Posted on 11/13/2006 12:31:54 AM PST by goldstategop
Editor's note: This is the first of a two-part series on the failure of conservatism as an ideology for moving America forward with a positive agenda for expanding freedom and reviving morality and restoring justice.
The conservative mantra about the Republican drubbing in the midterm congressional elections is: "Conservatives didn't lose, Republicans did." With all due respect to my conservative friends, this is the kind of thinking that will take them the way of the Whigs.
Don't get me wrong. I love conservatives. Some of my best friends are conservatives. But being "conservative" is not a bold vision for the future. Being "conservative" will never inspire Americans to reject socialism and immorality. Banking on this word, this wholly inadequate, timid ideology is, instead, a sure-fire recipe for political defeat for the foreseeable future.
Conservatives are both right and wrong in their critique of Republicanism in 2006.
It's true that Republicans did not distinguish themselves from their Democratic counterparts. It's true that Republicans did nothing to hold on to their political base. It's true that Republicans governed just like Democrats.
But, I have to tell you, "conservatism" is not the recipe for taking America back. It won't work.
There are three fundamental problems with conservatism:
It is a defensive movement rather than offensive;
Its exclusive field of battle is electoral politics;
It lacks the vision of a better future; America is sliding inevitably toward socialism and immorality. I'm not going to call the direction we're moving "liberalism," because that description is simply too kind and understates the seriousness of our crisis and the lateness of the hour.
Forget about who won Congress. Look at the way Americans voted on issues.
While it's true that marriage amendments passed in all but one state – Arizona – the closeness of all those tallies is what disturbs me. It persuades me that the conservative agenda is an agenda that just keeps losing ground.
You would think that amendments simply declaring marriage to be an institution between one man and one woman would garner at least 90 percent support among Americans.
Yet, even in four states in which the amendment passed, opposition exceeded an astounding 40 percent of the vote.
Conservatives look at those numbers and see victory. I've got news for you: So do the same-sex marriage activists. I look at those numbers and see inevitable defeat. It might be in 2008 or 2010 or 2012. But the die is cast. There is no question that the American view of marriage is changing.
The defensive agenda of conservatives is failing – and it will continue to fail. And this is just one example of hundreds in the way it is failing.
It's time for conservatives to realize the problem is not limited to the Republican Party. There is something inherently inadequate with the conservative vision.
Let me put it to you this way: After Nancy Pelosi and Charles Rangel and John Conyers have their way with America, will you, as a conservative, be satisfied with preserving or conserving what's left of America?
I'm not even content with that prospect right now – before they take the country further down their slippery slope of moral relativism and tyranny.
At some point, and I believe we're long past that point, "conserving" the vestiges of American institutions will no longer be adequate. I think we've already lost way too much freedom and morality. We need a counter-revolution to restore them – not an effort to save what's left.
Let me illustrate what is happening this way: Imagine American politics as a tug of war. One side in the battle is actually playing to win – to pull its opponents into the moat. The other side, though, is simply trying not to get pulled into the moat.
Who is inevitably going to win? Which political ideology do you think is represented by the team whose goal is a standoff?
I know this is hard to understand because no one else – and I mean no one – is saying what I am saying.
Like it or not, the very nature of the word "conservative" defines the ideology. It is not a radical movement to expand freedom and economic opportunity. It is not a radical movement to restore justice and morality. It is not a radical movement to achieve victory over evil.
Instead, it is a "conservative," defensive movement that is merely content standing still.
Unfortunately, in the history of the world, there is no such thing as a social movement that stands still. You are either moving toward your goal or moving away from it.
What are the conservatives' goals? Let's say "preserving marriage" is one of them. The way conservatives fight to achieve their status quo goal is to get marriage amendments on ballots. At first they win one referendum after another. Conservatives see victory at hand – even though, if they are 100 percent successful, all their hard work and sacrifice will have gone to the goal of achieving the status quo.
Meanwhile, the other side doesn't worry too much about those votes. Instead, they are fighting in a whole different arena – the battle for the hearts and minds of the American people using the cultural institutions of the press, the entertainment industry, the foundations, the corporations, even the churches.
That's why each successive vote on marriage amendments is a little closer. Their goal is the destruction of the very building block of western civilization – the traditional family.
The American people have been softened up and are starting to believe that marriage between same-sex couples is perfectly normal and acceptable – a notion that would have been anathema to them 20 years ago.
This is an illustration of the inadequacy of the conservative agenda.
It's hard to accept for conservatives who have placed so much faith in this ideology of defeat.
"Are you saying, Farah, that conservatism can never triumph?" you might ask. "What about Ronald Reagan?"
It's a good question. Conservatism does have its momentary political triumphs. They can occur when life under socialism and immorality becomes intolerable for people. If conservatism is packaged well and articulated by an articulate and passionate personality, it can win at the polls – no question about it.
Yet the cultural march toward socialism and immorality continues unabated – just as it did during the Reagan years.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
Good post. We need to battle on all fronts of life.
Regards.
He offfers zero ideas on how to change this ?
In his book witness, Whittaker Chambers remembers the moment that he left marxism and was aware that he had just went from the winning to the losing side.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
Does Farah have an "A", or just a "Q"?
Exactly. Lots of accurate observations, but he suggests no solutions at all.
We fight fair, the liberals fight to win. We need to start fighting to win.
Conservatism isn't dead, and it isn't reactive unless upholding the ideals that formed this country are ever-changing--as the "living document" constitutionalists would have us believe.
I feel Conservatism took a mistep when it became beholden (hear me out before screaming) to the Religious Right. Conservatism and the RR should be SEPARATE but viable groups, sometimes working together, sometimes not. I don't have time to go into it at the length it deserves, but Conservatism SHOULD appeal to atheists and non-Christians on purely political terms, leaving out the religious rationale for being, say, against abortion or whatever. Then the RR can address specific issues as opposed to just wholly consuming the Conservative agenda.
The RR is a relatively new part of Conservatism as a whole, and while the RR helped Reagan gain power, it shouldn't be a "Our way or the highway" all-or-nothing element of a larger Conservative movement that is strongly against, for example, gun rights, state control over private property, free speech, low taxes, etc.
Conservatism and the RR should retrench and come out as separate groups. Conservatism would benefit because it would be seen as more acceptable to non-hardcore Christians; the RR would benefit because it wouldn't be beholden to those RINOs the Republican party would have to support in order to gain majorities. Also, the RR would be free to condemn Foley and other pervs without worry about backing true Conservative Republicans and being called hypocritical, since the RR would then not be simple yes-men for the Republican party, but an organization that picks and chooses individuals to support.
Building strong Republican, Conservative and Religious Right organizations would lead to all three holding their members through conflicts with the other organizations, while they could form a united front against the libs. And the RR could bargain and not be taken for granted by the Republican party/Conservative movement as a purely political bloc.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
Would it be possible to ping me to further installments?
Isn't this the nuke in a suitcase nut ? What difference does it make if conservatism is dead or not if we are all toast in a matter of months.
Besides the institutions that J. Farah mentions:
A few home schoolers may be resisting, but those few cannot resist a tide this large. My son has gone to some of the best public schools in California for the last 12 years, and listens to my "conservative" rants as if I was a child molester - he finds my comments "creepy" and rolls his eyes, waiting for me to go silent.
Without an abiding and life defining faith in a higher moral authority (commonly known as "God", though not my personal way of putting it), this decline seems absolutely inevitable.
Now that my son is grown up, and my marriage to a Left coast Liberal about to be concluded, I can move to some place in flyover country, and live out the few remaining decades of my mortal life on this planet amongst honest people of faith. But I'll be damned if I can figure any way to pass on to the next generations anything like what has made America so great these last two centuries.
The greatest generation, including my parents, who pulled this nation out of the Great Depression and defeated Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, vowed to spare us, their baby boom children, the suffering that they went through. They succeeded - I have lived a far wealthier life than my parents.
But too many decades of easy living, spared the threat of tyranny and great defeat, have left a whole generation unable to imagine the evils that imperil us.
The incredible advances of science, technology, industry and commerce, along with the awesome power of the U.S. Military, have left us blind to the dark side.
I fear that a civilization threatening catastrophe of awesome proportion will be needed, and will be forth coming.
The thing I took from it, is that social issues like Gay Marriage, etc. are kind of like the frog in the pot that is coming to a slow boil. America is slowing, but surely accepting this stuff as normal. I really don't see how some of these "Genies" get put back in their respective bottles.
There will never be more than a few oddballs such as myself who find divine guidance and higher moral authority in the vacuum of physics and mathematics.
Classic Christianity and closely related religions are the only way we know to instill in the people the public morality needed as the foundation of a free society.
Step one in fixing a problem is knowing you've got a problem.
First needed fix to the party is integrity. All of the talk about purging this idealogical wing or that idealogical wing of the party means a need to pick up votes to replace them. Trying to pull away voters in areas that fall into the other party's strong suit may not be the best strategy.
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.