Posted on 01/20/2008 10:45:49 AM PST by FocusNexus
Conservative attitudes are changing. Or, more accurately, the attitudes of people who call themselves conservatives are changing.
The most cited data to prove this point come from the Pew Political Typology survey. By 2005, it had found that so many self-described conservatives were in favor of government activism that they had to come up with a name for them.
"Running-dog liberals" apparently seemed too pejorative, so the survey went with "pro-government conservatives," a term that might have caused Ronald Reagan to spontaneously combust. This group makes up just less than 10 percent of registered voters and something like a third of the Republican coalition.
Ninety-four percent of pro-government conservatives favored raising the minimum wage, as did 79 percent of self-described social conservatives. Eight out of 10 pro-government conservatives believe government should do more to help the poor and slightly more than that distrust big corporations.
There's more evidence elsewhere. As former Bush speechwriter David Frum documents in his new book, "Comeback," income taxes are no longer a terribly serious concern among conservative voters. Young Christian conservatives and others are increasingly eager to bring a faith-based activism to government. As conservative commentator Ramesh Ponnuru recently noted in Time, younger evangelicals are more likely to oppose abortion than their parents were, but they are also more likely to look kindly on government-run anti-poverty programs and environmental protection. Even President Bush (in)famously proclaimed in 2003 that "when somebody hurts, government has got to move."
(Excerpt) Read more at insidebayarea.com ...
I think of a lot of people liked what they were hearing, liberals by definition, and hopped on the bandwagon completely unaware of who was pushing the agenda.
And then of course there are those who don’t care what the unintended consequences are just as long a their own personal agenda gets moved along.
This is true. I hope that some of it is simply a pendulum effect. I would say that conservative political power peaked from about 1982 -1992. Although the left has always been strong, today the entire debate seems to have embraced their rhetoric. Flipping through the channels today I observed all the talking heads and candidates talking about ways in which government can bail people out. There was no mention of pride and self reliance at all.
The conservative movement has truth on its side. It does not lack for passion and intellect. What we do not have is a capable charismatic leader to ignite the turn around. Pending that, I believe that we are obligated to limit the damage that the Left does during it's ascendancy.
Today's true conservatives were f/k/a "classic" liberals. Those who actually think Jesus would approve of them imposing their religious ideas on others, aren't "Christians", they are religious tyrants.
C. S. Lewis describes them perfectly:
Lewis addresses theocracy (the most potent form of Religious involvement in government) in an essay entitled, "A Reply to Professor Haldane" (Lewis, C.S. "A Reply to Professor Haldane." On Sotries. ed. Walter Hooper. Harcort & Brace Co. Orlando, Florida. 1996.):
If we must have a tyrant, a robber baron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point may be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent. But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely more because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better impulses appear to him as temptations.
And since Theocracy is the worst, the nearer any government approaches to Theocracy the worse it will be. A metaphysic held by the rulers with the force of a religion, is a bad sign. It forbids them, like the inquisitor, to admit any grain of truth or good in their opponents, it abrogates the ordinary rules of morality, and it gives a seemingly high, super-personal sanction to all the very ordinary human passions by which, like other men, the rulers will frequently be actuated.
In a word, it forbids wholesome doubt. A political programme can never in reality be more than probably right. We never know all the facts about the present and we can only guess the future. To attach to a party programme--whose highest claim is to reasonable prudence--the sort of assent which we should reserve for demonstrable theorems, is a kind of intoxication (75-76).
I hated the Bush-created term “compassionate conservatism” from the very first time I heard it. It’s the thing that’s led us to this point. Big spending. Open borders. “Democracy” for everyone.
It caused revulsion in me as well.
“There must be some truth in this, because otherwise Huckabee would never have gotten as many votes as he did.”
There are lots of one-issue voters out there, and abortion is a big one. That’s why Giuliani would be such a dangerous nominee... A huge chunk of what has, before now, been considered a unified “base” would peel right off and vote for a pro-life candidate wherever they were able to find one. Including me.
These knuckleheads need to go listen to RR's 1981 inaugural address again. They stand for everything he stood against...and call themselves ("My friends" (sic) ) "Conservative".....
The electorate has discovered the old rules don't apply anymore. Government is now all about divvying up the spoils.
The more money government spends and the more power over people it has the more some people will climb over each other to get it.
It used to be that government had to tax us to get money to spend, now they borrow money from the Fed willy-nilly to chase their schemes. Good old George is going to borrow 100 billion or more so as to send us all a check in the mail--how thoughtful.
A great number of our problems stem from overspending.
For instance, the government cannot mitigate the current credit crises because it has no money.
The government has created trillions in debt and borrows more every day.
Even Bernanke agrees we cannot continue at this pace. Who's going to stop it? Who's even talking about it?
EXACTLY
Don't forget to add major religious denominations into this kettle of fish. Who needs to go to church when government takes care of everything.
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.