Many on the right – and even some on the left – have decried the lack of a strong leader for the conservative party in America (note I didn’t say the Republican party). Michael Steele, the recent elected chairman of the RNC, has been under attack lately. Some are upset that he is trying to be too “moderate”, while others are wondering why, if he is supposed to be such a great communicator, he keeps letting himself get tripped up by the media, who is arguably out to destroy him and all things right.
Having been politically aware for only the last 6 months or so of my 50+ years, I nonetheless have given quite a bit of thought lately to the question of how to define conservatives in America. What do we believe? What is important to us? What are the principles that we cannot or should not compromise? How do we attract people away from the pseudo messiah of “hope” and “change”? Who can best represent us as our leader?
Every time that a likely leader emerges from the conservative side, the liberals start an overt search and destroy campaign. Consider the attacks on Sarah Palin last fall, and more recently, Bobby Jindal. And the laughable media campaign to smear Rush Limbaugh. Whoever ultimately represents the conservatives in 2012 will have to have a spirit of steel to stand up to the constant assault. I am confident that such a person will emerge, and will likely be victorious, especially if the current administration continues the march to communism that it seems to be pursuing. In the meantime, whom do we look to for inspiration and leadership?
I came across an article written by Paul Shlichta on AmericanThinker.com (here). Written in response to the left’s attempt to demonize Rush Limbaugh, Paul has some very wise observations, which I quote below:
“The truth is that conservatives generally don’t have a single leader. They are united by their devotion to the rights of individual citizens, their adherence to traditional morality and the principles of republican government, and their opposition to socialistic meddling with individual freedom. But within that framework of belief, they tolerate and even encourage a diversity of views about specific issues and approaches.
Therefore, no one person can be called the “voice” of Republicans, because they tolerate a broad range of opinions about many issues. No one person can be called “the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party” because that role belongs to the conservative-moderate majority of the American people.
Even the most charismatic conservative leaders, like Ronald Reagan, considered themselves first among equals and were open to criticism and debate about policies. We must remember that we did not have a single Founding Father but a group of more than a dozen who, with much public discussion and compromise, collectively hammered out our Constitution and laws.”
I think this is sage advice for Michael Steele, and for every single conservative. What is our strength is our diversity – or at least our potential for diversity. Aside from the fundamental principles of freedom, liberty, fiscal responsibility, small government, and a fair amount of disdain of the government sticking its nose in our business, there are a variety of views on social, moral, and cultural issues. It is the liberals who will not tolerate any dissenting views to their radical agenda.
I am morally offended only when members of the Republican party think they can appeal to “moderates” by voting in favor of larger government and increased spending. This was the biggest mistake conservatives made during the past eight years, and I think most of us have admitted this, and are trying to repent. I am certain that our founding fathers did not agree on every single issue, but they agreed on the important issues. We would do well to remember this, and apply it to our platform.
Moe Lane
Steve Maley
Dan McLaughlin
Neil Stevens
Daniel Horowitz
Awesome write up.
Steph C (Diary) Thursday, March 12th at 5:34PM EST (link)The one greatest thing about Reagan, whom most conservatives look to as the conservatives’ Conservatire was his faith in the people of this nation and the way he empowered all of us to be the best we can be.
Liberals have been beating us up ever since and it’s working because it keeps us down, angry and impotent, instead of spreading that message of empowerment.
“[I]f the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them.” –Candidus in the Boston Gazette, 1772
Hillbilly Politics
amen, and this personality vs values dichotomy is a main difference I have noted
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Thursday, March 12th at 6:14PM EST (link)since my switch in 2000. Republicans care about issues, where as Dems are much more prone to falling in love with their candidates due to feelings.
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
excellent diary, HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!
pilgrim (Diary) Thursday, March 12th at 5:50PM EST (link)I would only like to expand on the principles of Republican government by quoting what Rep. Thaddeus McCotter recently said on Fox:
ditto and that quote you posted is awesome - nt
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Thursday, March 12th at 6:14PM EST (link)Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
ditto on the article and quote here too
Beaglescout (Diary) Thursday, March 12th at 10:46PM EST (link)I’m also a recently awakened conservative, though my awakening was in 2005 instead of 2008. I really enjoy reading or hearing the first intellectual steps of newly hatched conservatives after they’ve pecked their way out of the pop-media’s knee-jerk left-liberal shell.
Of course you realize this makes you one of the most-hated of all political birds in this nation and world, a neo-conservative. That just means you used to be other than a conservative, but woke up. Lefties hate you for escaping the Matrix. Country-Club cons hate you for challenging their country-club hail-fellow-well-met acceptance of political limbo for a regime of gubmint regulations against their business competitors, and the opportunity to not have to think. And paleo-cons hate you because you may be a free thinker or may even agree with Ron Paul on some points (gasp!).
But we know that our principle-based conservatism is the only truthful intellectual current in today’s politics. Everything else is some shade of socialist caveman economics combined with a collectivist dictatorship of the mob. And that’s not where I want to live even with the best possible mob in charge. Because they won’t always be in charge.
Repeal the 17th!
Recommended!
“A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.”
I really like that quote.
Praying (Diary) Thursday, March 12th at 6:43PM EST (link)thanks for sharing it, and to all you guys for your kind words on my post. I am humbled!
No!!!11!1!!1!1! The Bilderbergers are coming
Despite the prose, it has become more grey to me.
Rod_Patrick (Diary) Thursday, March 12th at 7:21PM EST (link)How serious can we say “diversity”?
I’m not sure if we can really invite people that are not generally construed as conservatives. The following are some aspects of “diversity”among voters with some of the issues in establishing consensus.
My observation is this.
1.While diversity of race is easiest, we have failed to attract non-whites in the last election. But I think it’s because of other cross-cutting issues.
2. Diversity will lose our own identity as a party.
3. Diversity makes our policy harder to defend.
4. Diversification can have a collateral damage of further dividing us all.
Are we ready to sacrifice some? Or, are we really willing to sacrifice some?
I was hoping to get away from naming and calling out all the issues...
Praying (Diary) Thursday, March 12th at 7:58PM EST (link)Because really, I think, the social issues should not BE part of the platform – government should not have a say except to protect our personal life, liberty, and freedom, and to protect us from threats from other countries. I am not trying to advocate that we can – or should – be all things to all people. There are, and need to be, two parties. I just think we are getting so hung up on the trees that we’re unable to see the forest. I agree that some of the aspects you mention are difficult, but in defense of my reasoning:
*financial/economic. This is the one thing that absolutely has to define the conservative movement. I agree – you MUST ascribe to less government, less taxes. No discussion required.
*charity/pro poor – this is a financial issue. Fiscal responsibility. Lower taxes, as above. Why should we pay taxes so the government can provide for people who will not provide for themselves? A safety net, sure, but 3 generations of a welfare state? NO! To undo Welfare Reform? NO! Charity begins at home, which is why conservatives are so much more likely to donate to charities. Keep the tax deduction as it is currently.
* Climate change mitigation – I consider this s financial issue – fiscal responsibility. Climate change is a political hoax. CO2 is not a pollutant. No need for cap and trade. Focus on the financial. The country cannot afford to enforce a policy that is not even proven.
*Defense – this is another thing I believe all conservatives can be united on. We must have a strong defense to protect our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. If someone bombs us and kills 3000 people, they should be punished. We should also respect and are proud of our armed forces.
* Religion. Freedom of. Judeo-Christian foundations of our country. You are free to have no religion, or have other religions, you are NOT free to limit our ability to express our religion. That was never the intent of the 1st amendment. The muslim extremists concern me greatly too – and I’m not sure what to do about that.
* race – agree we are post racial. Need to re-package our message. Why do African Americans vote with the party that brought the KKK? Hispanics have high work ethic, strong families, and strong faith. So do we. Need to package the message better.
* Illegal aliens – why can’t they come in legally, like people did for 200 years? Perhaps if we got away from all the gov’t interventions/handouts, and got back to fiscal responsibility, there would be less incentive for folks to risk their lives sneaking across the border. I don’t know if illegals are “criminal” but they have clearly broken the law to enter the U.S.
* Unions – anti-capitalist organizations. Unions have, at least in the past, invited more control, and more government control of industry. We are smaller government minded people, remember?
*gay/lesbian, pro abortion, etc. These matters should never even come up for discussion. If they do, the correct response is “That’s an interesting question, why do you ask?” and then “I think those are deeply personal issues. I believe that the conservative party stands for fiscal responsibility, smaller government, personal responsibility, freedom and liberty.” Repeat as many times as necessary.
Hope that helps?
No!!!11!1!!1!1! The Bilderbergers are coming
Ha ha ha!
Rod_Patrick (Diary) Thursday, March 12th at 9:23PM EST (link)Yes, it surely helps in many ways. But I think the main purpose of my point is to respond to the idea of
“toleration and diversity” that allows “variety of views on social, moral, and cultural issues.”
I’ve been in at least 3 diaries today and I have realized that the current disagreements among the readers/commenters are due to our varying levels of toleration on social and moral issues vis-a-vis traditional conservative beliefs.
If we look back in the 2008 election, these were the topical areas where the Dems outsmarted us, besides the recession and the Bush fatigue. Our very positions against victimhood were successfuly used by the Dems as a way to paint us as a party of “hate and intolerance.” Such seeming weakness in presenting our case to the public were the reasons why even some of in our conservative base (Protestants) voted against our candidates.
In my viewpoint, we can nolonger dismiss the question of our real positions in social issues particularly on caring for the poor, gay rights, and illegal immigration. Yes, we can always dismiss them as “only minorities” but they tend to influence a far larger group of voters. For example, illegal aliens are closer to the hearts of many Latino and Asian Americans. Many in the Jewish block find us as lacking in specific programs that tend the poor sector other than charities. Women, who rely on victimhood, are of course closer to the Dems. Of course, I may be wrong on these issues. While we can have some good soundbites like “give me, give me” (I use them too btw), the same may even tax us more in the eyes of these kind of voters.
This is the reason why I enumerated some issue items that you have expounded quite nicely. I might have misinterpreted your diary, but I think the definition of conservatism that you have presented offers some light on current party issues we are facing right now, such as Michael Steele’s gaffes, the call for “big tent”, and the pundit’s charge of “permanent minority”.
If Redstate’s objective is to advance conservatism,, I think it’s fitting that we tackle these issues once and make a unified stand. Political machinery is not enough. We need a better message to the people.
Nevertheless, I generally agree on your explanations per issue..
Excellent post ... except for the social part
tcgeol (Diary) Friday, March 13th at 8:06PM EST (link)While there is no reason to demand exact uniformity on social issues, they have to play a part. They aren’t just personal issues. A personal issue is whether or not you should take a different job, not whether abortion should be permissable, homosexual marriage, or issues of that nature.
Federalism allows some variation without a problem, which is why we have to hammer it into the nation’s consciousness. We must have federallism in order to have any hope of a conservative future. Even in the best circumstances, though, federalism isn’t enough. In a federalist society, one person still is going to believe that abortion is murder and should be illegal and someone else will still hold the opinion that abortion is perfectly acceptable and there should be no more restriction on it than on buying aspirin.
Federalism doesn’t solve these issues. Issues like this are going to depend on your worldview. Conservatism and liberalism both have distinct worldviews, and are going to influence these decisions. We don’t have the option to ignore them and be intellectually honest. No, we won’t all exactly agree, but there will be a general consensus of opinion based on the general shared worldview.
Just your typical bitter gun- and God-clinger
Even the Left admits we’re Right
OK, I got off point in my reply to Rod_Patrick
Praying (Diary) Friday, March 13th at 10:03PM EST (link)The initial point of my diary, which has apparently been lost in the comment thread, was that we seem to be looking for a single person to “lead us” – and the thing I appreciated in the text I quoted was that just as the country was founded not by a single person but by a group of founding fathers, perhaps we need a “group of more than a dozen who, with much public discussion and compromise, collectively hammered out our Constitution and laws.” That’s all.
Somehow Reagan appealed to those who were not far right on social issues while not compromising his core beliefs. I have always considered myself conservative, and always voted Republican – but never paid much attention to politics until 6 months ago. I’m not trying to set the policy for the conservative movement. Besides, there are far more things that UNITE conservatives than those that DIVIDE them, I think it is far better to concentrate on the fundamental things that UNITE us.
No!!!11!1!!1!1! The Bilderbergers are coming
I agree with the main premise of your diary.
tcgeol (Diary) Friday, March 13th at 10:19PM EST (link)I think that it was well done. Its just that we can’t ignore the social parts and act like they don’t exist as a party or philosophy. We do have to face them and it does cause intraparty problems. We saw that the last election, especially with Giuliani and Romney.
As far as preaching to the general public about the philosophy of conservatism, I think you are right on.
Just your typical bitter gun- and God-clinger
Even the Left admits we’re Right
generally agree, but I don't think the intra-party problems of Rudy and Mitt are significant on this point
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Friday, March 13th at 10:39PM EST (link)I do think that Rudy probably never had a chance due to his pro-choice position but as to Mitt, I think he made tactical mistakes by being in Iowa so long and giving up in NH and SC too soon and due to his lack of TIME as a pro-lifer.
I think the so-called problem of pro-lifers in the party is red herring pushed by the left and by a tiny minority of psuedo-conservative pundits and ignorant non-pseudos.
The facts are that most so-cons are also fiscal cons. The pro-life position is actually in the ascendency in polls. So-cons are the most loyal in the GOP.
It is a myth that so-cons were in any way responsible for our party’s recent losses.
We moved left from 2004-2006 and we nominated the champion of the moderates in 2008. and we lost due to that
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Giuliani was a pretty rare bird
tcgeol (Diary) Friday, March 13th at 11:03PM EST (link)Very few people are fiscally conservative without being socially conservative, at least to an extent. He was to a degree. That pertains to the above, I think.
I’m a pretty hard-core socon, so I agree entirely with you otherwise.
Just your typical bitter gun- and God-clinger
Even the Left admits we’re Right
thanks. The primary was before I had my political awakening
Praying (Diary) Friday, March 13th at 10:41PM EST (link)so I will take your word on the problems with Guiliani and Romney (I voted for Huckabee). In my heart I know you’re right – we will need to address the social issues too, but after Obama gets done wrecking our economy, bankrupting our grandchildren, and growing government by 600,000 + employees and gosh knows how many new programs,and sending us down the road to communism, I think we’ll have some larger issues to tackle first!
No!!!11!1!!1!1! The Bilderbergers are coming
The main reality about addressing the social issues is that it is 90% a Supreme Court issue, legally
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Friday, March 13th at 10:47PM EST (link)So that, unless and until we can appoint one more anti-Roe justice, we can’t really deliver in any other way, on the state of the until then. After Roe is reversed, then the issue movs to the states.
But we can and must not abandon our pro-life position in the platform.
Yes, as a matter of emphasis, its the economy and national security that must be emphasized.
One thing we should always remember on life is that even if we reverse Roe, in the final analysis, we have to persuade people morally that they should reject abortion.
We can do that now, without any new laws. Unlike on the economy and security.
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
And the winner is...
Praying (Diary) Friday, March 13th at 10:57PM EST (link)Mike Gamecock DeVine. Were you one of those Debate Club kids in school?
Cuz you’re good.
No!!!11!1!!1!1! The Bilderbergers are coming
A childhood friend of mine said he knew I would be a lawyer
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Friday, March 13th at 11:13PM EST (link)because I talked a stop sign into yeilding at age 16!
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Exactly right
tcgeol (Diary) Friday, March 13th at 10:59PM EST (link)nt
Just your typical bitter gun- and God-clinger
Even the Left admits we’re Right
YES! That's the tack we need to take
Jeff Weimer (Diary) Sunday, March 15th at 10:43PM EST (link)Vis-a-vis abortion.
Maybe distill it into something along the lines of “We believe abortion is morally wrong, but as a matter of governance and government (and that’s the business the party is in), the Republican party believes the federal government should be silent on the issue. We believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned and the issue dealt with by the states as they see fit.”
God, I wish Steele would have said something like that last week!
Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices.
-Voltaire
Praying I think we might be brothers
AKSteveB (Diary) Saturday, March 14th at 12:52AM EST (link)of a different mother. As for Romney, pretty much same here, I didn’t pay a lot of attention to the inside baseball in primary season. GC did have the correct response below though. This is a SC issue. People go too far with the identity politics (aka is this person someone who seems like me). Would he pick Federalist judges. A Federalist judge will reverse Roe V. Wade, whatever their person pro life pro choice viewpoint. Federalism was always my hobby horse, even when I was in the middle.
Hell is other people – Sartre
Except that we'd be brother and sister...
Praying (Diary) Saturday, March 14th at 3:59PM EST (link)I’ve got to do something about my image. People seem to keep thinking I’m a guy. No offense taken – it’s an honest mistake when one chooses a rather gender-neutral name!!
ME:
No!!!11!1!!1!1! The Bilderbergers are coming
I try very hard not to talk about the pro-life/pro-choice position.
Steph C (Diary) Saturday, March 14th at 7:48AM EST (link)I have some ambivalence about it myself. I think it’s murder, plain and simple, and once conceived, we have a duty to the child that will result. Other people don’t see it that way. They think of it as a clump of cells that may or may not have the potential for human life.
And no amount of reasoned debate is ever going to change their minds, no matter how hard we try.
Remember: Life, libery, and the pursuit of happiness were important enough a concept the founding fathers included them in our founding documents.
The problem is not what we think or they think. The problem is: Do we have the right to force them to our belief in the way they have worked to force us to their belief? And they have forced us to their belief since we pay an enormous amount of taxes funding this atrocity.
It would be a good thing to adamantly call for states’ rights on this issue, even as we cry for the lost lives who never had a chance. It’s not a perfect solution. A perfect solution would be every child wanted from the moment of conception, but the world being what it is, I don’t think we’ll ever get to that point.
I put this in the same context of forced religion, which is another area the left is working on and winning as case after case after case in the courts is telling people they don’t have the right to pray in a public place because they might offend someone who is a nonbeliever, or of a different religion, and all under the guise of tolerance.
I’m not calling for compromise or tolerance on this issue, really, but bringing it back to the states where it really belongs and let the people decide. Outlawing it completely won’t stop it happening, just as it’s never stopped drug addictions or prostitution, or alcoholism, or… It will simply be relegated back to the back ally abortions that happened well before this became a well known social issue. Is that what everyone wants?
Cry for the unborn whose lives have been cruelly snuffed out but recognize that there are some things no one can control but the individual making that choice and if they choose not to, there is no number of laws that’s going to change their minds. If there were, we’d all be one religion, wouldn’t we?
“[I]f the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them.” –Candidus in the Boston Gazette, 1772
Hillbilly Politics
I loved this
Amy Miller (Diary) Thursday, March 12th at 11:37PM EST (link)‘Nuff said.
“I’m a conservative, I’m a textualist, I’m an originalist, but I’m not a nut.”
~Scalia, J.
Excellent!
Whitehorse (Diary) Friday, March 13th at 12:32AM EST (link)I regret that I have only one username to recommend this diary!
If you look closely at the qoute in your post
redware Friday, March 13th at 10:28AM EST (link)Shlikta includes traditional morality in his definition of conservatism.Traditional morality in our nation has always been pro-life,pro marriage between a man and a woman,and enforcement of our anti-drug laws.Your failure to include social issues in the definition of conservatism is exactly our problem.Socons,fiscons,and neocons have cannibalized the movement and the result -losses in ’06 and ’08.We failed to keep the GOP in line with all three areas of conservatism and the Republican leadership buckled to moderation.Additionally,we failed to agree on a single candidate to counter McCain,and look where that got us.Ronald Reagan built his conservative coalition not by compromising his principles but by the brilliance by which he articulated them-and social conservative issues were certainly at the heart of his message.
You're right -
Praying (Diary) Friday, March 13th at 3:50PM EST (link)“their adherence to traditional morality …” But Ronald Reagan was willing to accept that if Republicans could agree on 80% of the issues, that was good enough. I don’t think you will ever get total consensus on all areas of conservatism. What cannot be compromised is fiscal responsibility, smaller government, and personal freedom and liberties. Where we went wrong in 2006 and 2008 was in trying to be “moderate” in all three areas – and we just looked like the store brand light version of the democrats. Those undecided or independent opted to buy the name brand product, even if it was a democrat. We have to insist on remaining a name brand product, not a “light” version of what the dems are offering..
No!!!11!1!!1!1! The Bilderbergers are coming
And you are apparently willing to lose the
redware Friday, March 13th at 6:01PM EST (link)support of those conservatives who also believe in the fourth area on which we must never compromise-our commitment to life,traditional marriage,and respect for law and order.Social conservatives are leaving the GOP in frightening numbers,angry over feeling they have been slighted by effete snobs among the conservative intelligentsia.Reagan was a politician-he recognized the need to compromise in order to advance his agenda-but he never compromised his core beliefs.If you want a libertarian party one already exists.We conservatives will fight you tooth and nail for control of the GOP!
Whoa! Believe me, I am as socially conservative as they come
Praying (Diary) Friday, March 13th at 9:50PM EST (link)I just think it is unwise to make abortion and gay marriage (both of which I am vehemently opposed to) the central plank of the platform when there are far more critical issues – issues that we all agree on – like getting a grip on our spiraling debt, stopping the choking growth of government, providing a strong national defense, and preserving our freedoms and liberties as stated in the Constitution.
Somehow Reagan appealed to those who were not far right on social issues while, as you point out, not compromising his core beliefs. I have always considered myself conservative, and always voted Republican – but never paid much attention to politics until 6 months ago. I’m not trying to set the policy for the conservative movement. The point of my diary, which seems to have been lost in your comments, was to say that there may not be one single person who can speak for all conservatives, just as there was not one founding father, but rather a group.
Besides, there are far more things that UNITE conservatives than those that DIVIDE them, I think it is far better to concentrate on the fundamental things that UNITE us. If you are willing to throw me, who is about as far right as anyone, out of the conservative group because I am trying to minimize the divisive issues, well then, maybe that is your opinion, but you might want to ask yourself if your attitude couldn’t be part of the problem?
No!!!11!1!!1!1! The Bilderbergers are coming
Whoa! I'd have never guessed from your
redware Saturday, March 14th at 6:59AM EST (link)previous posts that you were a social conservative in addition to being conservative in all the other areas.It’s just not too often that you find people who are opposed to abortion and gay marriage unwilling to stand up and fight on those issues.As for worrying about uniting conservatives-how many do you know that don’t agree with us on these social issues?And what are we to do about the platform-put it in small print with a caveat not to talk about them.Last time I looked the platform had many central planks,and did not discriminate against those which might be somehow divisive.And by the way,I am not willing to throw any one out of the party(as if I could),but at the same time I am not afraid to lose a few who walk away from it because we take a stand upon which an overwhelming number of us agree.I’m all for having a big GOP tent and everyone is welcome to stand under it.Just don’t try to change the color from red to blue,or some hue in between.The difference in our attitudes,it would seem,is that you are willing to cherry-pick the issues we should defend,in order to placate the moderates among us-while I am unwilling to do so.When we do,we lose!So if my attitude is your problem,and yours is mine-let’s just agree to disagree and we can both stay right where we are.
This is a brilliant point, but allow me to expand on it and rebut a myth
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Friday, March 13th at 10:09PM EST (link)It is the liberal media and some conservative useful idiots that repeat the false mantras that:
that there are significant numbers of one/two issue social con voters in the GOP
that we lost in 2006 and 2008 due to social issues
that it is compromising our stance on the life issue by accepting candidates in blue states that are pro-choice
that the GOP has only paid lip service to the social issues advanced by social conservatives
or that
it is a sell out on the life and marriage issues to favor federalism over constitutional amendments
why?
We lost in 2006 and 2008 due to our moves to the left on economic issues.
It is social cons that have been the most loyal faction of the GOP since Reagan brought them in.
Bush appointed two solid socially conservative members to the sup ct.
Given the dem senators in red states, we have no chance at passing const amendments on these subjects in Congress.
Most social cons are also fiscal cons
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Goldberg also rebuts the myth at NRO
pilgrim (Diary) Friday, March 13th at 10:23PM EST (link)http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTJhYmE2MjI4ZjZiMGI5NGQzZTY5N2I4YTE2YmEyYTY=
Progressive Achilles heel
Thanks for the Lifeline Mike!!!
Praying (Diary) Friday, March 13th at 10:49PM EST (link)Thanks for coming in and stating so clearly what I could not seem to manage to say. My hero!
No!!!11!1!!1!1! The Bilderbergers are coming
thanks and keep praying - nt
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Friday, March 13th at 10:55PM EST (link)Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
More practical definitions
Paul_Murphy (Diary) Friday, March 13th at 3:30PM EST (link)Try these two:
1 – a conservative is someone who, on seeing a problem, wants to do something himself (or herself) to help.
2 – a liberal is someone who, on seeing a problem, wants to hire someone who will then take his orders on who, how, and when to help.
Admittedly these aren’t that good either, but I’m trying to make two different points:
1 – that you can’t define a conservative except in opposition to something else; and,
2 – that conservatives generally believe that people, including themselves, are responsible for themselves while liberals want to outsource that responsibility to the daddy state.