Posted on 02/02/2004 6:40:21 PM PST by Miles Vorkosigan
First: Bush has a solid record, unlike his father, who was pretty much a failure. The son has, however, made certain compromises that have angered many conservatives.
What people miss, however, is that the reason he's had to compromise is that the country is more liberal than it was during the Reagan years.
And the reason it's more liberal is precisely that many conservatives had a fit--under far more legitimate circumstances, considering Bush I's liberal record, than today's--and voted for Perot, causing Clinton to be elected.
Want to ensure that the next GOP President signs gun confiscation, slavery reparations, and elimination of the age of consent into law, in order to triangulate against his "moderate Democrat opponent," Dennis Kucinich? Then vote for the Constitution Party or the Libertarian Party this year.
2. Kerry winning won't eliminate Hillary Clinton from the picture, either. In fact, Kerry would probably be the worst of both worlds: a Carter-like one-term failure, who nevertheless would drag so much socialist legislation onto the national agenda that he'd make the country more left-wing. As a result, he might well be denied the nomination in 2008 in favor of Hillary.
If you want one term of Kerry and two terms of Hillary...vote Constitution or Libertarian.
That's a nice excuse.
What are you talking about? What compromises has Bush made that would make conservatives angry? Do you agree or disagree with these compromises? Where do you stand? Should the conservatives simply be ignored and branded extremists? Are the conservatives misguided?
Those are your Clinton Conservatives. Many of them are here.
If you want one term of Kerry and two terms of Hillary...vote Constitution or Libertarian.
Those are your emerging Kerry Conservatives. Many of them are here.
And why is it any less true to say it this way?
"Then don't vote for GOP candidates and expect anything other than a leftward turn for the country."
If we give Republicans our vote, no matter what leftist positions they take, then they have no incentive whatsoever to change their positions. They can have their cake and eat it too - getting votes from mushy moderates and liberals by expanding government, and keeping the conservatives on the planation with vague threats about how much worse it will be under Democrats.
That's not a strategy. At best, it's short term tactics. Well, I'm not in this for the short term. I'm in it to help keep the monster of socialist government off of my grandchildren. If I thought Republicans would help in that effort, I'd be happy to give support. But it's clear, and been clear for years, that they won't, at least not with their current leadership.
That's the point that I have repeatedly tried to make. If you promise your vote to a politician *no matter what*, then what do you expect from him? Would you let your spouse cheat on you once a week because you don't want to be single? Certainly not! Well, actually some of these people probably would.
My God, at least you'd think that they would be smart enough to threaten to withhold the vote if they aren't pleased with the current coarse and don't want it to get any worse. If you ain't complaining, the pols keep doing what they've been doing. You gotta let them know that you aren't happy. And never let them know that you're scared of the alternative. Show your anger, but never show the fear. The fear only plays into their hands.
That is, if they really don't like the leftward shift. Sometimes I wonder.
It would be much better stated as "to influence power, you must give feedback". And the only forms of feedback you have are your vote, and your election efforts (campaign contributions, time, etc.).
As long as a candidate or party is "going in the right direction", your feedback should encourage them. When they start going in the wrong direction, it must discourage them (through the withdrawal of your vote and support).
Otherwise, your vote and campaign support means nothing. It gives no feedback - they get it whether they deserve it or not. They can then adapt their behavior to those who will withhold their votes, because they are not going to lose you.
I and lots of others on this board maintain that this is exactly what's been happening. So many conservatives have decided that it's "my GOP, right or wrong" that the candidates know they can count on the votes and support of conservatives, no matter what they do. They can increase government handouts, grow the bureaucracy, put us deeper in debt, and so what? Their refrain about the conservatives is "where are they going to go?" So the conservative viewpoint can be safely ignored.
The mainstream Republicans will keep going in that direction (appeasing moderates) until some sort of feedback pulls them back. After all, not one in a hundred Republican politicians has any deep philosophical conviction about conservative principles. (If they had any when they got elected, it probably got beaten out of them by the political establishment.) They just go where the votes are.
Consider them a "vote optimizing machine". They do whatever strategy maximizes votes, regardless of whether that strategy is conservative, or even Constitutional. If they can count on certain votes no matter what, then they will inevitably ignore those votes, and seek out more votes by appeasing groups whose behavior they can influence with government giveaways or whatever. It's not that they don't like you - they are simply indifferent to where the votes come from. Since you are giving yours for free, they'll take 'em - and then go looking for more somewhere else. Only if you make them pay a price for your votes will you influence their behavior. And that means you must be prepared to withhold your vote if their behavior is not acceptable. And that means, unfortunately, that you must be prepared to lose in the short term to maintain your long term influence.
Yes. Preferably doing things in rotation so that the balance of power is never really thrown to the other side, some RINOs should be thrown to the dogs occasionally.
Consider three incumbency states: Good Republican in office; bad RINO in office; Dem in office. If a good Republican is in office, hopefully things will stay that way. And if a Dem is in office, a good Republican might get in next term. But if a bad RINO is in office, the next election probably won't improve things, since Republicans seldom seem to replace retiring RINOs with good Republicans. While there may be timing reasons why giving a RINO a term may be a reasonable idea, one should recognize that doing so will delay the possibility of getting a good Republican.
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.