Romney & American Conservatism

Truth Based Logic Domain ^ | May 31, 2012 | William Flax

[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.

[Ohioan]

You can take it that way, if you like. To continue your metaphor, the article offers the soap or chemical required to address the situation.

[Tau Food]

“How Romney views ‘polygamy’ is not a contemporary American issue, accept among Mormon bashers.”

Whether you accept or reject Mormon bashers, how can anyone trust a man who is afraid to tell the truth? You speak about manipulating a President of the United States like it is akin to repositioning your favorite chair in the living room. Why would I want to place a jellyfish in a position of leadership?

Are you really that crippled by fear of the alternatives?

[Ohioan]

I am not sure to what you are referring when you say that Romney is afraid to tell the truth? Since you couple it with a clause about Mormon bashers, the suggestion is that he needs to discuss his religion. To me that is a non-issue, just as the past marriage practices of the Mormons is a non-issue.

I did not speak about "manipulating" a President. But politicians have always responded, in various degrees, to shifts in the public perception of issues & objectives. That does not equate to his being a "jellyfish."

Of course, my main point was, and is, that his adequacy as a genuine "problem solver," gives us the opportunity--if we hone our arguments well--to actually persuade him to a more Conservative position.

Certainly, if you believe as I do that the Conservative position--the values & principles of the Founding Fathers & an ethos that goes back at least to Magna Carta;--that such offer the best path to a healthy society; then what we need to do, is to persuade more Americans to that--or back to that by the right appeal to their reasoning ability.

That Romney has good reasoning ability--as witness his work on the 2002 Winter Olympics, for example--makes him a good prospect. But, again, the ball is in our court, to take the proper initiatives.

What we need to do might be somewhat analogous to someone presenting him with a very accurate cash flow projection with respect to those 2002 Olympics, only verbally in terms of the demonstrable dynamics of human interaction. (The actual economic growth of America under the founders' principles is such a demonstration, if the linkage is compellingly explained.)

William Flax

[EternalVigilance]

Extreme naivete, at best.

Even if you believed that Romney had “moved,” as foolish as that would be, considering his record, still, the positions that he takes right now remain those of a judicial supremacist, pro-choice, anti-republican, anti-unalienable rights, democrat.

The core of who and what he his remains unchanged.

And the chances of him changing from that at this late date are for all practical purposes nil.

[ansel12]

LOL, rambling ignorant nonsense, what ever you are hearing in your own head, is laughable to the rest of us.

[Tau Food]

Well, here’s the problem. My iPad has good reasoning ability, but like your man Romney, it has no spine. My iPad will work the will of anyone who controls it, just like your man Romney. You may see that as one of his virtues.

But, the problem is that, unless you’re a bigwig in the Mormon “church,” you aren’t going to be controlling or even influencing Romney.

[Ohioan]

Your argument consists not in logic, but in hurling labels based upon what you understand of Gov. Romney's past positions. He showed nothing symptomatic of those labels in the two score debates in this campaign.

So you do not trust Gov. Romney. That does not really address my position. (Frankly, I do not completely trust almost anyone. People are all inherently flawed. That does not mean that we should not take our best hold on a situation.)

And do you deny that Romney did well for the 2002 Olympics--as a "problem solver?" (Also, I notice that none of your insults address his competence in dealing with economic questions.)

William Flax

[Ohioan]

I offered an approach to the campaign, with which you disagree. Insulting me does not improve your argument. You have not actually refuted anything in my article.

Romney & American Conservatism.

Keep up the silliness, if you like. But why don't you try to actually consider what is the best course for American Conservatives over the next five months?

William Flax

[Ohioan]

Your IPad might have good electronic conditioned reflexes, but whether that is actually reasoning ability is a different question.

But your insistent bashing of the Mormons is very self-defeating. If people from different denominations cannot work together to restore American values, we are done for. The anti-American, anti-God, anti-all people of Faith, cadre in the media & academia will continue to have their way, unless we solve the problems that prevent intelligent Conservatives from working well together.

Do you think the ACLU would have been able--as one example--to undermine Faith in American civil life, to the extent that they have, if we worked together better. (For more on the anti-Faith, anti-institutions, in general, antics of that organization, see Leftist Word Games & Religious Freedom.)

The Federal Government--the Government in which Romney is seeking a high position--has no role whatsoever in the management of any Church, or in choosing anyone's precepts, dogma, or whatever, in matters of Faith. Your opinions of Mormons are irrelevant to the present campaign.

William Flax

[sand88]

And do you deny that Romney did well for the 2002 Olympics--as a "problem solver?" (Also, I notice that none of your insults address his competence in dealing with economic questions.)

Mitt does not view Capitalism as a positive. His Olympic effort is totally irrelevant and has been fluffed up.

To see how Mitt views government vs free-market you have to look at his ACTUAL record in MASS.

Everything Mitt did in MA was carried out to enhance the Power of the State over the Individual. Mitt's actual record in MA pushed his state far down in economic performance.

Mitt's actual record in MA is a direct example of someone who worships at the Alter of State Power. It is utterly delusional to think Mitt will be "pushed" at all to Conservatism.

Mitt and his vile supporters are most excited when they are out utterly destroying Conservatives. Starting in mid-Sep 2008 Mitt and his vile staff and supporters started with a scorched Earth policy against Sarah and any other Conservative who could be a threat. To have him expect to receive my vote is an insult to everything I believe in. I will not vote for rabid Statists -- whether they be Rats or GOP-e.

Ansel12's post #6 perfectly explains Mitt's political DNA.

[lodi90]

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?

I don't care. There is a marxist kenyan in the White House and I want him out. You can twist yourself into a pretzel enabling him if you want but understand there are only two electable candidates. One of them will be in the WH next year. You seem to prefer the kenyan. Most conservatives are willing to roll the dice with Romney. So be it.

[Ohioan]

Another poster, whose intense anti-Romney feelings, cause him to miss the point of my article, which specifically stops short of actually endorsing Romney, though it projects a course that we should follow, now that he is the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party. Did Sand 88 bother to read the essay?

But that said, let's look at what Sand 88 says:

Mitt does not view Capitalism as a positive.

What do you think "Bain Capital" is all about? Do you actually believe that a man who has made immense sums of money via Capitalism; who says he favors our free enterprise system, over & over again, is actually planning to sabotage it? Why?

His former Left-leaning social policies in Massachusetts can at least be explained--though not to his credit--as offering the people what they seemed to want. To his credit would have been to try to lead them to want something different, of course. In short what I propose should be our (Conservatives at Free Republic's) role, in the immediate future.

But, anyway, the flat out rejection of the genuineness of Gov. Romney's apparent move to the right, accomplishes nothing but to undermine the possibility that we can gain ground both with Romney & with the broader public--the sort of move that is always the key to many politicians, who usually follow, seldom lead.

William Flax

[ansel12]

It is a silly article that doesn’t say anything particular other than that you want to jump on the band wagon to promote Romney and put it into your own words, which seems to please you to no end, but it is not a meaningful or insightful blog.

Have a drink with your blog tonight and enjoy yourself.

[Ohioan]

You don't even see how silly you are behaving.

In my #28, to which you responded by accusing me of trying to "jump on the band wagon to promote Romney"--hardly based on any point that I have made--I challenged you to offer your own proposal:

"But why don't you try to actually consider what is the best course for American Conservatives over the next five months?"

I do not have a blog, but I have been moving people to the right since High School. My article speaks not only from a study of political history & technique, but from personal experience. But again, do you have a better suggestion than trying to work with the hand that the Republican Party is dealing us, this year? If not? ---well in deference to the policy at Free Republic, not to insult others, I will not offer you an alternative.

William Flax

[Ohioan]

Thank you for weighing in with some common sense in the discussion. Some people would rather call names than recognize the really stark alternatives facing us.

William Flax

[ansel12]

I’m with JR on this, you can stuff your Mitt Romney, we will be seeking ways to counter what he has in mind for the destruction of conservatism in America, we will be uniting to lessen the damage of his revenge seeking against the right.

[sand88]

What do you think "Bain Capital" is all about? Do you actually believe that a man who has made immense sums of money via Capitalism; who says he favors our free enterprise system, over & over again, is actually planning to sabotage it? Why?

Simple. Because once he was in power, he did nothing but grow the power and size of the government in MA. He severely damaged the business climate in MA.

Mitt's actual record is one of someone who's instinct is always to turn to the State for solutions for every "so called" problems mentioned by the whiners and the MSM.

Just because Mitt has made immense sums of money does not at all translate into Mitt believing that "others" are deserving of immense sums of money; or that Capitalism is the greatest mechanism of advancing civilization.

A person has either have an inherent love of Liberty or an instinct to use government Power to shape society. Mitt's entire life in government is one of increasing the power of the State over the Individual. It is naive to believe that he will change or that he can be influenced.

With Mitt or Obama the end-game of rabid Socialism is inescapable. I am under no illusion that our Republic can be saved, short of some type of total collapse of the bloated, cancerous, and sadistic government that exists at all levels.

We have two paths. On is the current path where we switch between two parties every 4 or 8 years and go into a long socialist decline that will eventually make us into a third world sewer. The other path is the one to Liberty and prosperity. My reading of history has convinced me that Liberty can only be brought about in a rapid manner (a few years max) Some great crisis (government collapse, currency collapse, etc) will make events occur that will severely negate the power of the Federal government. The States will essentially take receivership of an failed bloated bureaucracy. At that point, if reason holds, the EPA and most other evil departments will be dissolved and the associated workers will leave to look for real work.

We can never legislate and transition back to a state of limited government. I cannot think of an instance where it has happened.

It is the nature of government to grow until it consumes enough of its citizen's wealth and Liberties, then it collapses. That's why electing Mitt, or believing in Paul Ryan's foolish "economic plan" or hoping for the right decision from SOCTUS will make any difference. The end-game is set in stone.

[Ohioan]

we will be seeking ways to counter

In short, you do not trust Gov. Romney to do what he says he will do; but your plan of action is something in the future.

Now we have some clarity as to where you are coming from.

Some of us choose to keep working in the right direction, without waiting for the chaos that is rapidly approaching because of the acceleration of hopelessly flawed policies over the past 20 years. (Hopelessly flawed from an American perspective--deliberate from a Marxist, Fabian or "One-worlder" perspective.).

William Flax

[Ohioan]

Your historic theories have some validity, in my opinion; but your case for mistrusting Gov. Romney assumes a type of fixed historic or philosophic perspective, that few, very few, people really have. One could cite not only the penchant of politicians to follow the crowd rather than lead--which is what I have been doing, here. Or one could cite such actual leaders as Bismark or Churchill, whose personal experiences changed them.

But the essential point is this; that you are allowing your theories to induce you to attack others who are trying to make things better in ways that you think not likely to work. Fine. Do not join us.

William Flax

[ansel12]

No, some of you are just old rinos pushing Romney.

It’s just that some of you are more vain and self absorbed about it, and less skilled at coming up with reasons to support him, this is one very dull thread.