ruler over the culture. So don’t complain about the results when that happens.
anon, you ask who defines conservatism. In my case I do. Are you actually reading what Fay and I have been saying. It is the fiscal conservatives that have abandoned the principles of the ideology.
Let me put it this way, when people self identify as fiscal conservatives, and that we need not be concerned with issues that effect society, I personally see those people as selfish and self centered. Are they telling us that they care only for that which effects their personal wealth? Are they only concerned with issues that may cost them money? If so these people in my opinion are shallow and empty. And I certainly do not want, nor will I support them as candidates. If they are afraid to stand on principle on all issues, then they will never be able to defeat the forces at work everyday that are striving to change the very fabris of this nation. We cannot disengage ourselves from issues such as the devaluing of human life. We cannot ignore the fact that people in the northern county have different problems than we in the southern county do.
We need candidates that are able to be fluid on the issues, but not on the solutions. The solution is conservatism. Too often campaigns will sit down at the beginning of the election cycle and choose their issues to run on. Let’s say that they choose the rising deficit. Now they go out and speak at meetings. In many cases they will be spending most of their time trying to convince people to care about the deficit. Instead they should be working to convince people that they can solve their problems by applying the principle of conservatism. A single mother on wefare in New Castle doesn’t care about the deficit, she has her own problems. She is trying to get her children a good education in a public school system and neither the Democrats or the Republicans are working hard enough on vouchers. She doesn’t care about taxes, she probably isn’t paying any. Are we to abandone this mother because she is more concerned about issues effecting society than she is about the deficit? Do we not want to include her as a citizenn and a voter? This is why the GOP in Delaware is failing, because those who have been in charge have been concerned with only the issues that effect them and the small little circle that they orbit within. We must enlarge the circle, but at the center must be the bright light of conservatism.
Anon defines no nothing has been GOP hack.
Total tool which produced:
Lee Gov 2008 loss of 30%
Ting Senate 2006 Loss of 35%
Copeland Lt gov 2008 Loss if 25%
Wharton AG 2006 loss of 7%
Ursomarso Lt Gov 2004 loss of 40%
Burris 2000 Gov loss of 20%
Rochford 2000 Lt Gov loss of 25%
Brady I C 2008 loss of 20%
Kovach NCC Prez 2010 20% TBA
2008 no candidate for NCC Exec
2008 no candidate for NCC Pres
2004 Castagno NC Exec loss of 17%
2004 Lopez NCC Prez loss of 22%
2002 State house 29 R 12 D
2010 Sate house 26 D 15 R
2002 State Senate 13 D 8 R
2010 State Senate 15 D 6 R
Voter Registration in 1992 D vs R 6% spread
Voter registration in 2010 D vs R 19% spread
–
“Let me put it this way, when people self identify as fiscal conservatives, and that we need not be concerned with issues that effect society, I personally see those people as selfish and self centered.”
Who says we “need not be concerned?” Nobody. That’s ridiculous. Fiscal conservatives aren’t social liberals. They just relegate social issues to their proper place in the government sphere. I am pro-life. If I were in office, I would vote that way. But 95% of the time, I’d be voting on fiscal and economic issues, so that’s where I put the priority.
Your stereotypes of not only fiscal conservatives but also a “single mother on welfare in New Castle” are pathetic, frankly, not to mention offensive.
What a single mother on welfare needs most is a good job: job opportunities, education and/or retraining. All of which fall squarely under the fiscal domain. And vouchers as the only solution to education problems? Really?
Glen Urquhart and Christine O’Donnell, who are both radically fiscally conservative, ran primarily on debt, taxes, jobs and repealing Obamacare. I await your rebuke of them.
“Republican Party is in the midst of a titanic struggle”
Yes… Re-arranging the deck chairs while the band plays “Nearer My God To Thee”.
And, to tie in two themes in this post: if you want to stop the march of progressivism, you have to win elections. Elections have consequences.
For all of you who thought it was a good idea to toss out Mike Castle in favor of a candidate with no chance of winning, let’s bring that thought home. After all, Castle was just a RINO, right? He might as well have had a D next to his name, right? No difference between the two, right?
In May, Mike Castle voted against repealing DADT.
Yesterday, Chris Coons stood with a group of Senators demanding repeal during the lame duck session.
Winning elections matters.
From today’s Washington Examiner:
Well, it’s official. If this monster is threatened by it, the Tea Party can’t be all bad:
Speaking to a group of students visiting Havana, former Cuban leader Fidel Castro accused the Tea Party of leading the United States towards “fascism.”
In his comments, Castro chided the United States as a “ruined nation” and derided the Tea Party as “extreme right.”
I mean just recently Castro was apologizing for sending gay people to labor camps, but I think we know the real threat in the Western Hemisphere is people who oppose fine state run health care systems like the one they have in Cuba where patients have to “arrive with their own syringes, towels and bed sheets.” I hope Oliver Stone drops everything and hops the first plane to Havana so we can find out more about Castro’s thoughts about the American political scene.
Socialist-Democrats throughout the nation can take solace from the fact that a mass-murderer who has actually achieved their shared goal of state socialism mimics their vitriolic hatred of conservatives. Isn’t it great, all of you ‘intelligent’ people in NCC, that a lunatic communist despot shares your views?
Headline: “Delaware ‘liberals’ and Castro align in anti-TEA Party rhetoric.”
There will be no more appeasement- Sussex County will never again accept a ‘cross-the-aisle moderate’ who is in fact merely a facilitator for the leftist, hate-America agenda. Forget about it.
“Stop the Marxist Bastards!”
Anon,
This is off the top of my head, as it’s been a while since I’ve read Burke’s Reflections on the French Revolution, but it strikes me that he, along with Kirk and Buckley, address concerns involving the WHOLE of society, and that their political philosophy is slanted toward the reformation of society rather than on the division of society into arbitrary categories. A holistic vision, if you will. Economics was not by any of the authors you mention as a category/thread separable from the rest of the societal fabric.
For instance, Burke saw that the French revolutionists’ folly, as they were burning down the whole house just because it needed repairs. They were after the destruction of the entire social hierarchy and interested in building an entirely new governmental-actually civilizational–structure. Burke saw–correctly–that if the Revolution continued on its bloody path of destruction, the entire societal fabric would be irreparably destroyed. He wrote that gradual and deliberate reform across the board was the answer to the problems within French society.
I see your point, but I believe at the core of all of the societal concern was the understanding that the societal problems would not and could not be solved by a government of imperfect men nor a complete destruction of society through revolution.
Also, conservatism began and grew as a philosophy that encouraged vigorous debate on issues of all stripes. It exists in complete opposition to absolutes and the groupthink that is prevalent today. That’s a big part of this discussion. The fact that you MUST meet the collective definition of pro-life or pro-2nd amendment or anti-climate science, etc., in order to be passable as a candidate is the antithesis of how conservatism emerged as a philosophy.
You need to read a lot more of Kirk. I’ve given just one of hundreds of examples of his partisanship on another thread.
No, government can’t solve all of societies problems, but it sure can create more of them by shackling the family, interfering with the church, repressing business, hobbling charity, skewing education, and misdirecting individual behavior.
If you want to see how much good government can do, look at Singapore. I am not advocating a government that paternalistic, but it does work when it encouarges people toward family, responsiblity, honor, work, education, and thrift. When the government is on the side of a strong values based culture instead of opposing it, a country is strong.
Lok at the Netherlands, the people have tired of a decade of social liberalism and now a conservative coalition is ruling and undoing the failed experiment.
What you so called fiscal conservative types ignore is that modern governent deals 70% of the time with social issues. This is not the limited government of 1840. I am all for moving back in that direction in many though not all ways (certainly not in civil rights and some other issues). Look at the bills. Most are not primarily fiscal.
Even fiscal bills are often trying to change social policy. Should family be redefined? Should marriage be redefined? Should more favor be given to unmarried couples with children than married couples? President Obama has a marriage penalty in most of his tax proposals while President Bush eliminated it everytime he could. Should there be a penalty for two spouses working and earning roughly equal wages? Should daycare be subsidized but a spouse at home not be? How should abortion be treated in health care programs? Shoud same sex couples receive military benefits and housing? You get the picture.
Rick link to it. I could also show that Buckley was a full spectrum conservative. Faye already started addressing Burke. He was a pro-life, pro-family, pro-constitutionalist, fiscal hawk.
My point in reponse was that the very premise that these men “invented conservatism” was a farce. Were Robert Taft or Robert Welch any less of a force than William Buckley? It is like saying today if you don’t subscribe to every thought of Rush Limbaugh then you are not a conservative.
“It is like saying today if you don’t subscribe to every thought of Rush Limbaugh then you are not a conservative.”
You don’t think there are millions of people who believe that?
David, excellent points in #41. Well said.
In brief, fiscal policy always addresses and involves social values even–and perhpas most especially–when those values are not clearly articulated. The myth of fiscal neutrality has to be exploded. There is no such thing as fiscal neutrality, as I shall try to point out next week in Part II.
I hope.
Not through the government, it hasn’t. That’s a completely indefensible statement. Using the “defending children” statement as cover for your desire to legislate YOUR morality on other people is pathetic. Somebody else’s gay marriage doesn’t hurt my children (or my marriage for that matter).
Only if you consider gender identity disorders and the behavior patterns linked to them harmless. Perhaps the fact that people are gullible enough to reject reality based on a little emotional conditioning or their own apparent experience (E.g., “I know a nice person who identifies as gay, therefore everyone should treat homosexuality as the equal of heterosexuality.”) probably says more about the state of civilization than the rise of homosexuality typical to a civilization on the decline.
E.g. “…homosexual practices are increasing among men and growing towards a major vice. The most arresting report from Europe comes from Germany.”
(American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 37,
No. 6, May, 1932 The Family by Ernest R. Groves :948)
It’s fine with me if people want to play pretend and leave “social issues” in the background while working to decrease the size of government. Simply decreasing the size of government makes many of these issues a non-issue. In this case the social weight caused by behavior patterns which are caused by sexual disorientations wouldn’t matter because we wouldn’t all be forced to pay for it through new healthcare systems. But that’s not the way moderates here write, instead they actually feel that they’re right about things to the point that they get self-righteous and won’t tolerate dissent or work with people that they disagree with. And it does seem to be just an ignorant feeling about being right based on vague notions rooted in cultural conditioning or their personal experience.
(On a side note, a “Do whatever you can get away with doing without causing harm.” philosophy always causes more harm than a philosophy of natural law. Ironic, eh?)
For them, the measure of society and mankind is material.
The irony of this is that there are many indications that matter itself is a work of art sustained in being based on language, sentience and mind. Empirical evidence doesn’t matter to the minds of many because the grand myth of “pure” objectivity is too alluring. In order to be purely objective, logical and lawful one would have to be dead in the head, a white washed sepulcher.
“But that’s not the way moderates here write, instead they actually feel that they’re right about things to the point that they get self-righteous and won’t tolerate dissent or work with people that they disagree with.”
When you say “moderates,” you must mean “conservatives.” Because you just described Frank Knotts recent posts to a T. I’ve worked on campaigns for people who are far to my right on certain issues and far to my left on certain issues, because I know that moving in the right direction is far preferable to being intransigent and making no progress.
And the “sexual disorientations” causing social erosion are FAR more from a promotion of the ethic of heterosexual promiscuity than any other. Will we be banning that, too?
I hate to brouch the subject, but teens experimenting with homosexuality have a lot of mental health issues statisically including being many times more likely to commit sucide, be depressed, or abuse substances. There is a significant body of research that shows a lot of them can be happier guided to heterosexuality in through some sort of reparative therapy. Instead we have propganda campaigns that say the reason for this is that society does not have same sex marriage.
Could not the problem be in the lifestyle and not the society?
Here’s a core issue, I think:
Conservatism, over centuries of political thought, has a core base of foundational values from which it addresses contemporary problems as they arise.
Burke, for instance, was writing from a conservative perspective while living within a society whose government was parliamentary and aristocratic. British government had evolved gradually from absolute monarchy characterized by men such as Henry VIII to a less draconian and authoritarian government to a more balanced government comprised of parliament and the aristocracy.
Believing as he did in the primacy and authority of the parliamentarian aristocracy, the regicide committed by the revolutionaries in France called him to address not only regicide, but the anarchical mindset of the Jacobins and other radicals bent on the demolition of French (and quite possibly the English) civilzation as it had been known for some ten centuries.
But at the core of Burke’s critique were certain unshakeable conservative values that remain applicable to our society today; namely, opposition to destruction of long evolved conservative principles of government.
In Burkean fasion, contemporary conservatives resist the destructive radicalism evidenced by the far Left, which is determined to decapitate the US Republic and to destroy federalism as defined and outlined in the Constitution, substituting in its place an all powerful state run by an elite executive branch.
The silly part to this debate is acting like we are the ones proposing changes. We are not trying to experiment with the military in time of war. We are not the one trying to revamp marriage and overturn every law on the subject, every vote taken, and the precedent of every existing society. We are not the ones who overrode all 50 states on abortion. We are not the ones tossing prayer out of schools. We are not the ones trying to put pot houses in your neighborhood. We are not the ones advocating massive changes. They are.
You knuckleheads seem to be too thick skulled to understand that you need to be telling the left to stop dividing us and leave the social issues alone. We will defend our culture from a government mandated rewrite.
Using the “defending children” statement as cover for your desire to legislate YOUR morality on other people is pathetic.
This is what the Left usually seems to believe due to the nature of projection but I’ve always struggled with the opposite. I don’t care about controlling people like the Left tends to. “Let the dead bury their dead.” But now we’ll all have to pay. After all, the Left will be quick to point out that letting people die wouldn’t be Christian and so on.
Maybe we should prescribe homosexuality in schools and proscribe twinkies? It’s the material of satire. It makes one wonder if the American “liberals” actually cares about what is harmful of if they just care about controlling people based on their philosophical prejudices.
Some interesting perspectives on unity from National Review:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/253448/blue-collars-red-voters-henry-olsen
And the “sexual disorientations” causing social erosion are FAR more from a promotion of the ethic of heterosexual promiscuity than any other. Will we be banning that, too?
Who is talking about banning anything here? The equivalent would be to have the State prescribe heterosexual promiscuity simply because people have such desires or orientations with no regard for the general welfare. Given that there is no clinical or objective definition of what sexual orientation is if there are “sexual desire” people and supposed minorities of this sort then there are many, all currently being discriminated against.
It’s easy to engage in vague hand waving toward “social cost” or “social erosion” without being aware of the tremendous cost of denying a basic biosocial and psychological reality like the complementarity of the sexes.* If you’re concerned about economics it’s likely that children “being gay”/bisexual is more expensive than children being oriented to eat junk food and being fat. It is generally a tribute to the success of effete propagandists that American “liberals” have been conditioned to be blind to the cost of one sort of desire but not the other. Apparently the National Association for the Acceptance of Fat people has a long way to go because the methods and modes of victimization propaganda do not seem to come as naturally to them. They’re merely borrowing the same methods after they’ve already been used and apparently they’re not nearly as good at the imagery and acting involved.
*E.g.
“High risk sex between men accounts for the largest proportion of AIDS cases among adolescents (13 to 21 years of age). Sex between males has been implicated in 70% of the cases that were unrelated to blood products. In a national sample of sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) seroprevalence among 20- to 24-year-old male homosexual youths was found to be 30.1%, as compared to an overall rate of 1.4% among same-aged clients.”
(Pediatrics 1994; 94: 163-168
August, 1994 Section: Articles.
Predictors of Unprotected Intercourse Among
Gay and Bisexual Youth: Knowledge, Beliefs, and Behavior
Gary Remafedi, MD, MPH)
” Model I, Onset of Behaviors Before Age 13, showed use of cocaine before age 13 years as strongly associated with GLB orientation (odds ratio [OR]: 6.10; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.45-15.20). Early initiation of sexual intercourse (2.15; 10.6-4.38), marijuana use (1.98; 1.04-4.09), and alcohol use (1.82; 1.03-3.23) also was associated with GLB orientation.”
(American Academy of Pediatrics
Pediatrics 1998; 101: 895-902
May, 1998 Section: Articles
The Association Between Health Risk Behaviors
and Sexual Orientation Among a School-based
Sample of Adolescents Robert Garofalo, MD.
R. Cameron Wolf, MS; Shari Kessel, ScB;
Judith Palfrey, MD and Robert H. DuRant, PhD)
And so on, correlations hold cross-culturally as people choose to identify themselves with a philosophy of hedonism and form their own cultures based on it.
FVoshell: Nice essay.
Yet, for me, it still doesn’t answer the question of: what to do with Republicans and/or conservatives who Do Not fit the Jim DeMint, South Carolinean school of conservatism.
Minnesota, Washington State and Maine are far different than South Carolina and Mississippi. What to do? Kick out those who do not fit the ‘litmus’ test? I don’t see it. In fact, in the long run, you’ll lose lots of Independents and other fiscally and socially-minded Democrats as well. If that is the path, then good luck.
Remember, Hispanics are a large and powerful demographic. I ‘get’ the Kantian philosophical underpinnings of your post; however, it is not practical, in my opinion. I suppose you are saying: ‘get on the social and fiscal conservative bus’ or go away! That’s just too one-dimensional in my mind. We are a complex web of actors in the US, where class, geography, education, religion and values differ greatly.
There’s no question that the US is a ‘center-right’ nation. And that’s both good and important. Because we cannot keep drifting toward a European social democracy, like our current trajectory is aimed. Yet at the same time, we cannot come up with some anachronistic McCarthy-like ‘Blue List’ to demonize those that aren’t 100% Tea Party tested either.
My good friend recently won the Delaware State Teacher of the Year. If Jim DeMint would have his way, my friend would not of won the award; instead, by DeMint’s standards, he would not even be ALLOWED to teach! That’s extreme by anyone’s measure.
Many conservatives, independents and other non-traditional voters are highly educated. We do not ascribe to the ‘It’s Jim DeMint’s way or the highway’ principle.
You all miss the point, here in Delaware the GOP HQ personified by that wretch Priscilla has done everything possible to block conservatives or people they deign unworthy in favor weak and incompetent leaders and Repubicans. ( no misspelling )
Witness the scorched earth against Spence, O’Donnell and Protack. All of this to protect the biggest crybaby in Delaware-Mike Castle.
I look forward to and will ask all my friends to vote for the D in the special election. Why you ask?
Kovach told me yesterday his presence would not change much,however his loss will hasten the complete clean out of the HQ and all regional leaders including the biggest fraud in the party Fleming.
There can be no negotiation any more, it will be scorched earth with no one spared.
By the way, being named Teacher of the Year in delaware with a broken and corrupt DSEA and DOE is not a prize I see as important or meaningful. There are over 400 people in DOE who make over $100K, doing what?
“There can be no negotiation any more, it will be scorched earth with no one spared.” WOW! The full moon isn’t until Sunday. Maybe it’s time for a med-check?
What to do? Kick out those who do not fit the ‘litmus’ test?
I would have voted for Castle and kept debating social issues with fiscal conservatives or “libertarians” who believe themselves to be supporters of liberty.
But moderates here say:
“Also, conservatism began and grew as a philosophy that encouraged vigorous debate on issues of all stripes.”
Okay.. yet:
“The fact that you MUST meet the collective definition of pro-life or pro-2nd amendment or anti-climate science, etc., in order to be passable as a candidate is the antithesis of how conservatism emerged as a philosophy.”
Huh? Of course you should support the candidate closest to your philosophy while debating the rest in the “Big Tent,” etc.
We could use more Demint’s but none of our contributors are saying that you have to be a DeMint clone to be a republican let alone hold office.
It is a false argument. They are arguing that we need be more inclusive of the people who understand it is not all about money. The culture matters and we can not let the left force a radical remake of society down our throats.
“We could use more Demint’s but none of our contributors are saying that you have to be a DeMint clone to be a republican let alone hold office.”
Come on, man. Maybe you personally don’t, but that is exactly what is being said on this site today by multiple people.
The problem is that the leadership of the so called moderates has a my way or the highway approach. If it is not their guy, they work to undermine them or even attack as they did with O’Donnell. That is your right as an American. It just does not build coalitions. We have primary elections. Once one faction wins the other should unite because we supposedly agree a lot more with each other than the other party.
That is how I operate. It is not my side that has the big old beam in the eye here. Sure people are tired of being stabbed in the back twenty years by people whose formula is losing every election. It may take 3 cycles or so, but we know the way forward. It is time to rebuild based upon principles. Look at the GOP wipe out in 1974. It took 6 years, but we built a better, stronger party upon principle.
“The problem is that the leadership of the so called moderates has a my way or the highway approach.”
Who specifically are you talking about? We’ve really only ever run one moderate in a competitive statewide race in the last 20 years. People want to run candidates who can win. If you can be a strict conservative and prove you have a chance to win, you get the support of moderates & pragmatists, a la Ray Clatworthy, Bill Lee or Colin Bonini. Moderates embraced all three of those candidates, even though in every case, the candidate was a pro-life, pro-marriage, conservative.
So in my opinion, your premise is false.
Ok.
You guys are smart, etc. This is all good.
But how many of you have agreed to help work to win the special election?
The D’s met this morning at the Carpenter’s Hall and each union was assigned to have 50 volunteer’s for election day.
Interestingly enough the candidates you mentioned where are strongest. Your account is flawed.
Ray Clatworthy got little help from the state party in 1996 and Mike Castle came in for a picture the last week. The establishment fought Lee and it took 4 years to get their trust. The state party told the RGA in 2004 not to bother because he didn’ have a chance yet he almost knocked Minner out of the box. If he had serious help, he could have. In 2008, they pushed him aside until they needed to stop Mike Protack. No problem they abandoned him for Markell after the primary and a couple of them ended up in his administration.
What about the long list of other candidates? Did they all lose so badly that you can’t remember them? A list is in this thread.
Sound like a good reason to have picked a labor friendly candidate Bluehen
Rick link to it. I could also show that Buckley was a full spectrum conservative…the very premise that these men “invented conservatism” was a farce.
I never said that Kirk ‘invented’ conservatism (although he was the high priest of the post FDR rejuvination). I didn’t even bring his name up. Buckley was a media mouthpiece- he wasn’t Kirk.
On another topic, I responded to this..
…the fathers of actual conservatism (Burke, Kirk, Bill Buckley, etc) roll over in their grave at the ideological purity tests & groupthink prevalent in today’s “conservatism.”
With this, from Kirk:
What else do conservatives and libertarians profess in common? The answer to that question is simple: nothing. Nor will they ever have. To talk of forming a league or coalition between these two is like advocating a union of ice and fire. The ruinous failing of the ideologues who call themselves libertarians is their fanatic attachment to a simple solitary principle—that is, to the notion of personal freedom as the whole end of the civil social order, and indeed of human existence. The libertarians are oldfangled folk, in the sense that they live by certain abstractions of the nineteenth century.
They carry to absurdity the doctrines of John Stuart Mill (before Mill’s wife converted him to socialism, that is). To understand the mentality of the libertarians of 1981, it may be useful to remind ourselves of a little book published more than a hundred and twenty years ago: John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty. Arguments that were flimsy in 1859 (and were soundly refuted by James Fitzjames Stephen) have become farcical in 1981.
Kirk was not a ‘let’s all just get along’ conservative.
I am not speaking for anyone but myself. This is Fay’s thread but it mirrors one of my own. My point has been not about abandoning fiscal issues, but about how we can show the people who have been voting for the Democrats that we have a different way, a better way. Some of the historically Democrat voters, vote that way based on what are easily defined as either a social or a fiscal issue. Unfortunately we have been led by political cowards. They refuse to take the risk of taking a more traditional conservative message to people that may have voted for the Democrats in the past. I believe these cowards have actually conceded the fight by not taking the fight to the Democrats. When those in leadership positions refuse to articulate conservatism in its purist form, then they are allowing the left to define those issues. The point I have been attempting to make is that we can address the fiscal issues and attract new voters by making the fiscal issues relatable to their social problems. The two are not seperate as I and Fay have been attempting to make clear. The party establishment made up of “FISCAL” conservative moderates fear not being invited to all of the cool liberal parties if they dare to stand up for murdered children. But they refuse to acknowledge the fiscal cost of abortion, all the while touting their fiscal conservative creds.
Sorry, I ment to answer anon’s question in comment #34, he made the statement, “Glen Urquhart and Christine O’Donnell, who are both radically fiscally conservative, ran primarily on debt, taxes, jobs and repealing Obamacare. I await your rebuke of them.” Here is a post from Nov 10th on this site, read it and you will find where I state that while they carried the fiscal banner, they did not address the issues as I have laid them out. I’m not sure this is a rebuke, but more an observation of what may have been a mistake on both campaign’s part.
http://www.delawarepolitics.net/what-went-wrong-and-where-do-we-go-from-here/#comments anon, if you give me credit for nothing else, please give me credit for consistency.
I believe that social issues and fiscal issue are inextricably intertwined and cannot be separated by a true conservative. the liberasl created these two distinctions to play a waiting game. The two are an imaginary intangible line, created by the far left that would drag America into socialism by conservatives giving in on small points on either “social or fiscal” issues. (a distinction created by them) Once concessions are gained, usually from the moderate wing of the republican party, this ground will never be regained. The Far left has been playing this game for years and winning by keeping moderate and conservative republicans divided.
Frank — consistency is hard to come by in this argument, but you have most definitely been consistent.
But in the end, Frank and Don, we do not have that much of an ideological or philosophical problem. We have a math problem. If you can show me how to solve the math problem using only candidates who check all the boxes, I’m all ears.
Don,
#68: Precisely.
One of the lessons conservatives need to learn is never to argue from premises defined by the Left. It’s a losing game, as the persons defining the argument already have the upper hand.
I learned this the hard way when involved in debates concerning abortion.
Nativebluehen, #62: It is pointless to rush to support any given candidate if we don’t know what the Republican Party stands for. Getting out the vote is a meaningless activity unless the people who are voting have the assurance of knowing they are working for a candidate who has similar–not necessarily identical–beliefs.
There is no unity without likemindedness.
“But they refuse to acknowledge the fiscal cost of abortion, all the while touting their fiscal conservative creds.”
There is a terrible moral cost to abortion. There is a soul-breaking separation from God and a strong despair cost to abortion. Abortion is wrong, it ends a human life and it should not exist.
However, in real terms, there is not a fiscal cost to abortion. It shouldn’t even be discussed in that fashion, but since you did so in order to shame fiscal conservatives for ignoring abortion so they can “go to parties,” it must be said.
The majority of abortions can not legally be paid for with tax dollars, and the cost of abortion is more than made up for by the money not spent on the murdered child’s life. It is a depraved discussion to even have in those terms.
Just because people don’t hold abortion as a primary issue in their politics doesn’t make them soulless and uncaring. Shame on you for making that accusation.
“There is no unity without likemindedness.”
That is a frightening thought, and a ticket to complete irrelevancy as a party.
Democrats just pushed through some of the most liberal legislation in modern history by patching together a coalition with duct tape and chicken wire that inculded many Blue Dog moderates. They didn’t agree on much as a unit, and yet they made great advancements in the cause of far-left liberalism. Reagan did the same thing from our side, as did Gingrich.
Why is it that you all can’t see that?
“a frightening thought.” Nonsense, and a typical liberal ploy. They love the word “frightening.”
Nothing gets done without commonality. Every political compromise is based on some measure of commonality.
Where the rubber meets the road was well described by Governor Pete duPont in a conversation with a friend of mine. He said that compromises were part of politics, but he wouldn’t sell his soul.
Meaning, he had core principles he would not give up.
You used the word “likemindedness” in a thread that speaks of fiscal and social conservatism as inseparable. Using that term in that context does not remotely even hint at the concept of compromise. Perhaps you did not intend to communicate the concept that everyone should be in lockstep. If so, I misunderstood.
anon — why is compromise desirable?
I pose this question as meaning that there may be some times and some circumstances in which it is desirable and others in which it is not.
However you present in the prevoius post the idea that compromise is a value and goal in itself, an essential good, that compromise is always in and of itself good.
If the National Socialist Democratic Workers Party wants to kill the mentally disabled, as actually happened in history you hopefully realize, should we compromise with this agenda? How about if they only kill HALF of the nation’s mentally disabled? Is that a virtuous compromise? What principles are you willing to compromise and which ones are not subject to compromise?
If one political faction wants to ignore the Constitution, should we COMPROMISE with them? Should we agree to violate the Constitution only SOME of the time?
Why is compromise in your view a good thing?
Polemical writes in # 54: “Yet, for me, it still doesn’t answer the question of: what to do with Republicans and/or conservatives who Do Not fit the Jim DeMint, South Carolinean school of conservatism.”
If you have an organization that wants to promote solar power, should you include in the organization people who hate solar power and want to see it fail in favor of other options?
Why would you include in an organization those who do not agree with or support its goals?
If you want to sell Coca-Cola, you have to convince people that it is better than Pepsi. You don’t sell Coca-Cola by promoting your competition.
Jonathan,
“I pose this question as meaning that there may be some times and some circumstances in which it is desirable and others in which it is not.”
Exactly.
I’d also ask Anon what his non-negotiables are. What are the aspects of his world view that are foundational, the ones HE won’t compromise?
anon asks in #69 (apparently referring to voters): “But in the end, Frank and Don, we do not have that much of an ideological or philosophical problem. We have a math problem. If you can show me how to solve the math problem using only candidates who check all the boxes, I’m all ears.”
How did Ronald Reagan do it? He convinced Democrats to vote Republican. He did it with BOLD COLORS, no pale pastels. He did it with strong, hard-right issues, including a strong anti-abortion position.
You do not win elections by carving up the existing pie. You can *ONLY* win elections — EVER at ANY time ANYWHERE with ANY candidate — by persuading voters that your issue positions are better and more correct.
You CANNOT do that by attacking your own candidate and attacking the issue positions you are trying to advance. You have to do that, as Ronald Reagan did, by demonstrating the virtue and preferability of the GOP’s platform.
That requires a litte thing I like to call * W O R K * a/k/a effort. You have to get out there and explain why position A is better than position B. It is hard to do that with a glass of wine in one hand caviar or brie in the other hand. You might actually have to go out and meet people among the great unwashed.
FVoshell writes in #25: “I hope I can convince a few “moderates” their position is untenable when it comes to “fiscal conservatism.” ”
It might be said that moderate is a different thing from fiscal conservative. Rush Limbaugh roasts “moderates” as people who studiously avoid having any opinion, are uninformed and don’t want to take a position on anything.
I believe that moderates are those who live in terror of someone saying something bad about them. Their #1 and only political ideology is I believe whatever will prevent me from being criticized by the News Journal. That is of course a vain and impossible goal, because to take power away from Democrats you must unavoidably enter into a political life-or-death struggle. Only one side can win the election. Avoiding criticism is 100% impossible.
I maintain that those who tout fiscal conservatism ONLY don’t believe in THAT EITHER. They say that only so that they can try to avoid being criticized. They think that social issues are more controversial. SO they HIDE in fear and cowardice behind a “fiscal conservative” label — even though they don’t really believe in that, either.
Witness how our so-called “fiscal conservative” Republicans like Mike Castle vote for big-spending, big-government, big taxes, expanded regulation, more intrusion into our lives.
Where is the fiscal conservatism? It never actually materializes, does it?
anon in #61: “We’ve really only ever run one moderate in a competitive statewide race in the last 20 years.”
You mean Jan Ting who lost 29% to 70% for US Senate, and then campaigned for Barack Obama and got kicked out of the GOP?
“How did Ronald Reagan do it? He convinced Democrats to vote Republican. He did it with BOLD COLORS, no pale pastels. He did it with strong, hard-right issues, including a strong anti-abortion position.”
Increasing spending? Raising taxes after he cut them? Blowing up the deficit? Protecting the atmosphere from CFCs in the most successful environmental treaty ever?
Presidents can’t ‘raise taxes’ or ‘blow up the deficit.’ Congress can.
Jonathan,
“I maintain that those who tout fiscal conservatism ONLY don’t believe in THAT EITHER. They say that only so that they can try to avoid being criticized. They think that social issues are more controversial.”
I see your point about controversy, but actually, I see “moderates”–liberals–as using “fiscal conservatism” as a means of acieving the rest of the liberal agenda, as fiscal solutions give the air of being neutral due to the abstractions of numbers and statistics.
Money, however, is never neutral, as it is a means of empowering an agenda.
“You mean Jan Ting who lost 29% to 70% for US Senate, and then campaigned for Barack Obama and got kicked out of the GOP?”
I said competitive. I know reading comprehension isn’t your thing, but do try to keep up.
Money, however, is never neutral, as it is a means of empowering an agenda.
Sure, look at the Socialist-Democrats’ sugar-daddy, George Soros.
Look at Schumer- joined at the hip to Wall St., yet a ‘liberal.’
And look at GM- $50 billion of taxpayer money, $12-billion returned to the ‘taxpayer’ (get your check yet?), little or no payoff to original bond holders (the first to be paid-off in bankruptcy), a $4-billion payoff to the UAW for future ‘services’ and a company that still has not in and way addressed their elephant in the room, i.e., their unfunded liabilities (health and pension plans) and the fact that retirees outnumber actual workers by 5 to 1.
“Government Motors- Our Forever-Tainted Failure”
Can anybody say “Amtrak”…”USPS”…?
UAW: ‘Thanks for saving us, er, GM”
anon: So you are saying that moderate candidates are not competitive in Delaware?
anon in comment#69 says,
“But in the end, Frank and Don, we do not have that much of an ideological or philosophical problem. We have a math problem. If you can show me how to solve the math problem using only candidates who check all the boxes, I’m all ears.”
Obviously anon you are not all ears. Fay on this post with over 86 comments and also on my post on the same topic with over seventy some comments, have been explaing our view of how to overcome your so called math problem. It is not just about getting people to change their party affiliation. That is a party goal. It is about getting people to vote for conservative candidates depsite their affiliation. That is a conservative goal. I am working for the latter and if the party doesn’t get it, then the party be damned.
One last time. People vote for the things that concern them the most, not what they are told should concern them. When the GOP tries to tell people not to be concerned with issues that effect society, they are telling them that the party doesn’t share their concerns about those issues. Why should any citizen support candidates that do not support their views? They won’t. anon you say,”only candidates who check all the boxes”. My friend they need only check one box, conservative! It is the candidates that attempt to dissect conservatism that actually alienate voters.
People vote for the things that concern them the most, not what they are told should concern them…
I ideally, yes- in actuality, no. The Socialist-Democrats sell socialism through obfuscation and sloganeering; “for the children” “global warming” “our teachers” “pay their fair share” “social justice” “big oil” “a woman’s right to choose” and other miscellaneous vapid platitudes.
Luckily, their act is wearing thin.
Conservatism is a world view whic embraces the entire culture, not just one facet. When the world of politics and the government seek through radical change to fundamentally transform the bases of the entire Western culture, which bases are still fundamentally and spiritually founded in the Judeo/Christian ethic, the government has exceeded its limits and has become a “god”–leviathan, if you will.
When the government demands the obesience of the governed, it is no longer a Republic, but a dictatorship.
Conservatism resists the self-appointed role of government as “god,” and seeks to restore and effectuate the principles of the Republic as outlined by the founders of this nation all the while paying due respect to the Judeo/Christian ethic underlying the foundational documents of our nation.
But there are many books written on the nature and goals of conservatism, which, as Frank points out, transcend party and politics. For instance, though I’m a life-long Republican, my loyalty to the party is not to that organization as such, but to my God and the Judeo/Christian heritage–which heritage, I may point out, still largely informs the Western culture.
So there is no use appealing to me for unity for unity’s sake if the principles being espoused are repugnant to my very being.
I dare say there are millions of others who feel the same way, a feeling which is evidenced by the much vilified Tea Party movement, a movement which cuts across party affiliations on the bases of principles.
There’s always someone who can say things extremely clearly. Here’s Clarice Feldman’s column, which articulates core points:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/clarices_pieces_god_bless_bara.html