[LowCountryJoe]

Then you have Newt Gingrigh out there saying the same thing and advocating a conservative separatist movement. The problem is, what Gingrich is proposing is really a plan to become more like populist Democrats -- Huckabee conservatives. I wrote the following in September on a different blog:

I took the opportunity to see Newt Gingrich (and some others) kick off his Solutions for America program which, for me, was moderately disappointing because of the large amount of populist drivel that was being pushed -- the largest applause lines were rhetoric concerning getting tough on illegal immigrants and allowing the teaching of God back in public schools while shrinking the size and scope of federal government and social security choice options garnered much less in comparison. This was in Atlanta, by the way.

Anyhow, just toward the tail end of the event, as Newt appeared as though his was wrapping up his speech, some guy from the audience in a suit (with clipboard and pen) stands up and says something that I couldn't quite hear. The gentleman repeats himself as the rest of the audience wonders just what in hell he's doing: "Mr. Speaker, will you be taking questions?". Newt, appearing not to have rehearsed this, basically tells the guy that, no, he's not going to be taking questions and that he's almost done with his speech. And then Newt says to the guy, after a short pause, "But I am going to be doing a book signing after the event, in the lobby, and you can catch up with me there."

I think that the guy was a plant, myself. I find myself susceptible to certain conspiracy theories whenever and wherever marketing is involved (and also at Vegas-style shows when weird 'random' events seem to happen with audience members being incorporated into the act somehow.

Will Newt run? I don't think so; he seems committed to bringing ordinary Democrats and ordinary Republicans (and everyone else, for that matter) to the table to propose solutions to America's biggest problems. I just have this feeling that the 'solutions' that people will come up with will rarely include allowing markets to facilitate optimal results.

No joke, at this event, the statements that garnered the least amount of applause...privatizing Social Security and limiting the size of government. What does that tell you about the state of conservatives? What does it tell you when the state of the Right has denigrated into perpetual pessimism; that people like Pat Buchanan can rail against capitalism being harmful and it gets traction; that somehow Romney and Huckabee (or, Coulter even sarcastically saying, Hillary) are more conservative than is McCain [Lord do I hate to defend McCain here but it is a legitimate gripe].

Conservatism, if really dead, is only dead because the people in the movement -- and not its leaders -- have embraced the idea of using government to achieve agendas and have instead rejected liberty.

When voters do this kind of thing, is it no wonder that the politicians will give the people what they want? Politicians pander and will deliver the goods that they believe their constituents want. And you know what, we're getting it! Republicans rejected Fred Thompson and Thompson believed he had to toughen his message on immigrants to make it as far as he did.

Nope, conservatism is not dead, classical liberalism is. If you doubt this and think that Reagan wasn't a classical liberal, then I really suggest you go and read (or re-read or listen to) his speeches. Liberty is what is dead. Conservatism lives...conservatism in its classical definition.

[LowCountryJoe]

I forgot the entire part about Gingrich sidling up to Democrats by soliciting their advice and having them give introduction and speeches at this event. Don’t forget, the ‘limited government’ Gingrich is one of the Medicare expansion’s biggest champions. What does that tell you?

[ovrtaxt]

Conservatism, if really dead, is only dead because the people in the movement -- and not its leaders -- have embraced the idea of using government to achieve agendas and have instead rejected liberty. When voters do this kind of thing, is it no wonder that the politicians will give the people what they want? Politicians pander and will deliver the goods that they believe their constituents want. And you know what, we're getting it!

Excellent post.

[Gondring]

This post, along with ovrtaxt's #3, hit the nail on the head.

Liberty is what is dead. Conservatism lives...conservatism in its classical definition.

With many FReepers--and presidential candidates--advocating authoritarianist positions and slapping aside individual rights--all the while claiming to revere Ronald Reagan--the effect is a smearing of what Reagan stood for. My prediction is that over time, we'll find the true Reagan Legacy distorted, and most people thinking he believed in things for which he would have felt antipathy.

[Gondring]

ping

[Jack Black]

like Pat Buchanan can rail against capitalism being harmful

That is a gross distortion of Pat's position. Pat is not a lassie fair capitalist, that is true. Neither were many of the founders. Neither were many great Republicans. Neither were many conservatives. The WSJ "free trade uber alles" crowd would like to demonize anyone that points out how poorly the current system of US Citizens forced subsidization of third world dictatorships via mechanisms like NAFTA is working.

It's a very tired refrain. I guess slavish adherence to a economic principle is what neo-cons believe is patriotism?

[rob777]

"Nope, conservatism is not dead, classical liberalism is. If you doubt this and think that Reagan wasn't a classical liberal, then I really suggest you go and read (or re-read or listen to) his speeches. Liberty is what is dead. Conservatism lives...conservatism in its classical definition."


BUMP!!! May I add that many have come to equate conservatism with populism. For such "conservatives", it is OK to use big government as long as it is to the benefit of "our" people.