Of course you are right. What position does a conservative presidential candidate have to take to energize this great slumbering giant into action?
Is it only national catastrophe that will unite the people?
The people were greatly united after Pearl Harbor. And that unity carried our nation to a great victory. And I remember everyone, Democrats and Republicans alike on the steps of the U.S. Capital singing God Bless America the day after 9/11. And that unity carried our military forces into both Afghanistan and Iraq (which the Democrats conveniently forget today) though victory is a word that has long been absent from the American lexicon.
Victory was not our legacy in Cuba. Victory was not our legacy in Vietnam. Victory was not our legacy in Iraq1, and does not appear to be our legacy in Iraq2, or Afghanistan.
When people wonder what are the signs of American decline, and their brains become numb trying to conceptualize it, our enemies don't have this problem.
America accepted defeat in Vietnam. America accepted defeat in Iraq1. In Americas headlong retreat from Iraq2, we look like we going to accept defeat there. In our headlong retreat from Afghanistan, we look like we are going to accept defeat there. In our determined stance against a nuclear Iran, we look like are going to accept defeat there. In our headlong retreat from the forces of homosexuality, we are clearly accepting defeat on one of the most important fronts of the culture war.
Our nation is clearly not a winner anymore. Our enemies see this, and they are just waiting for the day to put us out of our misery.
I believe that the nation's need for the restoration of our access to the resources of Divine Providence, and the role school prayer must play in that restoration, must play a role in this unity and renewal equation, obviously, from my statements above. Though I think most Christian politicians shake in their boots with terror at the prospect of being laughed out of town if they utter those two words.
But if Christians won't unite around God's Purpose, what will they unite around? They will hold hands only at the prospect of their imminent destruction?
First of all, IMHO, I believe the primary elections are manipulated so that a 'Reagan' never happens again.
Secondly, I think that without Reagan Conservatism, the loosing of the Conservative juggernaut is nearly impossible. Anyone who endeavors to hyphenate Conservatism (including Palin btw) is hyphenating it in order to change what it is:
It is Goldwater libertarianism combined with the Judeo-Christian ethic (primarily Evangelical) in it's conscience, with an adherence to certain and defined principles which, when held ALL TOGETHER, are inclusive of the 3 major Conservative factions (Social Conservatism [SOCON], Financial/Libertarian Conservatism [FICON], and Defense/Foreign Policy Conservatism [DEFCON]).
What Reagan positively defined is the proposition that it does you, the voter, no harm to vote for a candidate that holds not only your principles, but the principles of all of the conservative factions - together in ONE candidate - And Reagan Conservatism is just that:
As a social conservative, you will natively uphold the purposes and principles of the vast Christian Right, but you may well have no interest in financial/libertarian conservatism or defense/foreign policy conservatism... But if you understand what Reagan wrought, you should forego a purely Christian candidate for a candidate which can stand astride all three factions and harness them together. Those factions harnessed together ARE the Conservative juggernaut, which IS unstoppable, and which speaks truths that 60%+ of Americans will hear like a pealing bell.
That candidate will not only hold the principles that you adhere to (inherent within the Christian Right), but will also be acceptable to the FICONS and the DEFCONS, because he adheres to their principles too. Without that 'harnessing together', the juggernaut cannot be formed, and the factions go their separate ways, falling powerlessly back into the vast sea of voters.
So, you see, despite what most folks here cry for, pragmatism, ABO, lesser of 2 evils, it is the purity candidate that is the only chance at a real victory - But not a pure SOCON, not a pure FICON, and not a pure DEFCON - What is needful is a pure Reaganite.
Unfortunately, the NeoCons hold power - NeoConservatism is a euphemism to describe the Baker wing 'moderates' of the Republican Party (Bush, Bush Jr, McCain)- They claim Reagan, but gain their power by division, not by inclusion. They have historically feigned allegiance to the principles of the Christians and Defense conservatives, but have successfully omitted the inclusion of Financial/libertarian conservatives, and with that, have omitted civil-libertarianism from the conscience of most conservative folks today - Something a Reaganite would never do.
But in doing so, NeoCons gain just enough voting power to hold on to power, and without the necessary civil-libertarian element, we spin ever toward the left, as Neocons attempt to consolidate by trying to gain votes form a largely imaginary middle. This is why pragmatism is preached.
But there is hope: The TEA parties are American Conservatives crying out, and it is no coincidence that it is formed largely of civil-libertarianism combined with a still burgeoning Christian Right component. And it is no surprise that they are insistent that their candidates adhere to the principles of those two factions... This is Reaganism's core re-consolidating beyond the reach of the Republican party. And it is my hope that they stand true to their cause and get behind a Conservative presidential candidate, even if it means that a 3rd party is employed.