Whither American Conservatism?

Truth Based Logic ^ | December 5, 2012 | William Flax

[Ohioan]

Can The Republican Party Yet Serve Conservative Purpose?

The answer depends on whether we can resolve questions of purpose, priority & tactics, with far more clarity than we have in the last twenty-one years. Politics have always been about winning & the art of the possible; but to the true Conservative (which in the American context has always involved a major libertarian component), "winning" means preservation of a Constitutional heritage, never merely electing people with a particular label, nor those primarily identified with a single cause or the demands of any special interest. Winning is about preserving the multi-generational purpose & pursuits of a particular people--the mainstream Americans.

[Ohioan]

In the essay we "look at several approaches to expanding the Conservative vote, while reducing the vote of groups being exploited by politicians on the Left. Some of what follows is more aspirational than immediately achievable. In the interest of stimulating reflection on dynamic interaction from a long-term, multi-generational, perspective, we lump together what could be accomplished tomorrow, by simply changing the way we argue, with goals that will require considerable ground-work."

Personally, I still believe that we can again capture the Republican Party for traditional Conservative American values. But that must depend upon Conservatives becoming more effective, tactically, than we have been, since Reagan left office.

The article goes into ways to address important issues.

[chris37]

I intend to defeat the republican party.

[Da Coyote]

“I intend to defeat the republican party.”

Well said, and I agree.

[ScottinVA]

No.

It’s been tried.. time and again, and look at the results, the latest of which is the removal of conservatives from budgetary committee posts by John Boehner.

Time for a different course now. And, please... let’s not counter with the tired rationale that splitting the GOP will dilute its chances of winning the White House in 2016. Antarctica will be hosting surfing competition before a GOP candidate ever wins the Presidency again.

[Cheerio]

Boner must go as Weeper......

2. How is the Speaker of the House elected? Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states, "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers."

Although the Constitution does not require the Speaker to be a Member of the House, all Speakers have been Members.


Gohmert: I want Gingrich as speaker

[Ohioan]

We are two years before the next Federal election. Before you commit to not be a Republican, at least consider my suggested approach in the article!

[Ohioan]

See my reply #6. You need to at least consider the types of arguments, used in my article, wherever you end up, politically—that is, if Conservatism is your objective.

[Ohioan]

I hardly suggest anything in my article, which would offer a "tired rationale."

Incidentally, this is what I just posted on another thread:

In hanging tough, House Conservatives need to reiterate a combination of talking points; never let themselves be interviewed without starting by clarifying their position against Obama's Class-Warfare attitude on Taxation:

1. Class-Warfare is immoral & unamerican.

2. A tax system that punishes success to reward failure is economically insane.

3. The Founding Fathers considered the use of taxation to redistribute wealth to be totally unacceptable (Art. I, Sec. 9). Having sworn to uphold the Constitution, one cannot vote for redistribution of wealth.

4. During the 124 years, from 1789 til 1913, when we followed the Founder's Taxing policy, we had the greatest material growth rate of any people on earth--and we retained our spiritual values in the process. Nothing, proportionately, or adjusted for inflation, has since compared! (And just look at what the class-warfare mentality has done to our spiritual values!)

Do not let anyone put Obama's definitions into anyone on our side's mouth. Obama has never been about "fairness," anymore than Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Hitler or Castro were ever about "fairness."

William Flax

[chris37]

I’m already not a republican.

I can look right at them and see that I am not them.

Republican = enemy.

I do not want their party, I do not want their name, I do not want their stupid elephant, I do not want their non existant machinery or their no nothing consultants.

What I want is their extinction.

If that means Americas get 100% democrat majorities, oh well.

If more than half of this country is intent upon suicide, then I have no problem assisting that goal.

Seriously, Ohioan, I have ****ing had it with backstabbers and idiots. I am not playing this game any longer. It is time to throw the chess board off the table and flip it over, and that is exactly what I am going to do.

[Ohioan]

The idea of a Speaker from outside the House would create all sorts of dissension, and to what purpose? Gingrich has regained a certain toughness, but he was basically punched out, at the end, in his last year, before. He completely mismanaged the Clinton impeachment, in my opinion.

But, be that as it may. The idea would further fracture what we still have going for us in the House.

William Flax

[Ohioan]

All right. You have had it with the Republican organization. That said, my article, while directed at the question of whether or not we can still work with the Republican Party, discusses tactical approaches to several major issues (Whither American Conservatism?), and could be just as applicable to a new Conservative Party, or the present Constitution Party.

But that said, this Ohioan intends to continue to work with the Republican Party over the coming months.

William Flax

[Resolute Conservative]

This is why it is important to maintain control of the house and it parliamentary rules and get the 17th amendment repealed so senators actually represent the states as originally designed. That way the president being elected by the unwashed masses is not that big a deal. Unlike now where we have a want to be dictator in power being facilitated by the senate elected by basically the same demographic.

This should be the focus

[chris37]

Maybe you can.

My intent is to defeat them.

I really can’t make myself any more clear.

I was listening to one of the “conservatives” ousted by Boehner yesterday on Hannity’s radio show. Sean asked him will you still vote for Boehner as speaker. He immediately responded yes. Useless idiot.

I was just listenting to Rush interview Heritage Foundation about Jim Demint, and Rush said conservatives owe Heritgae Foundation a lot...what do I owe them? What have they done for me or my country at all? What has any conservative outside of Ronald Reagan done for this country at all? What has the republican party done at all?

Outside of personally stabbing me in the back and telling me to go **** myself, I can’t think of anything whatsoever.

I’m not playing this shell game anymore, William.

Consider me absolutely hostile.

[mo]

Nobody is changing Washington from inside the Beltway. That’s what The Purge is all about.

The guys that bought and paid for the vote and the White House this last time around aren’t hearin’ nothin’ about any “Constitutional Government”.

All politics is local

Change comes through local government, state legislature. Own your voting precinct. Clean the vote. Ballot receipts etc...

[ksen]

1. Class-Warfare is immoral & unamerican.

Then tell the upper classes to stop waging war on the bottom classes by depriving them of the wages they've earned but not received as seen in the ever widening productivity/wage gap.

2. A tax system that punishes success to reward failure is economically insane.

Are you not paying attention to all the taxpayer funded rewards upper class failure has been getting the past few years?

3. The Founding Fathers considered the use of taxation to redistribute wealth to be totally unacceptable (Art. I, Sec. 9). Having sworn to uphold the Constitution, one cannot vote for redistribution of wealth.

Good, then stop supporting the redistribution of america's wealth to wall street.

4. During the 124 years, from 1789 til 1913, when we followed the Founder's Taxing policy, we had the greatest material growth rate of any people on earth--and we retained our spiritual values in the process. Nothing, proportionately, or adjusted for inflation, has since compared! (And just look at what the class-warfare mentality has done to our spiritual values!)

You mean the spiritual values that allowed the enslaving of other human beings? The spiritual values that treated women as not even worthy to vote? Not all spiritual values are worth keeping.

[Ohioan]

All politics is not local, but all real problems of individual citizens are.

It is idiotic that we have people, who still get elected, who want to stick the Federal Bureaucracy--completely contrary to the written Constitution--into one on one situations (teacher/student or physician/patient), at an enormous waste of resources.

William Flax

[Ohioan]

You are not answering my points. You are demonizing your own set of villains. But you will not find any place in the hundreds of articles at Truth Based Logic, where I advocate taxpayer subsidies for any class of people. That is simply not authorized in our Federal Constitution.

But your other basic rants go against the laws of economics & against traditional Western spiritual values. Pitting the people against each other in a blame game may suit your idea of spirituality. It is certainly not mine.

But to cut to the chase, since my points were suggestions for how those opposed to Obama's tax policies should address the present confrontation, may I assume that you support Obama on tax policy?

William Flax

[Tublecane]

Why Gingrich, on earth? Of all people the other one who within the last generation got creaked as speaker in a similar situation, only with more power.

[Tublecane]

Why Gingrich, on earth? Of all people the other one who within the last generation got creamed as speaker in a similar situation, only with more power.

[Ohioan]

In your post, you glossed over the actual suffrage question. In my article (Whither American Conservatism?), I address it. Here is sample:

A situation, where there is no offset for receiving unearned benefits from public coffers, obviously condones conflicts of interest. As more & more of the population falls into this category, it becomes ever more critical that Conservatives respond to the clear implications. Loss of suffrage, to those who receive but do not produce--and unlike those on veteran's or social security pensions, have never produced--is inevitable. The only question, really, is whether such loss of suffrage happens before a complete fiscal collapse, or after someone or some ones pick up the pieces--after a day of reckoning.

William Flax