Skip to comments.It's Time for a Chess Match, Not a Yelling Match (How do conservatives win?)
Posted on 05/01/2012 8:27:38 AM PDT by mongrel
People who are on this forum, for the most part, are here because they believe in JR's guiding principles: God, family, country, life and liberty from a conservative view point.
Right now we're engaging mostly in yelling matches with each other about one thing: voting for Romney. How do we step back and look at the bigger picture and come up with a plan? Perhaps we need to stop arguing about whether or not we rally behind Romney and begin to think long-term.
Without unity, we will repeat the history of two groups. The African-American community is taken for granted within the Democrat party, their vote is assumed, but Democrats are not really there for them. Sure, they got their token win with Obama, but he really isn't one of them. In the end, the Democrat party will continue it's tradition of liberal racism and elitism long after Obama is out of office.
If we keep supporting the GOP-e candidates in the general election, conservatives will also be taken for granted and never taken seriously. We might occasionally get our candidate as president, but in the end it will be about tokenism and keeping conservatives on the plantation.
If we go out on our own with a third party, we'll end up in the same place as the Libertarian Party. We will be pure in our politics, but we will have little effect on the ongoing direction of our country.
The key to making something happen is forming coalitions that make sense. Before I give a specific proposal, I want to make something clear. I don't think we should give up on this election. I think the House and Senate races are vitally important. However, I do think we need to step back and look at the long view of how to cultivate and maintain political power for the conservative cause.
I believe we need to start planning now for the 2016 presidential election. Not because we're giving up on 2012, but because that perspective may help guide us today.
In late 2015, we need to have a caucus, convention, whatever we want to call it, to rally behind one candidate to be the conservative candidate for the presidential nomination. We should prepare for that caucus in the same way we would work at hiring someone in a company. It could even be done online at Freerepublic.com. We need to bring together social conservatives, TEA party, and flexible libertarians to find someone. We need national leaders who are willing to make this happen.
What we need in a conservative candidate for president:
1. Conservative Principles. Clear, consistant core principles that have been lived over a lifetime. The vetting process would mean looking at that record.
2. Integrity. This person should have a personal life that is filled with moral consistency and integrity. This does not preclude those who have had moral failures, but it does insist on a process of restoration where they have taken ownership rather than covered it up. We could do our own sniffing by hiring oppo research teams to find out if there is any dirt out there.
3. Leadership ability. This person should have a track record as a leader in the private sector or in government that shows they know how to properly manage people and complex systems toward the conservative cause. It does no good to have a true believer who doesn't know how make a bureaucracy bend to his wishes. Again, this should be easy to assess by looking at their track records.
4. Communication skills. This person should be able to effectively use the bully pulpit to rally the public behind them. They might anger one sector of the public, but they should be able to keep at least a strong majority with them through their communication skills. Perhaps some of our PR and Marketing people could come up with ways to put candidates through the ropes in showing us what they can do, and to even pull together focus groups to assess their skill level.
If we get enough nationally known conservatives to rally around this, we could then move forward, united around a single candidate.
Why is it important to do this now? Because in all likelihood it will be either Romney or Obama in the White House next year. There is an outside chance of a 3rd party candidate running and winning, but those who prefer this path still need a plan B.
If Romney wins, this caucus would happen anyway. He will know from the beginning he will get a primary fight from the right. That might be enough to even push Romney stay further to the right for his first term. We can replace Romney mid-term, and show the power of the conservative vote even against an incumbent president. That seems to me to be a much more likely possibility than electing a third party candidate this time.
The other possibility is that Obama will win another term. This means that the next Republican primary starts up again with no real front-runner. We need to be ready for that.
The last possibility is that somehow a third party candidate will win as a conservative. If that candidate fulfills the 4 points above, then the caucus would only serve to broaden and solidify support.
We won't have a clear idea about what will happen to Romney, Obama or a third party candidate until we get closer to November. In the meantime, lets begin building for 2016.
Probably not ....
“Probably not ....”
If Perry indeed runs in 2016, I have my candidate.
Do you want corny, short-term solutions that won’t mean diddly squat decades from now or do you want meaningful, well thought out, long-term solutions?
Here’s a hint:
Why do you think the NRA has been so successful with their campaign to liberalize the firearms laws here in the USA over the past 30 years?
It’s very simple.
I’m going to vote for the northeastern liberal Romney because his opponent is a red communist muslim, and that is all there is to it.
One more term for Obama will destroy the US. Nothing else matters for now.
Yeah, put me in for Thirds.
The MittBots are having too much fun acting like TSA agents...
Every little old white American Grannie who wont vote for Willie Mitty is suspected of carrying a contrabad vote for Obama...
My good conservative name has been well groped...
Here’s where conservatives have failed:
The Tea Party movement never organized into something cohesive with clear leadership. Instead, we have different factions - all claiming to be THE Tea Party - with different leaders spread out across the 50 states. There is no clear hierarchy.
While that may sound good at first, it dilutes the movement. Instead of the grassroots effort turning into something bigger, I’ve started to ignore the countless emails I get from all these branches. Why? Because I have NO IDEA who is really requesting money. Oh yeah - that’s pretty much all I see these days, too: requests for money... to a nebulous organization with no clear leadership.
All these Tea Party leaders need to rally around someone like Allen West (for example). They need to create a national organization with clearly defined leadership and goals. We’ll never break the back of the GOP establishment and create a TRUE conservative movement unless we join forces.
Now, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe something is being done to organize this. But I follow FR pretty religiously and consider myself pretty well-informed. If I’ve missed it, a lot of others have as well.
Bingo, and every time someone said it needed leadership or structure, it was shot down.
You are also right about the fundraising part. There was actual fraud going on. The Dems put up fake Tea Party groups and candidates to run against Republicans and at least one major so-called Tea Party website was run by some email marketing scammers who were using it for data gathering.
—Perhaps we need to stop arguing about whether or not we rally behind Romney and begin to think long-term. —
That is exactly why I bought my small farm in central Rural KY two weeks before the 2008 election, and moved there last August, leaving my home of 45 years, Seattle.
Looking for politicians to solve this or help is like looking to the Crew of the titanic to help when the icy Atlantic is starting to lap at the door to the Bridge.
You are on your own. Make the most of it.
In our case, we just started planting the 1/4 acre garden and finished the chicken coop for our 14 layers. Next is Beef.
Exactly. Conservatives have gotten in the habit of looking for someone 'from the government who is here to help'.
I don’t believe there will be a 2016 “election”. I see a different future and prepare for that one.
You never know. Personally, I believe we’re probably heading toward the end times——all bets are off, if that’s the case.
>> Are we ready to look for solutions rather than calling each other names? What do you all think?
Who are you accusing of name calling, “weasel breath”? :-)
My personal fave solution to the nation’s problems is right wing death squads, but I imagine that’s a non-starter with you namby-pamby civilized work-within-the-system types.
—You never know. Personally, I believe were probably heading toward the end timesall bets are off, if thats the case.—
Me too. I hope not, for my children’s and grandchildren’s sake. But there is no solution to the current problem. The man is at the door. They can’t kick the can much further down the road.
We cannot win if we are fighting both the Republicans and the Democrats at the same time (as we are doing now).
First we have to beat the Republicans, then we can run real conservative candidates.
Nice thought, but how do you play chess with an opponent who only knows checkers? Clearly, rules have to be taught. And dey no likey rules. I don’t know of a way around this. Other than severe pain for the “aspiring” student. They have to want to learn the rules, which are a bit convoluted in chess for a brand new newbie who has never played. I think this is kind of a fundamental issue. Learning rules of a new game gets you no benefit for the effort, and you know you are going to get slaughtered the first 300 games you play after you learn the rules. So how do you get people who expect their stuff for free to subject themselves to that learning curve/loss curve? Except, as I said, by having it demonstrated to them that their current course is a near death experience.
I’ve been involved with FR since Monicagate. Inevitably, all that time, the “conservative” vote has been divided between libertarians, who want freedom, smaller government, and less taxes, and social conservatives, who are concerned about things like abortion, marriage, and family.
There is no reason on earth why these two groups cannot work together, as they must if they want to win. History has demonstrated that you cannot have freedom without morality and self-discipline, and it has also shown that big government increases corruption.
But every time I have urged Freepers to work together, they have refused. The libertarians in particular.
“OK,” they’ll say, “we’ll agree to support the right to life (more or less) if you give us free drugs and legal prostitution.” Or, “Smaller government means never telling anyone what to do.” Or, . . . whatever.
They play right into the hands of the RINO establishment, who say, “Well, we really support the right to life, but let’s not talk about it, for fear of offending somebody.” Never mind that people might not vote for Obama if anyone bothered to tell them that he has a long record of supporting the practice of throwing babies born alive into the trash, or onto the roof to die of thirst. They did that at the hospital owned by Rev. Wright’s black power church, and Obama voted three times to support the practice. Do they really think that criticizing him for that would offend people? Apparently so. Or, they just don’t really give a damn about the right to life, but only pretend to.
That’s the sticking point. How do you get all these various kinds of self-defined “conservatives” to work together? It will certainly take strong and persuasive leadership.
We need to elect Romney, and force him to govern conservatively. Hes going to know who elected him and he will succumb to our pressure.
Never gonna happen, all the conservatives left the party and went independent. That means they can’t vote in the primaries and that is why we get LIBERALS.
Re-register the independents as republicans and you will see a change.
Simple solution: Vote Tea Party candidates into the Congress and Senate but do everything to weaken the hold of the establishment on the GOP. With the right candidate in the Congress, we can manage that situation. Strengthening the establishment RINOs leaves us out in the cold. Enough of holding our noses and strengthening the RINOs. Voting for Romney is to keep the status quo.
Every little old white American Grannie who wont vote for Willie Mitty is suspected of carrying a contrabad vote for Obama...
My good conservative name has been well groped...
LOL! Brava, TN! Well put!
Really nice to see someone take the time to look at this and raise the kinds of questions that you have. It is a good start. It is only a start but unless I am mistaken that is exactly what you intend. To get the ball rolling. Good job.
I spent many years in the Republican trenches watching a party elite knock down, kick around the Republican candidate that I liked. I got tired of it and left the GOP. I will never go back.
If I can add my suggestion it would be that any effort to get a conservative into the White House can’t include the GOP Party. It should be glaringly apparent that GOP and conservative is an oxymoron.
What parties already exist? Do any of them have a platform that is close? If so, can that be a starting point? Moving en mass to an already established acceptable other party would be a head start over starting from scratch.
I don’t think we need to use an established party - we just need a leader to bring the factions in line. Someone who can create a single named entity and be the face of the organization.
Right now, Romney is the face of the GOP. We need a *single* leader to arise who can be (at least) the titular leader of the Tea Party.
That's easy, do what they do: Flip the board over and scatter the pieces.
The solution is a third party. The GOP are enablers of the ‘Rats not opponents. A coordinated war on the Constitution, freedom, and God is no game. The so called game is RIGGED.
I agree that something must be done. I have thoughts, but little energy. I believe we need to concentrate on the House and Senate, and especially on our state houses, even governorships, if in play.
As far as planning for 2016, I’d do what I could to help get organized. The one thing I do now, every day, is pray for the country.
If Perry indeed runs in 2016, I have my candidate.
Perry probable needs to listen to what the residents of Texas are expressing regarding another Presidential run. But then maybe the remaining two years of his term is all he expects and plans for something else.
In late 2015, we need to have a caucus, convention, whatever we want to call it, to rally behind one candidate to be the conservative candidate for the presidential nomination.
Is that a candidate to run in a yet to be determined party or is that a candidate to run in the existing GOP?
If Hussein is allowed to win, there won’t be elections in 2016. At least not as we currently think of them. We’ll be under the boot of the new Stalin.
This is more ‘doable’ than one might think
Social conservatives (The Christian Right) has been cast adrift... The GOP likes the ‘social justice’ types, and has been moving that way for some time (note the move from ValueVoters to Saddleback last election). The last election was the first time that the GOP candidate team did not support the main-line view of Right To Life, and this election looks to be heading for a pro-choice candidate.
The Christians are a MIGHTY electoral force, with their own established media, their own networking, and the biggest ability to get boots-on-the-ground of anyone in the country.... Get them excited, and they can easily grow to become close to 1/3rd of all votes cast.
The TEA Partys, while fading and fizzling, are a tremendous coalition with a civil libertarian core, which was capable just two years ago of changing the election without any doubt. It is suffering from a lack of cogent direction, but if that command and control network can be harnessed TOO, look at what we’d have.
These two MASSIVE (gargantuan, really) forces are wholly disenfranchised once the GOP convention runs its course. That is when the iron will be hottest, and that is the time to be ready with the hammer. It is a few short months, but enough time for a popular uprising of Conservatives to coalesce, providing the leadership ties have already been bound, and ready for the task. And I think the presidential election is the very thing to wake a rebellion - get behind a 3rd party candidate and PUSH - Get the Christians to lend a hand and you WILL lift that candidate to prominence. and the fervor generated will flood down-ticket, certainly. And that is a more likely scenario than trying to get folks excited about the down-ticket only (as that is all we can honestly do currently).
And what is there to lose?
While 2016 is important, it is too early to worry about that, with the current distraction of the election in the way. But getting it up and running FOR this election is doable... and with any sort of success this election comes the amplification of power in 2016.
The Christian Right must certainly be the spear - but it will take the TEA Partys, and their political know how to be the point of that spear.
put the two of them together, and there is still one grand chance to waken the Conservative juggernaut.
Work within the system. Voting for another person or sitting home is goin to lead to an easy Obama victory, and quicker death knell for America.
Obama can’t destroy the U.S. in four years. Take a chill pill and quit buying the doomsday scenarios the GOP-e is throwing at you to get you to support their liberal candidate.
In reading the responses to this thread, there are more Freepers than I anticipated that seem to hoping for a “quicker death knell”. I’m not talking about the third party voters, I’m talking about the ones who are ready to abandon the system and literally fight a war.
Why do we keep insisting on “either-or” instead of “both-and”? Couldn’t we all agree that Scott Walker has done a phenomenal job as part of the Republican Party in embodying our ideals? Can we also not value those in the Constitution Party and Conservative Party who are working for the same things?
The problem with Romney is that he will be Bush III. He will increase government and regulation where he can and do what he can to stand in the way of rolling it back.
OTOH, being as how my guys and gals did not win in the primary there isn't a whole lot of choice so I will vote for Bush III and do it in a heart beat over 0.
As conservatives the most important things that must be done are:
1. Fire Obama even if its just to send a message that overt socialism will not be tolerated.
2. Make sure the conservatives down ticket win which means turnout must be encouraged which means Romney must be supported. We can turn on Romney if we want the day after Election Day but for now he must be supported.
There are those who want to be holy and pure and feel good about themselves and vote for "pure" candidates without comprehending that it's the one willing to work in the mud that's actually going to save babies and this country and everything else you hold dear.
I will join with you in your identification of this problem, and it is a critical one - But I will throw the blame in another direction:
I have always been a rock-ribbed Reaganite, and it is my observation that the Reaganites and civil-libertarians have always been closely joined - For instance, pissants crew of Reaganites were nearly always participant with rabscuttle385's crew and bamahead's crew, and in reasonable agreement generally. Of course these folks are all true-blue to their principles, governed by them... perhaps there is less unity where folks are not one-percenters...
But my observation is that Reagan Conservatism STARTS with a civil libertarian core - It is, of course, a variant or 'next gen' of Goldwater libertarianism, and therefore a close cousin... and adds in social conservatism as an equal measure. A proper Conservative conscience should be composed of these two things, civil-libertarianism and social conservatism, in friendly disagreement - Neither can wholly get it's way, but both can be satisfied.
Reagan Conservatism has ALWAYS been the only place where there is agreement between all conservative factions to INCLUDE libertarians. To remind everyone, the quintessential guiding principle in Reaganism is the thought that each of the various factions has certain immovable principles that they hold dear, and each faction will naturally vote for those principles by default - But it does not injure those principles to vote for someone who ALSO HOLDS the principles of the other factions as equally valid - Hence nobody drives the bus, but everybody drives the bus.
To the degree that you, Cicero, believe that the libertarians are being recalcitrant should be a warning light to you that you have drifted beyond Reagan and into NeoConservatism. That the libertarians are raising a hue and cry is primary evidence that their principles are being trod upon. The point of compromise is not for the libertarians to sacrifice principle to you, but for you to find a way to change your outlook to satisfy them, without injuring your own principles.
The libertarians have been treated like a red-headed stepchild through BOTH of the Bush presidencies (GHWB and GWB). The will not be throw under the bus anymore, nor should they be - Their seat at the table must be guaranteed.
And the reality is that current front lines in the social conservative world are libertarian issues.
Rolling back Obamacare which forces everyone to pay for abortion is the front line. Both social conservatives and libertarians agree that it must be rolled back. But we can’t join together to find a way forward. I am surprised by then number of people who popped in on this thread to get their cheap shot “my way or the highway”. It’s a stupid way to think and it’s shortsighted and will win nothing.
I think you misunderstand. There are SOME folks—unfortunately many Catholic bishops are among them—who are in favor of conservative morals but big government and more welfare. That’s not me, or anyone I know on FR.
As I said, big government usually means not only more spending and taxing, but also more corruption. And as numerous historians and philosophers have shown, if you want real freedom, then you need citizens willing to discipline themselves. Which, in turn, means that religion needs to play a role.
Otherwise, if a sufficient number of people prove unwilling to behave morally or discipline themselves, then you end up with chaos and eventually dictatorship—discipline from above. Athens demonstrated that. Thomas Hobbes argued it in Leviathan. And several people pointed out in the nineteenth centurhy that it was basically America’s Christian values that allowed our Republic to be free.
I’m not an Evangelical, but I value the Evangelical vote. If you get a libertarian conservative unwilling to support basic moral values (mainly by NOT imposing government sanctions such as abortion on demand and gay marriage, both of which were imposed by big government liberals such as Obama and Romney), then millions of Evangelicals will stay home, and you will lose, as we lost in 2006 after Bush disappointed those who had turned out for him in 2004.
That’s how the DNC won the culture wars.
We need to stop our , all or nothing ,criteria.
I definitely think that Romney in a first term will have to be more responsive to voters than Obama would in a second term.
Giving Obama a second term is an action that I am not willing to take under any circumstance.
Reg Right, now, eh. item four: attainment of world supremacy within the next five years. Eh, Francis, you’ve been doing some work on this.
Francis Yeah, thank you, Reg. Well, quite frankly, siblings, I think five years is optimistic, unless we can smash the Roman empire within the next twelve months.
Reg Twelve months?
Francis Yeah. Twelve months. And let’s face it... as empires go, this is the big one, so we’ve got to get up of our arses, and stop just talking about it.
PFJ Hear Hear!!!
Loretta I agree. It’s action that counts, not words, and we need action now.
PFJ Hear Hear!!!
Reg You’re right. We could sit around here all day talking, passing resolution, making clever speaches, it’s not going to shift one Roman soldier.
Francis So let’s just stop gabbing on about it, it’s completely pointless, and it’s getting us nowhere.
Loretta I agree. This is a complete waste of time.
Yes and no - from the Social conservative side, the most important thing that is being eroded is LIFE. My libertarian FRiends hold that Life should be a matter for the states, but that is directly stepping upon the deeply held Conviction among those of the Christian Right that Life is Constitutionally protected... A libertarian candidate fielded with the standard libertarian view on Life will *not* attract the Christian Right. Similar problems exist wrt sanctity of marriage.
Concession on these minor (from a libertarian view) points upholds the Christian principles that are dear to their hearts without serious damage to a libertarian's principles.
Equally, It would be proper (and dire) for Christians to admit that the war on drugs has largely been responsible for the federal government's overreach in authority, and to realize that they have a large responsibility for it - It would be most necessary to reign all that in, and get the authority and law back into the hands of the states, rather than further feeding of the federal behemoth. In every case, the libertarians I have spoken with have ceded the point that the states DO have the authority to regulate drugs, and have even begrudgingly admitted that some sort of federal intervention can be foreseen as necessary (interstate, US borders). But the solution is *not* the federal 'war on drugs'.
It isn't generally the case that libertarians want to do drugs, but rather that the laws against drugs are dire impositions against liberty. That is a very important distinction to make, because libertarians thinking that way are TOTALLY valid in their position.
YES, Obamacare is the 'front lines' in the big picture, as is the ousting of Obama himself. But in order to obtain the votes to win, we need a candidate (a field of candidates down-ballot as well) that holds positions that the big 'c' Conservatives (all factions) can support. This is CRITICAL, and starts with a platform and planks that preserve the critical principles, the FIRST THINGS which are immovable, for all conservative factions. Nobody should have to take a back seat. NOBODY should be in the back of the bus, or under it! That is what Neoconservatism has wrought! Conservatives of ANY stripe should not need to sacrifice the principles that form their way of life, because they WON'T - and then the votes won't be there... Without all of Conservatism, we most certainly fail - Either an outright loss, or yet another Pyrrhic victory which does more harm than good. We need to get back to Reagan.
You would think that any of our conservative candidates would have been able to easily defeat Romney the liberal, but reality is that they all failed miserably.
We on the right are going to need to create stronger, strategically wiser and better capable salesmen and women of our ideas, but we are currently out of time in that regard for this cycle.
I will not stand by and allow this red communist to be re-elected.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.