Posted on 12/09/2006 4:33:07 PM PST by shrinkermd
This is a fine well thought out article than I have not been able to access so I am discussing and summarizing it here.
Alfred Regnery is the Publisher of the magazine and is the most prominent and influential conservative book publisher. His father, Henry Regnery, was similarly ensconsed and Henry Regnery wrote the introduction for Russell Kirk's classic The Conservative Mind (1986 edition published in 1953). Alfred is promising a book on conservativism and this we will have to see, but if he is as clear and able as this article it should be a best selling article.
The article summarizes by making the following points.
Democrats did not win Republicans lost.
Republican House leadership is gone and that is good.
Many newly elected Democrats ran on middle-of-the-road or even conservative platforms.
Spending by Republicans in last Congress was embarassing and is now unnecessary.
Gridlock in Washington is a good thing.
Little will change.
Democrats will be partially responsible for everything.
Neither Republicans or Democrats ran on any sort of platform
Good time for conservatives to regroup and come up with a coherent plan of action.
In conclusion, Alfred Regnery states, "The Democratic Victory was not a repudiation of conservativism but of those who betrayed conservativism."
This fact should not be lost on our Party. In 2004, the Democrats lost because they put all their eggs in a leftist candidate. Two elections, and two rejections of extremism. True conservative platforms will win. Americans are tired of "social" constitutional amendments, stem-cell debates, creationism in schools, prayers in school, Ten Commandments debates, anti-homosexual campaigns, and the rest of the social-right agenda, while busting budgets at a record pace.
If we are lucky, Pelosi and Reid will also forget, and begin their legislative move to the left, giving us yet one more chance at conservative leadership.
Actually you just described the liberal agenda that many americans are tired of (as well as big spending republicans) they are sick of Roe V. Wade, Gays forcing their "lifestyle" upon the unknowing public, of being told that their Christianity can not be allowed in the proximity of a government agency/builidng, of having the business elites along with the open boarder crowd push through an immigration bill that would be disasterout for their families, children as well as the fabric of the American nation, of countless liberal social agenda (that has nothing to do with really helping people) being FORCED down their throats by the Anti-Civil-Liberties-Union as well as Govt beaurocrats (not to mention the trash coming out of Hollywood..), of their congress wasting their tax dollars on Big-spending "bridges to nowhere", of no meaningful energy "independence" becuase the republicans are afraid to take on environmentalists, of a Republican Congress that failed to live up to the "Contract-with-America" and actually expanded Govt (the notion that we though the Democratic party would only be idiotic enough to do).
Lets not start splitting the Conservative-reaganite agenda here huh??
It was the "moderates" the liberals that lost the election for us not the Conservatives, Conservatism (True RR Conservatives are right, and unified, and no one needs to throw out ANY of the Conservative-Republican Agenda: TRUTH IS WE NEED MORE OF IT!!
As a side note I am curious what do you think of RSC Chairman the Hon. Mike Pence..?
I thought that after the Dems won the election they would go into full moonbat mode and demand the enshrinement of gay marriage in the constitution. I've been warily surprised at their relatively "conservative" approach to things so far. They almost seem sensible, if you didn't know them better.
Much of what you described has nothing to do with conservatism. Yes, control of spending was a disaster. But so was the idiotic congressional legislation on Terri Schiavo, the completely unneeded marriage amendment attempt and the numerous other issues I mentioned above.
It's pretty apparent that the polls showing McCain and Giuliani as the only viable Republican candidates at this point who can beat a Democrat point out more than anything Americans' desire for some moderation.
Between "social" legislation and corruption, this Republican led Congress had little to brag about. What happened to the great promises? Immigration reform, social security reform, tax reform, energy independence, and integrity in Congress. These were the initiatives America thought it was voting for, not a host of social and religious crusades. Even abortion, an issue most Americans disapprove of in varying degrees (but see S. Dakota vote), belongs in the courts, not in Congress. Leave gay marriage issues to the states; Forget about ever again interfering in state laws on medical procedures; Let states handle a patient's right to die; leave stem-cell debates for science to deal with...or at least the states.
Instead try a little conservatism for a change. Stay focused on the War on Terror and providing a strong military; push for real tax reform; Continue to push for strong border security (a national defense issue) by negotiation and compromise instead of bluster; Begin to reduce even if at a snail's pace, the size of the federal deficit.
When these things are done, by all means, cry loudly about the evils of evolution and need for the Ten Commandments at every intersection. But not until they've done their jobs.
And as I said, if we are lucky and the Democrats allow their extreme base to run their agenda, we must never again repeat the travesty of the 109th
It was the "moderates" the liberals that lost the election for us not the Conservatives, Conservatism (True RR Conservatives are right, and unified, and no one needs to throw out ANY of the Conservative-Republican Agenda: TRUTH IS WE NEED MORE OF IT!!
There is a truism you need to understand. We, the Republican Party does need the RR. But it also needs conservatives, the center-right and the center. But the center and center-right conservatives can go elsewhere, as they did in this last election. The RR base can go nowhere. What you propose here is guaranteed to keep us a permanent minority party in Congress.
As RSC Chair, or what? I think he could be a good dark horse candidate as long as he underscored his conservative principles, while keeping his religious and social principles closer to the vest. As RSC Chair, I would urge him to downplay the faith and family issues, and concentrate on those which have a real impact on the future of our Country...security, budgets, taxes, energy, immigration reform.
I know his star faded a bit when he actually proposed a compromise on immigration reform. But that did raise him up a bit in the eyes of many others.
"I've been warily surprised at their relatively "conservative" approach to things so far. They almost seem sensible, if you didn't know them better."
Don't be surprised. The Democratic party is the more populist of the two major political parties. In the long run, they're going pitch what sells.
"The RR can go nowhere."
WRONG!
They will stay home and whatever Republican coalition that is put together will never get enough votes to win an election.
This is a time in which both parties are determining what they will be. The Democrats have been in the wilderness since '94 and are well ahead of the Republicans in forging a direction for their patry. They did not swerve far left. They went Blue-Dog, knowing that their far left had "nowhere to go". They will have the same problem down the road with the moonbats as the Republicans are having with their far right, but right now the FL is intoxicated with winning something. At some point that will not satisfy them; just as the RR became disenchanted with the moderate Republican party.
The Republicans rode into power on the strength of the RR vote, tossing them a few good sounding quotes and warm sentiments their way. But, when it can time to pay up, the moderate Republicans ran. They were just too embarrassed by their Bible toting, NASCAR loving, values based, smaller government, red-neck brethern. If the moderate Republicans think they can regain power by supporting a McCain or Giulani, they will be a minority party for a long time. Being more Democrat will not win you elections.
If you think the RR has no place to go, I'll just give you my feelings and see if they aren't echoed many times over. I have voted against my self-interests many times in the last 35 years just to get to the Promised Land of a Republican Congress AND a Republican Presidency. Along the way, many conservative issues were used as election fodder. But, knowing that a change in the makeup of the Supreme Court was the Holy Grail of Conservatism. The change in the balance of power was within grasp (resignations and death hovering over the existing court). Moderate Republicans sought self-interest over achieving the ultimate goal - a Conservative Supreme Court. If you think I have nowhere to go, you are probably right. I'll be at home; not the polls.
I suggest to you that I'm far from being alone. Good luck RINOs.
Oh yea it does: so called social conservatism IS absolutely Conservative (even though you probably disagree with it):
America (The USA has for the majority of her history been a "Traditional" nation, aka had as its norm for society Judeo-Christian values as the basis for its insitutions (Governmental included: that was partly derived from the Biblical-Jewish Tradition..)
Just because you hate social conservatism doesn;t mean it ISN'T Conservative, it just means that you ARE Liberal on these issues..
Don't Re-write history to fit your vision when you KNOW perfectly well that the social institution that "social conservatives" want to preserve are merely a reaction against RADICAL LIBERAL Social Engineeering (Aka Gay Marriage which you well know is being forced upon the nation by Un-Conservative radical Judical Activist judges-I wouldn't call the re-writing of our Constitution through unconstitutionally mandated court prescedent-CONSERVATIVE VERY WELL..WOULD YOU?).
That is how much of the liberal agenda has been propogated throughout the 20th Century..(Even Fiscally if you will remeber irresponsilbe fiscal legislation was introduced by President Roosevelt and implemented by his "court packing".)
Back to the point: Liberals have typically used the courts to advance their agenda such as Gay marriage (Mass 2004), Sodomy Legalization (Texas 2003), Roe V. Wade, Prayer in Schools in 1964, The so called "seperation of church and state" in 1949. If you would study history you will agree that it is PERFECTLY CONSERVTIVE TO PRESERVE/PROTECT These traditional American-Conservative institutions..
If you suppot such activites as gayness or abortion then that simply means that you are a liberal where these issues are concerned!.
Bah: I hate "moderation" and I don't believe that only a "Moderate (Which were spanked in this last 2006 election) is the One that can have saved US in 2008..
Ronald Reagan proved otherwise..he was surely not a moderate like Previous Republicans such as Ford, Nixon, even Eisenhower..Unless you would like to speak Russian that is..
Truth is we need a new Ronald Reagan to lead our nation into 2008 and I believe that would be someone of the likes of Huckabee, Gingrich, Pence, (Even Tancredo)...otherwise....
Also I dispute that it is INCONSITENT to be both a true "full" RR Conservative ala a full Social Conservative and a full Fiscal Conservative becuase I AM One!!
In conclusion: RR and many others including Newt, Mike Pence, Jesse Helms, Bob Smith, Strom Thurmand, Others have and will continue to be true conservative and we need to follow (I believe Christ, first, but you may not be a believer yet) these men's example 2ndly and instead of dividing ourselves into "I'm this conservative, you're that "Conservative"." , we need advocate ALL of what it takes to run the Country and become a Conservative Nation Once..again!! If we divide..do this and WE Will Surely be a MINORITY FOR 20+Years...Agreed?
Whether you disagree with him or not (and I know you have praised him as RSC Chair), Mike Pence (with all Respect) Should DO Just the Opposite of what you Say He should..
He describes himself as first a "Christian, Conservative, and Then Republican, In that Order"..He can't, nor should he back off his faith, nor Conservative values that you would disagree with. That is the beauty of the "Republican wing" of the Republican party: People like Mike Pence are BOTH Social Conservative and Fiscal Conservative (as borne out by his creds in Congress). WHY Can't we come toghether, rather than causeing needless conflict that we DON'T need?.
Conservatism/RR Ping.
"Also I dispute that it is INCONSITENT to be both a true "full" RR Conservative ala a full Social Conservative and a full Fiscal Conservative becuase I AM One!!"
This debate is very interesting for an outsider like me. Specially as the social conservative agenda is something that would be a very hard sell here in my country, though I beliewe it is more in lurking than many think, people just don´t dare say it publicly.
But as a fiscal conservative, or even libertarian, wich is on the other hand a rather popular policy here, in economic matters at least, I also truly beliewe that less government creates more conservatism in other matters.
Because if you would stand in a society of complete anarchy (anarcho capitalism maybe) it will be those that live conservative lifes and by conservative values that will survive. Sound families, because the traditional family is the strongest human institution. This can be seen f.e. by the rise of christianity, or in later times, by the rise of mormonism and resurection of islam.
I beliewe a healthy balance between libertarianism/fiscal conservatism on one hand and social conservatism on the other is neccasery, because the government poisons everything it touches, so a social conservatism without the libertarian streak is in my opinion even more dangerous than pure liberalism.
Although I am a social conservative I abhor fanatism and see myself as a rather moderated person in everything I say and do. So I have f.e. trouble with where conservatism and individualism collapse, because here the collectivism of the social democrats has done so much harm.
About all these social issues like prayer in school, creationism, assimilation of immigrants and such, does it not all boil down to one question:
Should schools be public and touting the majority agenda to the kids or should scools be private and just like every other service on the market taylor themselves according to what their costumers want?
"Lets not start splitting the Conservative-reaganite agenda here huh??"
"Much of what you described has nothing to do with conservatism."
I've had this argument with MACVSOG68 before. He seems to want to write the religious right out of the conservative movement. No can do. Like it or not, a pro-family pro-values agenda is a part of conservative's essential ideas: man is a moral being in a transcendent universe; family is a bulwark of civilization and parents have rights and duties to their children; sacredness of human life; etc. Even if he disagrees with specific positions, it really is pointless of him to argue against calling conservative social issue positions 'conservative'.
"Specially as the social conservative agenda is something that would be a very hard sell here in my country, though I beliewe it is more in lurking than many think, people just don´t dare say it publicly."
This is why we Republicans desperately NEED the Christian allies in our ranks, because it is so easy to let political correctness take over and create the unfreedom of conformist amorality, once the vision of a moral order is wiped away.
"About all these social issues like prayer in school, creationism, assimilation of immigrants and such, does it not all boil down to one question:
Should schools be public and touting the majority agenda to the kids or should scools be private and just like every other service on the market taylor themselves according to what their costumers want?"
This is why we need school choice. Parents ought to have more control over such things, and any attempt to force a 'one size fits all' across America creates pointless friction. Let parents raise kids according to their moral values. btw, I dont believe the kids are getting what the majority of *people* want, just what the majority of the educrats want. the secular liberal indoctrination in our public schools today is more dangerous and consists of as much of an establishment of religion as forcing every kid to read from the anglican book of common prayer every morning.
"Although I am a social conservative I abhor fanatism and see myself as a rather moderated person in everything I say and do. So I have f.e. trouble with where conservatism and individualism collapse, because here the collectivism of the social democrats has done so much harm."
A wise observation. We need that balance. We need both a free society and a moral foundation in society. Collectivism (in both economics and culture) destroys both, and must be opposed on both bases. Conservatives see freedom and responsibility as two sides of the same coin.
read later
All the issues you listed involve the fedgov imposing itself on the actions of citizens, contrary to the 9th and 10th amendments.
Therefore, you are advocating a non-conservative position by trying to squash our right to oppose and reverse those fedgov actions.
Any platform that advocates in favor of those fedgov actions is NOT a 'true conservative platform', contrary to your protestations.
As for Democrats going Blue-Dog, they certainly didn't in 2004 when the Party and its candidate embraced Hollywood leftism...and lost. 2006 did produce a bevy of Blue-Dogs, which was my whole point. The center and center-right does not need the RR; it has someplace to go.
Take care.
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.