Skip to comments.Romney & American Conservatism
Posted on 05/31/2012 11:10:05 AM PDT by Ohioan
History is replete with examples: Politicians tend to follow popular trends, rather than lead. To the extent that segments of the public
can be pushed in our direction, we increase constructive pressure on all candidates, who are not compulsion driven ideologues, to be more
conservative. The Reagan era is a case in point; the reverse was true in the leftward shift of many formerly conservative Democrats in the
early "New Deal."
This does not imply lack of personal involvement. Our obvious interest has led to careful consideration of the merits, deficiencies &
reasonable possibilities related to each candidate. While Governor Romney was never our first choice, he may prove, in fact, the one most likely to move in the right direction.
(Excerpt) Read more at truthbasedlogic.com ...
This "virtual" endorsement is in recognition of the belief, not that Gov. Romney has not in the past aligned himself with the wrong policies in Massachusetts. His previous policies were certainly not to a traditional Conservative's liking. But I believe that he is reachable, if we follow the course recommended in the article.
Anyway we look at it, four more years of Obama is unacceptable.
So, even though in word and deed Romney has been a liberal his whole past but we are to hang our hope that he might be pushed into conservatism.
Conservatism is your core or it is not.
“Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
— Winston Churchill
Most of those who enter politics are not driven by such instincts. They may be driven by personal ambition; perhaps by some particular issue at a particular moment in time; perhaps only by having been recruited by political organizers, because they are seen as having an appealing personality. Political forces originating with the grassroots--even as unfortunate pressures from the mass media--can push such in different directions. It has happened over and over again.
Let us face it. We are going to lose America if we cannot be more persuasive. Do you have any better idea than to start with Romney now, by seeking to broaden the Conservative base with better grassroots persuasive techniques?
The obvious choice now, is whether to sit back & let a hostile media orchestrate the pressures on candidates, or use whatever honorable means are at our disposal to rouse the sleeping public in the right direction. If we do an effective enough job, both Romney & a lot of other office seekers, will start moving to the Right.
Churchill, as you probably know, started out as a Liberal. He moved to the right in response to events.
Mitt Romney was weaned on politics, he was born into a politically aggressive, liberal, anti-conservative family in which dad was a national figure, ending in a liberal presidential run, and mother was a 1970 liberal Senate candidate.
Romney has always known and lived his liberal convictions, and his anti-conservative drive for revenge against the conservatives of the GOP, the Reagan/Palin/teaparty types who he shuns and insults even as he gains control of their party today.
Romney was anti-Reagan, he left the GOP and from 1989 to 1993 only gave money to, and fund raised for democrat candidates, he voted for Paul Tsongas in 1992, he was giving to and fund raising for Planned Parenthood in 1994.
His father had run against Reagan for the Presidency in 1968, Mitt Romney and his father formally protested the victory of the conservatives at the 1964 GOP convention in which Goldwater was nominated and Reagan gave his famous speech. Romney was anti-conservative in every way during the first 59 years of his life.
Im not a partisan politician. My hope is that, after this election, it will be the moderates of both parties who will control the Senate, not the Jesse Helmses.
These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense, Romney said. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.
I believe that the Clinton compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nations military. That goal will only be reached when preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians is a mainstream concern, which is a goal we share.
Do you think that Mitt was just merely confused a little about his core beliefs during the the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and the 2000s, until 2005 when he started his run for President, the second such run in a row for his family?
Similarly, look at how some of those who had behaved just as you describe the Romneys, moved to the right after Reagan won a convincing victory.
The Romneys were & are successful businessmen. Their focus has been from that perspective. They were not effectively challenged, as Obama is now challenging Romney, from a Leftist threat. Obama's attacks will partially wake Romney up to the fact that the parameters of his world are under an ideological attack--not a foreign threat from Russia, but a threat from corrupt ideology here at home.
My point is not predicting how he will respond. My point is that we need to do our level best to push him in our direction. The article discusses how we should proceed to do so.
Failing to address this opportunity/reality is to concede the future to the hard core Marxists around the demagogue in office. That is folly in the extreme.
Mitt Romney moved radically to the left because of Reagan, even leaving the GOP and eventually becoming a supporter of and fund raiser for democrats during HW Bush.
We have had very few Conservative Presidential candidates, who ever got a major party nomination, over the past 100+ years. There was Calvin Coolidge & Ronald Reagan. Arguably, John W. Davis, who was the Democratic nominee in 1924 was also.
The point is not how truly Conservative a candidate is, but how effective a grassroots effort can be. We need to stop abdicating to the Leftist agitators, who have learned how to move the politicians to the Left. If we do not learn how to fight back on more & broader fronts, all that we believe in will be toast. The demagogue in the White House does not share any of our core values.
To understand why, in general, business executives are at least somewhat hostile to Conservative ideology, you need to consider Perspective & Focus. The typical business executive's focus is on maximizing profits, and they feel threatened by anything "controversial," as a danger towards building acceptance for their product or service. In addition, they largely move in circles with the same focus, which reinforces their own distaste for any controversy that does not directly involve their business. And yet further in addition, at the higher levels, they are staffed by a middle management that has much in common with a Governmental bureaucracy.
This does not mean that the situation involved in trying to move some of them to the right is hopeless--far from it. But it does call for patience, politeness & understanding, which are included in the points in the article.
As the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, Romney is better seen as a challenge & opportunity, than an enemy. Again, we dare not agree to four more years of a demagogue already drafting unconstitutional executive orders that would make him our Fuhrer.
Well, such a theory has a major flaw. He is the enemy.
Again, we dare not agree to four more years of a demagogue already drafting unconstitutional executive orders that would make him our Fuhrer.
As bad as another four years of Obama would be, there is something infinitely more dangerous to the republic, and that is a "conservative" electorate with no principles left. THAT is how you create the moral and political climate for a Nazi Germany or a Soviet Russia.
That is all very dreamy and it probably entertains you to indulge yourself with that kind of hazy creative writing, but it is gibberish, the only thing clear is that you are determined to refuse to look at Mitt Romney and the Romneys.
You want to take what exists and try to mold it into something it isn’t, to escape from reality and truth, and to exercise what you see as a creative thinking talent.
The title of your post sort of reminds me of “oil and water.”
You have effectively boxed yourself into a hopeless mindset. Gov. Romney has clearly moved to the right. He is certainly far from a complete Conservative, but he has been moving in our direction. If you insist in treating people in leadership positions, merely as the enemy, when they do not agree with you, and ignore the possible ways to bring them around to our way of thinking, you concede the battle.
If we are only interested in rallying those who agree with us, the cause is hopeless. We have to reach out, and it is certainly more practical to reach out to Mitt Romney, who as I discuss in the article is a "problem solver" in terms of business--and therefore has had to deal before with sometimes unpleasant facts--than most others who have embraced the fallacies that the Left has promoted in the Academies & Media for three generations.
A willingness to look at unpleasant facts is essential to the course, I suggest. The realities are all on our side, but the Media, et al., have poisoned most people's visions.
In the recent debates, on balance, Mitt Romney was certainly as Conservative as some of the other candidates--and, in my opinion, more so than Santorum, who came across as reckless on foreign policy, and ignorant on the Constitutional divisions between State & Federal function.
You can continue insulting the Romneys (and, for that matter, this Ohioan), and accept the existing ideological lineups, which is a classic error, if you like. Some of us understand both the issues, and why certain people line up as they do on those issues, and intend to continue to reach out rather than seek to make what we do not like, permanent.
Is it really true that Romney, because he was business-oriented, proclaimed that he was more supportive of the pro-homosexual agenda than Ted Kennedy because Romney wanted to avoid being controversial?
Or, do you think maybe he was just being honest?
How do you think he feels about the Mormon tradition of polygamy? If, because he is business-oriented and wants to avoid saying anything controversial, can you expect him to disclose now how he really feels about polygamy?
How can you trust a man who is afraid to tell the truth?
B. In the debates, Romney clearly distanced himself from whatever he may have said in Massachuseetts, formerly. The effort I propose would continue to push him in the positive (i.e., in favor of traditional morality) values.
C. How Romney views "polygamy" is not a contemporary American issue, accept among Mormon bashers. Since Mormons tend to be Conservative, I am very unsympathetic to Mormon bashers.
If you are so concerned with denouncing polygamy, do you propose taking "Proverbs" out of the Bible--or reject it because of Solomon's marital behavior? This is all a non-issue, being injected into the campaign to divide us.
Why the antagonism to someone who is definitely moving in our direction? Might he back-track? Not if we do our job right. That is the whole point.
Truth is not divisible. The same principles that apply to business conditions that Romney understands and knows ow to deal with, are equally applicable to all other socio/economic conditions. What is essential is that we better hone our ability to make those points clear.