Replies

For this reason, I think I’ll pass on the deli this time around and try the tea shop down the road.

As I stated earlier, Romney was not on my list. I didn't vote for him in the primary, and I'm not at all delusional that he is a conservative.

That said, we don't have a parliamentary system. In our system, everyone except the winner is a loser. Getting 5 non-Marxist candidates, each getting 15% of the vote makes us a loser every day of the week, and the Marxist wins.

My friend, I do feel your frustration and your anger. I share it, but this is a war we are in and this just one of the battles on its field.

Was Romney a great choice? Neither of us think so. Will he be "The One" that will turn everything around? No. But we are Constitutionalists and we don't rely on "The One". Such political concepts do not become us or our ideas. What I believe you seek, as do I, is the end of the imperial presidency, and a return to Constitutional government.

Looking at history, we fell off the path 100 years ago and have moved ever farther from it since, all down hill. The journey back to the ridge-line isn't going to quick or easy.

We have to take power away from the Federal government. Push the most conservative candidate you can in the primaries, and then pick the best of the bad choices in the general (if you must). Voting for Romney doesn't make Romney "my man", it makes me pragmatic.

What do I see pragmatic in that vote:
1. The larger the margin of victory for Romney, the larger Republican gains are likely to be in the House and Senate, and that is where real power resides (we need 60 conservative Senators to even start moving up the path).
2. We are bankrupt and the economy is more likely to implode than not in the next 4 years. I do NOT want a Marxist at the helm.
3. #2 is inevitable. Bankruptcy is a powerful tool for fiscal discipline, which is also a primary mover for restricted government. Obama will open the bilge cocks on the ship, before changing its course.

No one is asking you to like Romney, just to play the cards you've been dealt the best way possible. The outcome of Romney losing because a 3rd party conservative got 1-5% of the vote will not be massive epiphany by Country Club Republicans that they must back a conservative next time. They will just move farther to the Left.

I suggest channeling energy into long term tactics for changing the Zeitgeist of American political thought. Put money and energy into conservative causes that get our message out. Bad things are coming, and people are going to be receptive to change. We need to be ready to educate them when and however possible. Short term, I beseech you to make the best of bad options. I would point you to Churchill's position on Stalin's Russia after 1941.

There can be a point made for allowing Obama to win, so that he can reap the coming firestorm, but I don't think that is wise. History has shown that a socialist minded people do not suddenly become capitalist purveyors of freedom when confronted with collapse. With the media acting as Obama's propaganda network, I think that a majority (or enough) of the American populace is far more likely to back a move to nationalization and total government control. Think this strategy out long and hard, if it is what you have in mind.

Voting for Romney doesn't make Romney "my man", it makes me pragmatic. What do I see pragmatic in that vote: 1. The larger the margin of victory for Romney, the larger Republican gains are likely to be in the House and Senate, and that is where real power resides (we need 60 conservative Senators to even start moving up the path).

I commend you on your honesty. Unlike most hostile "you-must-vote-for-Romney" types, you at least admit that your voting is based on pragmatism and not principles. Although I came to a different decision on how to vote, at least, I can understand why you came to your decision.

I disagree with your reasoning in #1 above. Actually, a far better outcome for conservatives would be for Romney to squeak by with the thinnest of margins while Tea Party conservatives win handily. Even the Romney people would realize that the people didn't want him and only voted for Romney because he wasn't Obama. The mandate would lie with the Tea Partiers who were elected to block the big-government agenda of both Romney and Obama. Romney would realize that he must take a hard turn to the right or else. If Romney wins big, he concludes that he has a mandate, governs by his instincts (which we all know are leftist), and uses his clout as President to force the Tea Party to his position.

Make no mistake about it - I don't want either of these clowns as President. However, I think that my strategy of withholding a vote from a Republican candidate who pushes liberal policies while voting for conservatives down the ticket is a wise one and does more for conservatism in the long run than blindly voting for Romney because he has an R behind his name.

Hey SampleMan, I appreciate your honesty, as well as your willingness to set aside polemic for the sake of conservatism. I agree that we are kindred spirits struggling with the hand we have been dealt this time around. Like you, I want what is best for this country.

I also believe that our approach has been colored by our respective experiences as conservative activists. Since you have been honest about yours, I am more than happy to share some of mine.

This is not my first time at FR. I was a member years ago and posted occasionally. Cannot recall my handle at the time, and the email address I had registered under has long since become defunct. Then I married a conservative subject of Her Majesty the Queen. Sadly, conservatism in the British Empire had all but collapsed.

So I left FR about twelve years ago to help my spouse rebuild the conservative movement in the UK, Canada and Australia. At the time it seemed like the right thing to do. Dubya had just been elected President, and both the House and the Senate were firmly in Republican hands. Plus conservative Republicans were winning at state, county and municipal levels. However, conservatism among our English-speaking allies was in shambles.

This troubled me because I felt that conservatism in America was always strongest when we have strong conservative allies internationally who share our values. Probably the best recent example is the Reagan-Thatcher alliance, which also included Mulroney in Canada (more of a CINO, but as conservative as one got in Canada at the time).

This experience helping to build the conservative movement among our traditional British/Canadian/Australian allies was a real eye-opener for me. One of the first things I learned was that conservatism had been destroyed in these countries not by leftist politicians representing leftist parties, but by CINOs and leftists who had taken over the various “Conservative” parties. One of the first things they did, once elected to office, was to purge the Conservative parties of actual conservatives.

The second harsh lesson I learned is that CINO’s seldom remain static or shift to the right once elected. In the vast majority of cases, they shift to the left. Hence the current situation in Britain where the “Conservative” government of David Cameron is leading the state persecution of Christians and Muslims who continue to stand for traditional marriage. Once a party is taken over by CINO’s, it becomes almost impossible for principled conservatives to take back the party. In fact, this was something recognized by President Reagan, who steadfastly refused to compromise with Rockefeller Republicans. At a minimum, it takes years and years of activism within the party, followed then by years of activism among the more general public.

A third lesson, which should not surprise any serious student of conservatism since Russell Kirk pointed it out decades ago, is that a nation’s conservative movement rises and falls on the strength of its commitment to social conservatism. Even the most economically marxist social conservative will shift to fiscal conservatism over time, due to real-life experience and the strength of fiscal conservative argument, if he feels that social conservative principles are securely adhered to. On the other hand, a fiscally conservative politician who sells out social conservatism will almost always in time - in order to retain political office - sell out one’s previously held fiscally conservative values. The reason that such a politician, while rejecting communism, has bought into its ideological mother - that is, cultural marxism.

Finally, the fourth lesson is that it communist and socialist government are sometimes the best reality check for voters, and that sometimes we must tolerate (but never support) such government for a time, in order to bring about principled conservative government. I believe it is no coincidence that Reagan arose in the aftermath of Jimmy Carter, or in the U.K. that Lady Thatcher was elected following the disastrous prime ministerships of Harold Wilson and James Callaghan. Of course the best example from Canada is Mike Harris’ election following the premiership of Bob Rae. And who could forget John Howard’s four terms as Australia’s prime minister after Paul Keating?

So I’m not as concerned about stopping Obama as I am about replacing him with a true conservative. In my experience the bigger danger is electing a RINO or CINO, since when elected they usually set conservatism back several years. I’ve had several British friends flee to Canada and the U.S. in recent years because the current “Conservative” government has proven to be just as fiscally leftist and socially marxist as the Labour Government under Gordon Brown.

Likewise, it took the conservative movement in Canada something like 25 years to take back the federal government after Mulroney turned CINO and destroyed conservatism from within the Progressive Conservative Party - Canada’s historically conservative party at the time. First principled conservatives had to split off from the CINO government that had destroyed the Conservative brand among voters and found a new party. Then they had to suffer through inept Liberal rule for a decade, then a few more years of Liberal-socialist-marxist coalition rule, then minority conservative governments for a few years that was limited by three leftist parties holding a collective majority of seats. In other words, every time the conservatives wanted to pass legislation they had to negotiate with at least one of the three left-wing parties for support.

My fear is that America is headed in the same direction with Romney, that Britain has gone with David Cameron, or Canada with Brian Mulroney once he turned CINO. What is needed is a Reagan or Thatcher or Harper.