Posted on 2/18/2008, 1:48:07 PM by Nony
Will the nomination of John McCain redefine conservatism, or is no such thing possible?
Seeing as how “conservativism” is already defined mostly by the mind of its adherant, that’s shooting at a moving target.
How ‘bout we talk about nuts and bolts issues, what the three remaining candidates plan to do to us if we give them power, and less about theory?
Reagan is the rock who defines conservatism. McCain is just a temporary detour.
McCain is certainly trying to pretend he is conservative.
illegal aliens should get amnesty
embryonic stem cell research should get funding
tax cuts are bad
glonal warming is our biggest danger
etc.
The Democrats will embrace these conservative ideas and indicate that they can do business with Republicans in a bipartisan fashion. Then, in a few years, if a Republican with less-intrusive beliefs comes along, this "Golden Age" of bipartisan politics will be shattered, and the Democrats and media will assail Republicans who actually think the Constitution means anything as being "beyond Hitler" in their oppressive view of Man and Society.
The redefiniton is coming.
Sure. He can redefine it as liberalism.
LOL
No.
He can claim conservative positions on some issues, but nobody is going to allow him to redefine what the “conservative” position is on an issue.
We already have enough definitions, without him adding more.
Redefine it? Or totally destroy it? If the latter, then yes. Praising Hillary yesterday shows he’s certainly capable of destroying the Republican Party, at least.
You’re far too kind. If Reagan is the rock, McCain is the squishy stuff cattle leave on rocks.
Reagan was largely seen as having solid conservative principles.
His solution to the illegal immigration problem was to stop the flow of illegals, but to grant amnesty to anybody who was already here. He believed that letting those who snuck in stay was conservative.
We know that his plan failed, because we did not seal the borders, and the flow of illegals only increased. We don’t fault him for not realizing that the 2nd part of his program would not be implemented.
But if Reagan is the rock that defines conservatism, should we then be looking for a way to seal the borders and then deal with those already here without deporting them all or forcing them to leave — in short, should we take Reagan’s position as the “conservative” one?
Or in this one case was Reagan NOT the rock which defined conservatism?
Not that this is the only single decision he made that today would be rejected as the “conservative” decision.
Sealing the border is the most important step. I have no problem with the otherwise law-abiding hard working immigrants staying. Let's ship out the felons and secure the borders. I really have no problem with Reagan's position on immigrations as being the conservative one.
The global warming issue does not have to be one of “conservative/liberal”. If there was actual proof that man was causing global warming, and that it was a threat to us, conservatives would expect Government to play a part in protecting America from that threat.
McCain’s mistake is that he believes the hype, meaning ignorance — which is not, unfortunately, a fault confined to liberals. You can be conservative and also be wrong.
Campaign Finance Reform was a conservative/liberal issue, and McCain came down on the liberal, “government should take your constitutional rights away for the good of government” position.
McCain does not believe that tax cuts are bad, he believes more strongly that deficit spending is bad. He has supported enough tax cuts, and opposed enough tax increases, to be given some credit even though he did oppose the bush tax cut. I realise he did state a liberal reason for opposing the cuts.
Here’s a problem — McCain is going to be attacked for the next 6 months as having “abandoned” his “reasonable” positions to embrace the “far-right” conservative viewpoints. THis will largely be a lie, but his inclination will be to deny he’s embraced them, and maybe to attack them.
However, if he had conservative support in cases where he HAS expressed the conservative viewpoint (such as making the Bush tax cuts permanent) he will be a stronger advocate for those positions.
I’m not saying that we need to support McCain the candidate. I’m saying that conservatives should strongly, forcefully, and enthusiastically defend McCain when he is attacked for conservative positions he has taken, such as Iraq, the Bush tax cuts, cutting spending, the Medicare prescription drug plan.
We defended Leiberman for his position on the war, without making him our personal hero. We can to the same with McCain — defend his conservative positions. He has some, and whatever we think of him as a candidate or his liberal positions, we should be able to agree to defend his conservative positions against liberal attacks.
Conservatism is an ideology. Its core principles cannot die. Through-out American history, it has been embraced in varying degrees.
A single candidate cannot destroy conservatism. They can only suppress or revitalize it in the contemporary political scene and governmental institutions.
Respectfully disagree on this. Anyone who thinks that the power of our society -- goaded by the coercive force of our government -- ought to be marshalled for the purpose of changing the climate of the planet is not a conservative. McCain buys the hype, and he wants to do something about it. It's that second part that bothers me most.
The party of Reagan is dead. Everytime we compromise with the enemy(liberals), we lose ground. McCain is but a step on the path to Republican embrace of full-fledged Socialism.
Can’t redefine conservatism, but you can redefine the Republican Party. George W. Bush took the party left on several counts. McCain will do the same.
Unfortunately, I don’t think there are enough true conservatives in the Republican base, to win an election. It seems, our candidates need to play a liberal card every now and then to attact enough moderates to win.
If what we are doing was shown to be destroying our environment, the conservative thing would be to find different ways of doing things that did not destroy our environment.
Conservatism is not opposed to conservation or the environment. We should use our resources wisely, that is the conservative position. When we find that something we do is harmful, it is the conservative position to stop doing that harm.
The problem with Global Warming alarmists is that we don’t know if there is a problem, we don’t know if we cause the problem, and we don’t know how we would fix it. It’s a problem of lack of knowledge, or ignorance, not the misapplcation of conservative philosophy.
The environment is part of the “commons”, and as such is an appropriate issue for government under our constitution. You cannot defend our country’s environment by individuals acting on market principles, because individuals benefit from taking actions which destroy the environment.
This is why even staunch libertarians do not oppose all environmental regulation.
Hey, “Liberal” is a bad word ... Let’s call it “Conservatism” now ... OK?
Conservatives today have strayed so far from the path that they have forgotten what true conservatism is and are no longer conservatives. Just another type of big spending Socialist.
John
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.