Skip to comments.Repost: "Enough With The Neocon And Paleocon Carping—I'll Stand With George W. Bush In 2004"
Posted on 08/10/2007 8:47:56 AM PDT by Reaganesque
click here to read article
When a party receives the conservative vote regardless of the candidate, do you think that makes it more or less likely that the party will run a genuine small government conservative?
>> That, my FRiend, is what pragmatism gets us. I find it unacceptable.
Over the past 27 years, pragmatism (or pragmatic conservatism) has given us Ronald Reagan, George Bush and George W. Bush instead of Jimmy Carter (2nd term), Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, and John Kerry (reputed Vitenam veteran).
I still fail to see why “electablity” is a bad thing ... without it, you’ve got Pat Buchanan or Alan Keyes. Absolutely brilliant men (though Buchanan has some occasional weirdness) who sit at home between elections.
Maybe it's time to coin a new term for republican conservatism to lessen the confusion. I lean towards paleo myself.
Or at least strip the label of conservative from globalist republicans, possibly the neocons, who aren't necessarily for smaller government, but are more for the elimination of our borders, culture, Constitution and national sovereignty.
Yes, the globalists have been hiding behind the republican party label long enough.
Can't hardly tell the players without a scorecard anymore. Check Wiki's variety:
>> When a party receives the conservative vote regardless of the candidate, do you think that makes it more or less likely that the party will run a genuine small government conservative?
Less likely - though I do object to the premise that the Republican Party will recieve the conservative vote regardless of the candidate. For instance, if Ron Paul were the candidate, many conservatives, myself included, would be forced to find another candidate/ party to vote for.
I think a mainstream political party that is hell-bent on running a fringe political candidate will be an irrelevancy. In order to remain mainstream, you’ve got to appeal to more than the fringe of the party ... you’ve got to have appeal to capture 51% of the electoral college.
I believe a mainstream conservative - like Thompson, Romney, Hunter, Huckabee, and probably even Giuliani - will likely recieve the support of the conservative base, as well as a significant portion of the middle. A candidate who appeals ONLY to the base has no shot at victory, and, as such, would hurt the cause more than help it. I think Gingrich (not Paul) would be the best example here, because of the baggage from the Clinton years. Ron Paul doesn’t even appeal to most conservatives, he appeals to the dozens of loudmouthed libertarians throughout the country.
That’s the way a democracy (or democratic republic, in this case) works - you have to appeal to more than just the base. Otherwise you’re just Ralph Nader - a cute sideshow while the mainstream candidates campaign.
Self-identified conservatives don’t make up quite a majority in this country (though we’re closer to a majority than liberals), so compromises with moderates/ independents are the only way to make any progress at all.
Conservatives could take a lesson from liberals on the art of “incrementalism” ... they seem to have it down pretty well, chipping away at conservatism. We need to learn to chip back (like we’ve been doing on abortion, for instance). Politics isn’t an all-or-nothing game.
Ridiculous conclusions can easily be drawn when taking a comment out of context, can't they? :-)
I did not fail to notice that you didn’t answer my question (instead, opting to pose one of your own, which I answered). So, I’ll try again.
“I believe wed be coming up on the end of President Al Gores 2nd term now, had we chosen an unelectable candidate. How, exactly, would that be a step FORWARD for small government conservatives?”
I'm not running anyone off. It isn't in my power or will to do so. I am merely lamenting the fact that so many are shaking their pompoms for anyone with an (R) after their name.
I won't bore you with some allegorical story about icebergs and Hawaii. I'll give you a real life story. I doubt that it'll curl your toes or change your so called pragmatism, but it's true nonetheless.
I worked on a mayoral campaign in a suburb around here. It is a very conservative suburb, and the guy running for mayor was my former boss. He ran as a Republican, so naturally I thought from personal experience and the fact that he ran as a Republican he would behave like Republican while in office.
So I did it all. I rallied the groundpounders, I attended and documented his speeches and rallies, and attended his victory party. My guy won, and I had a hand in it. A major role in it, actually.
Well, once in office the truth came out. The only reason he ran as a Republican was because ONLY a Republican could win in that suburb. He ran the city like a liberal would... from smoking bans to tax increases, the whole liberal portfolio was at his disposal and he used it with impunity. A populist Republican.
Yes, I felt completely suckerpunched by this guy, but I got over it quickly. However, I did come away with a valuable political lesson, one that so many "pragmatists" and "Anyone But Hillarys" have yet to learn.
Naming a child "Jesus" won't make him a savior, naming a child "Mohammed" won't make him a prophet, and putting an (R) after your name won't make you a Republican.
Get it yet?
We live in a time where the most extreme views from either side, even when they are right (that is only us by the way) seem distasteful to the masses. To paraphrase Mark Twain, Ifin’ I were God, I would have a only those voters that agree with me vote. Alas this is not going to happen. 70% of those that vote spend about 30 second figuring it out. In the confines of that, to be blunt, like Reagan himself said, I’ll take 70 or 80% over nothing...
How was it out of context? It was almost verbatim from your last sentence.
“When a party receives the conservative vote regardless of the candidate, do you think that makes it more or less likely that the party will run a genuine small government conservative?”
I’m assuming your goal is to have a conservative small government candidate run AND WIN, not simply run.
IF that party gets elected and if conservatives within that party work to shift it more towards conservatism ... Yes
IF that party does not get elected, or you decide to abandon working within it, you have NO chance of reaching your goal.
>> The only reason he ran as a Republican was because ONLY a Republican could win in that suburb. He ran the city like a liberal would.
>> “... I did come away with a valuable political lesson, one that so many “pragmatists” and “Anyone But Hillarys” have yet to learn ... putting an (R) after your name won’t make you a Republican.”
You seem to be mistaking pragmatism for supporting selling-out conservatism. I dare say that NO ONE on this board would support the Mayor in your example, or would call him a “pragmatist”. He was a liberal - plain and simple.
On immigration, Lindsay Graham wasn’t pragmatic, he was liberal. He wasn’t compromising on his conservative beliefs ... he was ADVOCATING liberal ones. There is a difference between occasionally compromising conservative principles where necessary for progress, and actively campaigning for liberal principles.
There is a distinction between a pragmatic conservative like George W. Bush (retarded immigration bill notwithstanding), and an outright liberal Republican like Olympia Snowe (for instance), or Lincoln Chafee pre-switch.
Your mayor was a liberal. He didn’t compromise his conservatism due to pragmatism ... he never held the conservative beliefs to begin with.
Yes, it was an accurate quote. The context of the quote has to do with everything surrounding the quote. In this case, the context of that sentence is the rest of my comments, as well as the thread, which is the discussion of which candidate deserves my vote. The context clearly indicates my conservative politics.
So, to answer your question, no. In context, my comments about Reagan would not justify a vote for a Democrat. I wrote what I wrote to indicate that the best Republican president in recent memory, perhaps ever, was not a 100%'er, as some seem to be waiting for. By his own account, Reagan compromised in order to make progress toward the goal.
Support the guy who is a great leader, could win the election and who fits your ideals as much as possible.
There is a big difference between playing at being a conservative and being a conservative trying to stake out as much of a conservative position on any given topic as they can in the prevailing environment.
This damning the reachable good for the sake of the unreachable great is pure folly.
Not sure your point ...
Do you NOT agree with the statement that “anyone but Hillery” should be elected ?
For example, if your ex-boss were running against Hillery next year, which would you prefer to become President ?
Depends on who you ask, but the reality is, political leanings fall along a spectrum. Too far right or left, and you get a kook. Everyone falls somewhere in between the extremes.
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.