Repost: "Enough With The Neocon And Paleocon Carping—I'll Stand With George W. Bush In 2004"

FreeRepublic.com ^ | 12/11/03 | Bernard Chapin/Bobby K

[Reaganesque]

Given the heated debate that has been raging over the last few months about who is and who isn't Conservative, I decided to look up some differing opinions on the subject. I found many interesting quotes from various sources but I came across a FR thread from the 2004 election that I feel needed to be reposted. The article and the ensuing discussion (300+ responses) gives an interesting perspective on the current debate about who of the Republican candidates is the "real Conservative." I was particularly struck by a quote from Ronald Reagan that Utah Girl posted on post #53:

"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it. "Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything.

"I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'

"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.

~~ Ronald Reagan, in his autobiography, An American Life

Neo-con, Paleo-Con, whatever. The idea, at least to my and President Reagan's mind, is to successfully implement those programs and ideals that we think would most benefit America. If we can't get a candidate that matches up 100% to our personal definition of what a Conservative is, the answer is not to withhold our vote but to take what we can get and then work with that "flawed" candidate to get the rest of what you want. The alternative is to allow someone who is 100% opposed to your point of view to be elected President of the United States. Does that really make any sense?

So, my question to FR is this:

What is a Conservative?

Who gets to decide this?

Which is more important: To lose utterly and suffer harmful ideological and electoral setbacks, or winning a partial victory and have the ability to advance Conservatism if only slightly? Why?

I am very interested to know what people think on this subject.

So, have at it...

[Reaganesque]

What do you guys think?

[stuartcr]

It’s relative, it depends on which conservative you talk to.

[Reaganesque]

Very much so, apparently. So how can anyone say “you’re not a real Conservative?”

[pissant]

You know what they say about opinions....everyone gots one.

[ejonesie22]

An excellent post. One always hears me talk of Pragmatism. It is a strong quality when one can asses the reality of ones environment, make the best of what is there, recognize the fights that can be won and plan for the fights of another day.

Wasting all on the impossible make the rest that is probable moot. There is no one left to achieve it.

There is the way things are and the way things ought to be. Deal with the first, dream of the latter...

[Reaganesque]

Very true! ;-)

[ejonesie22]

Seems to only take a computer and an Internet connection to FR...

[mnehring]

IMHO

A Conservative is someone who believes in the value and power of the individual over the system.

Everything else we believe or do rolls right back to that core belief.

[mysterio]

What do you guys think?

I think picking someone "electable" has set back the small government conservative movement back at least 40 years.

[ejonesie22]

Just like belly buttons...

And a**holes ;-)

[Calpernia]

I am a Bushy.

[mnehring]

We had a joke (fight) a while back about what is a RINO and we came to the conclusion that the RINO is actually the species designation as the R is a mythological creature that doesn’t exist. At least, a real R doesn’t exist if you apply every ‘value’ that people here have stated turn someone from a R to a RINO.

[Reaganesque]

There is the way things are and the way things ought to be. Deal with the first, dream of the latter...

Well put. Thanks!

[TChris]

What do you guys think?

I think President Hinckley put it best: Vote for the candidate who best represents your ideas of good government.

That said, one factor in deciding who to vote for should be electability. It seems silly to vote for the exact match to your political beliefs if the candidate has 0.2% chance of winning.

It's most realistic to support the guy who's near the top and matches your ideals most of the time.

Reagan wasn't great because he was perfect, but because he did most of what he did very well, and for the right reasons.

[Reaganesque]

OK. Why?

[RS]

“Which is more important: To lose utterly and suffer harmful ideological and electoral setbacks, or winning a partial victory and have the ability to advance Conservatism if only slightly? Why?”

This is a no-brainer ....

The first choice leaves you worse off, minimizes any possible input you may have in the future, and emboldens your opponants - there is no such thing as a “partial loss”

[pissant]

As long as everyone understands that my opinion is superior, we’ll all get along.

[ejonesie22]

If no one that was even marginally conservative was elected in the last 40 years, there would be no Conservative movement left, at least not one that was made up of anybody not in the fringe of the movement, and that would be a very small number as of now.

You have to be in the game to play it......

[mysterio]

Because the central plank that united all conservatives was smaller, less intrusive government. Our current President has expanded government as much as LBJ. He was electable and is a decent person, certainly. But he’s not conservative.