Posted on 11/28/2009 7:56:03 AM PST by publius1
... The so-called purity test is a 10-point checklist -- a suicide pact, really -- of alleged Republican positions...
James Bopp Jr., chief sponsor of the resolution and a committee member from Indiana, has said that "the problem is that many conservatives have lost trust in the conservative credentials of the Republican Party."
Actually, no, the problem is that many conservatives have lost faith in the ability of Republican leaders to think. The resolutions aren't so much statements of principle as dogmatic responses to complex issues that may, occasionally, require more than a Sharpie check in a little square.
It's too bad that "elite" and "nuance" have become bad words in the Republican lexicon. Elites are viewed in Republican circles as "those people" who are out of touch with "real Americans." And "nuance," the definition of which suggests a sophisticated approach to understanding (as opposed to "Because I said so, case closed") has come to be viewed as a Frenchified word Republicans successfully hung on presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004. His flip-floppery on issues became associated with nuance, a.k.a. lack of decisiveness. Ergo, a lack of leadership skills.
It was superb message manipulation, if you go for that sort of thing. But it was also pandering to America's inner simpleton....
Most of us know that decisiveness isn't always a virtue, yet those pushing the purity test seem to view nuance as an enemy of conservatism. The old elite corps of the conservative movement, men such as William F. Buckley and Russell Kirk, undoubtedly would find this attitude both dangerous and bizarre. When did thinking go out of style?...
Whatever the intent of the authors, the message is clear: Thinking people need not apply. The formerly elite party of nuanced conservatism might do well to revisit its nonideological roots.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
And then -- "Thinking people need not apply."
The insane part of this is trying to use Bill Buckley on her side in this -- Buckley who engineered the elimination of the Objectivists, the NRA, and Pat Buchanan from the core conservative movement. Buckley would never have seen conservatism as a club that anyone can join where principles are optional.
She suggests that we revisit our "noniodeological roots." How about that, for a party birthed in opposition to slavery? What would she have written in those days?
>>How about that, for a party birthed in opposition to slavery? What would she have written in those days?
Since everything liberals do is designed to preserve or bring back slavery in some form, I’d say that she would have written the same thing in 1860 or 1960.
Sad truth is many in the GOP will turn to the Post for advise on how to save the party.
She also has no clue as to what Russell Kirk meant by “ideology.”
She might be right by hinting that Russell Kirk might not be a Republican today. But he wouldn’t be a Republican because he was a True Conservative.
It really IS this simple : freedom works. While I’m touched by the “concern” the left has I’m not taking advice from our sworn enemy about what choices are to be made.
Sure, the GOP should take the advice of Obama-supporter Kathleen Parker in how to engineer a return to power.
Wonder how long it took her to "decide" to leave that bit of inanity in her essay...
It will be okay as long as they don't turn to the Post for "advice".
I love it when libs are sooo deeply concerned for our party and its survival.
What we need in Washington is a bunch of no thinking simpletons. The kind that wouldn’t be smart enough to devise a nuanced rational on how to stimulate the economoy with more deficit spending.
Kathleen Parker has no credibility.
another fine house conservative, Kathleen Parker, trotted out. She and David Frum need to get a room.
If The Post doesn’t like it, they’re doing the right thing.....for a change.
Here’s a novel idea.
Let the people choose our candidates.
They're also the same folks who led us into the wilderness for 50 dry years, and seek to do it again by telling us RWR & WFB would've wanted it that way. No sale.
What’s the difference between Mary Landrieu and Kathleen Parker?? 300 MILLION DOLLARS is the ONLY difference .
I don’t think he’d be interested, if you know what I mean...
sophisticated
1. knowledgeable and cultured: knowledgeable about the ways of the world, self-confident, and not easily deceived
Seems we are that, what she accuses us of not being.
These are basic, decent, requirements...nothing super radical here. You--the LameStream Media keep packaging it in these "horrible" bundles, but it's not...and the REST of America is ONTO you...we KNOW the truth!
That could be because all those "elite" aristocrats use their "nuance" to deceive us.
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.