Conservatives and the Republican Party

In this country, if you want to be taken seriously as a politician, you need to attach yourself to a major political party. Nowadays, those parties are the Republican one and the Democratic one. Many people, myself included, tend to identify themselves with either the conservative or the liberal movement before they identify with a political party. As George Washington warned in his Farewell Address upon leaving the presidency, a system of political parties might divide the country into bitter factions, creating animosity rather than a federal unity. Nevertheless, we’ve been a nation of political parties since the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists battled over the ratification of the Constitution.

Nowadays, we are practically required to operate within a political party in order to get anything done. It’s true – sometimes unfortunately so – that in order for one to get elected to the Presidency and most other major political posts, one must be a Republican or a Democrat. To get into heaven, it is clear that one must be a Republican. The list goes on. But, you may say, sometimes the parties betray their members; sometimes I am disappointed in the Republican officials and their disregard for conservative principles.

You might be thinking of a certain Arlen Specter, who is a Republican but not at all a conservative. Then, there’s Arnold Schwarzenegger, another Republican who is pro-abortion and likes to spend money. Even President Bush comes to mind, who is a great moral conservative, a defender of the world’s freedom, but a man of horrible spending habits. And if you’re not thinking of these examples, please, for the sake of this article, I’m telling you, you are.

What is a purist conservative to do? Isn’t the Republican Party largely betraying the Conservative movement? Although the Republican measures taken against the status of abortion in our country have radical feminists and liberals of all sorts shaking in their synthetic leather sandals, Bush is receiving criticism from fellow conservatives that he’s not doing enough. And then there’s the gay marriage issue – why won’t conservatives come out – no pun intended – more strongly against the issue? Why are so many moral conservatives being pushed aside in the Republican effort to stay safely in the middle of the road?

Before our inflated sense of betrayal forces us to run off and vote Alan Keyes for something, we need to remember where we are in America. First of all, Alan Keyes is a brilliant man, an excellent speaker, and would surely make an amazing leader. But in this country, we have a party system, and running as an Independent or a Green or whatever won’t get you elected to anything outside of an occasional Congressional seat or the city council of Flowering Spirit, Vermont. A simple look at the system we use to elect our president, with electoral votes by state, rather than a direct popular vote, will show you that there is no hope at this time for a President coming from anything other than the Republican Party or the Democratic Party.

To us young conservatives who will have to cast a very important ballot next November, this means that any action will have to be effected from within the ranks of one of the major American parties. Forsaking the system and running off to a likeable but unelectable third party candidate does nothing but destroy our cause and remove the conservatives as a powerful force within the Republican Party. By the way, I’m not addressing the issue of conservatives within the Democratic Party because there are about two of them and one retired from his Senator seat recently. But conservatives need to take note of the plain truth. If we want things accomplished, we need to make things happen within our two-party system. Conservative action is nothing without a party to facilitate it. No political movement whatsoever is anything without a party to help the cause. In some times and places, creating a new party has worked; today, our best bet is to stick with the Republicans, show them that the conservative faction is strong, and hope and pray that they take notice and take action. In the meantime, we, as Conservative Republicans, need to likewise take action to change both the party and the nation for the better.

The two-party system is not going away. We cannot break off and split the conservative vote into two inconsequential and useless factions. Rather, we need to unite under the only banner that will actually bring realistic change, and at this time, that is the banner of the Republican Party.

"we need to unite under the only banner that will actually bring realistic change, and at this time, that is the banner of the Republican Party."

Why is the Republican Party doing all it can to bring about the wrong KIND of change? The GOP used to stand for the rule of law. And yet the recent amnesty plans ignores it. The GOP used to be for individual responsibility. And yet there's the recent free pills for granny act. Why are they doing these things? Compromise is inevitable in a system such as ours but why is the change always to the LEFT?

If one can demoralize social conservatives or fiscal conservatives or both, then perhaps they won't come out to vote.

I wonder sometimes if some of these so-called conservative writers understand that there's a time and place to call quits to in-house bickering and get along with supporting your candidate.

The war has begun in earnest for the presidency. Perhaps there's one more month for family squabbles, but I think the time is now. It is time that everyone get aboard.

Excellent, calm, logical, level headed discussion.

Speaking of Alan Keyes, he is supporting Bush.

Alan Keyes comes out in support of President Bush, denounces Democrats, "our survival is at stake!"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1071872/posts

"KEYES: Oh, I sure do--and I wouldn't want to give the impression that I don't have other problems with this administration on some areas where I think that the president has fallen short of the kinds of things that I really think are needed in some areas.

But I also wouldn't want to give the impression that I think that anything can be more decisive for the American people right now than the question of our national survival in the face of the most insidious threat this nation has ever faced.

In the face of that, I think a lot of us are going to be putting our other issues behind those issues that have to do with the survival of this nation in wartime."

Is it [Republican Party] perfect? No. I'll bet there is not a person in this country who thinks so. But that's not the right question.

Is the alternative worse?

Significantly worse, so that a vote matters? I think that answer is obvious.

What is to be done? Well, for one thing, keep sight of the goal. Though the Republican party is indeed expanding to the left, the key is that it is expanding to the left. And the center of mass of the Republican party is still significantly more conservative (a label I find almost worse than useless, but that's a separate argument) than the Democrats.

Step 1 - Become the dominant party.
Step 2 - In order to become the nominee of that party, appeal to the base (which, for the Republicans, is more conservative than the average voter).
Step 3 - The body politic moves to the right.

As 2000 showed, things are still at Step 1. But it's on track to be accomplished.

...that there's a time and place to call quits to in-house bickering and get along with supporting your candidate.

Which is what I believe Ms. Connolly is doing. She states,"We cannot break off and split the conservative vote into two inconsequential and useless factions. Rather, we need to unite under the only banner that will actually bring realistic change, and at this time, that is the banner of the Republican Party.

Making the existing Republican party stay or become more conservative, is NOT bickering.

If we fail to keep the party from veering left, many conservatives will sit on their hands.

I refer to the anti-conservative media's fascination with the fact that the conservative base has problems with President Bush.

They like to publish stories about it because they hope to demoralize the voters.

When a conservative airs dirty laundry there are times when it's good housekeeping and there are times when it's simply counterproductive.

We're at the time that it's counterproductive.

I tend to agree, but I do feel quite distraught from time to time when I realize that I must vote for the man who signed McCain Feingold, who spends at a faster rate than some Democrats, that proposed amnesty to illegal aliens, etc.

In other words, I'm tired of having to see it as voting for the Lesser of two evils. I love his fighting attitude towards terrorism and towards the UN, but he rolls over for domestic legislation much too often in hopes of appeasing liberals.

Is it [Republican Party] perfect? No. I'll bet there is not a person in this country who thinks so. But that's not the right question. Is the alternative worse?

If the "alternative" is unhindered liberal governance, than yes, the alternative is much worse. If the "alternative" is a divided government where gridlock abounds and nothing gets done, I would say that the alternative may be better. In this election, the latter might be a more accurate statement of the facts.

Its a gestalt kinda thing...

With seriously morally deranged pigs in the white house like the Clintons...(complete with their merry Christmas condom tree and their Romanesque orgies....

Just about any one calling themselves a conservative who is of the old school style of Presidency looks really good...

As long as the two party cabal gives us these kinds of choices....100% conservatives will never serve as president...and we keep on slipping into the abyss...under the Clintons and their ilk it will be an avalanche...

Under the current form of neo cons...it will be considerably slower...but we are headed there regardless....one boils the frog in increments the other just fires up the grill and tries to keep the lid on...the boiling a frog by increments crowd calls themselves 'conservatives'...the hell bent for leather boyze call themselves 'liberals'

The idea of the only choice being the least of imperfect parties...don't quite cut it anymore imo

Watch what happens if that assault rifle ban is signed....GW says he will sign it....

At that point he will have denied thousands of Combat Veterans of the war on terror their well earned right to defend themselves and their families.....lets see how well that so 'conservative' agenda plays....

If the "alternative" is ... gridlock

You've got your 'alternative' in place already. The Democrats are filibustering judges, so we've got a Republican president and a Democrat-dominated Congress (due to the lack of spine on the part of Republican congressional leadership). Do you think it's better if we have more Ruth Bader Ginsburgs on the Supreme Court? That's what you'll get with a Democrat president.

I don't like the out of control spending either, but if there were no other reason than judicial appointments, a Democrat president is definitely worse.

Making the existing Republican party stay or become more conservative, is NOT bickering.

It's not bickering now, but it soon will be, and then it will further deterioate into whining.

If we fail to keep the party from veering left, many conservatives will sit on their hands.

Anyone who sits on their hands is not a conservative.

Well to those who would "sit on their hands" will taste the bile of loss doubly. They, having "principles" and conscience will know it is they through their ego have brought victory to those whom they despise MORE and will have "sat on their hands" this nation out of existance.
The liberals will laugh their way to the keys to the White House.

Compromise is inevitable in a system such as ours but why is the change always to the LEFT?

IMHO, I think its because the LEFT controls the media. The LEFT describe themselves now as progressives. To be conservative is so retro. Stupid laws have to blow up so badly like Prohibtion for anything to be repealed. What conservative laws ever get passed other than tax laws and laws dealing with crime?

Do you think it's better if we have more Ruth Bader Ginsburgs on the Supreme Court? That's what you'll get with a Democrat president. I don't like the out of control spending either, but if there were no other reason than judicial appointments, a Democrat president is definitely worse.

You make valid points and the judicial issue is what may ultimately convince me to cast my vote for Bush instead of some third party schmoe. However, while Clinton gave us Ginsberg, Bush I gave us Souter, (a side note: Souter and Ginsberg vote together more than any two judges on the Court), Ford gave us Stevens (the Court's most liberal member), Nixon gave us Blackmun (and Roe v. Wade), Eisenhower gave us Brennan and Warren . . . The point is that even with a Republican in office, there is no guarantee a conservative justice will be nominated. More likely, yes. But I have a feeling he'll nominate Gonzalez, who is not a conservative.

Well, Texas, I'm from Texas too. And it don't matter HOW you vote in November. Bush is going to win Texas in a cakewalk.

Great. That makes it easier for me to vote for a third party in November. I can register my protest vote with no danger of the Dems winning the state.

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.