1) This informed citizen identifies social conservatism with the GOP
2) This educated individual would identify my perceived conservative views as being strongly Republican. This conversation came at a point when I have personally decided that I do not wish to be identified with the Republican Party. In recent months, this writer has refused requests to be involved with like-minded people, who are banding together under the GOP banner. My preferred political identification would be conservative, or even better, Constitutionalist. Consider the differences between a Republican and a conservative.
* A Republican is pro-business, while a conservative is pro-free enterprise. What is the difference? A Republican would support bailing out corporations, at taxpayers' expense. Take note of GOP support of the Chrysler bailout and the TARP bailout. A conservative really does believe in allowing the free market to run unhindered.
* A Republican believes that the Federal Government should solve the problems of education, supports funding the Department of Education, and believes that the No Child Left Behind debacle is a compassionate move for government.
A conservative believes that the federal government has no role in education. We agree with Ronald Reagan that the Federal Department of Education should be abolished and control returned to the local level.
* A Republican believes that the national military should intervene when favorable to American-based international corporations. A conservative believes that international corporations become so at their own risk and should not ask taxpayers to pay for their international expansions.
* A Republican thinks that federal grants are good for business, but welfare problems cause lack of initiative on part of the recipients. Corporate welfare and TARP bailouts are good, but giveaway programs are bad, according to Republicans. Conservatives want to see free enterprise work.
* In the name of free trade, Republicans support NAFTA and GATT which put the force of the Federal Government in support of sending manufacturing jobs overseas. Conservatives want real free trade, but don't want the meddling of NAFTA and GATT which create bureacracies to manage trade. As a result, most conservatives don't trust the so-called free trade agreements, especially when they surrender national sovereignty to foreign entities and create a superhighway for foreign trucks.
* Republicans are proud of their Congressmen bringing home federal pork contracts, while conservatives are disgusted at the abuse of Congressional power to direct funds and spend money that should have originated and been directed from the private sector.
* Republicans will support a liberal Republican because it's good for the Party. Conservatives will never support a liberal, because it's bad for the country. In recent days, liberal Republican Florida Gov. Charles Crist has announced for US Senate. Crist was a supporter of the Obama stimulus package. The Conservative Republican Speaker of the House Rubio was already running for this seat, but the National GOP establishment is already behind Crist, thinking he can win the election.
*Republicans support an open-borders immigration policy as good for business, due to the cheap labor of illegal immigrants. Conservatives want the borders honored and protected.
This writer's closest friend from childhood is a liberal Democrat. This gentleman made a statement that the conservatism of the Bush Administration had failed. My friend further stated that this is why the country turned toward the liberalism of the Obama Administration. My response was that conservatism had not failed, conservatism was not tried. The Bush Administration saw a vast increase in the size of government and a doubling of the Federal Debt. No conservative can complain about Obama's socialism without honestly realizing that the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress paved the way with their Medicare program, No Child Left Behind, and, worst of all, the TARP bailout.
Remember, Richard Nixon expanded government with the creation of new Federal agencies,wage and price controls, a guaranteed minimum income, and new levels of federal controls.
In our lifetime, we have had one President who talked about rolling back the size of federal government. President Reagan set out to challenge the size of the Federal Government, but sadly lost much of his battle. Nonetheless, the Reagan-era decreasing of the size of government and the cutting of tax rates led to the greatest growth in our economy in American history. But succeeding generations of Republicans have repudiated Reaganism, preferring instead the silliness of Compassionate Conservatism, whatever that is. True conservatives know that government is wooden, non-emotional, and makes policy based on principles, not ooshy-gooshy feelings of any sort. While Reagan won record landslides, the so-called Compassionate Conservatives were swept aside in the landslide of 2008.
Learn the following lessons:
1) Republicans win when they stand for conservative principles. When they offer a milquetoast version of big government, people opt for the real thing and vote Democratic.
2) Conservatives should never trust a Party--any Party-- to fight our battles. We should live by principle and realize that parties are only vehicles to further our agenda.
3) Conservatives should never, never give one thin dime to the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, or any other national GOP office. We should direct our contributions to conservative groups and let the country club establishment support the liberal Republicans. When the national GOP groups call for money, remind them that you are no longer supporting the GOP until they become the party of Reagan again.
Forgive my anger, but from the time of Reagan, most conservatives have identified themselves as Republicans. This article is not an advocacy of a third party. This article simply says that we need to think of ourselves first as conservatives. Our loyalty to Party should be far down the line, if found at all.
11 comments:
I totally agree with you, John, about the need for conservatives to quit supporting the liberal Republican party. And this is coming from a lifelong liberal Democrat (until recently)!
George W. Bush was never a conservative. He violated all four of the core principles of conservatism, and spelled out by "Mr. Conservative" Robert Taft back in the 1950's. He 1) borrowed more money than all previous Presidents COMBINED, 2) doubled the size of the federal government in eight years, 3) intervened militarily in foreign countries that never attacked us, and 4) did more to strip us of our constitutional rights than any previous President.
It was the media who constantly associated Bush with conservatism, even though his actual track record speaks otherwise. This caused a huge backlash amongst the millions of voters who were rightfully disgusted with Bush but wrongfully blaming it on conservatism. "Anybody but Bush" was their mantra... CHANGE! Let's have a "liberal" instead, so Obama gets the nod. Only it appears now that Obama is only Bush squared. He's preserving all of Bush's bad policies, while adding a whole slew of new bad ones. Obama has already spent more than all previous Presidents COMBINED in only his first 100 days in office!
People have got to get over these meaningless labels of "conservative" versus "liberal", and judge a man by what he DOES rather than what he SAYS, or what the media says about him. Blind loyalty to either of the two major political parties is a lose-lose proposition.
Ronald Reagan's main focus in his administration was the danger posed by the Soviet Union and the march of communism across the globe. Most folks today forget, when Carter left office, we were a country that had lost respect world wide while the Soviets were marching from strength to strength even in our own hemisphere. Reagan could see the handwriting on the wall: sooner or later some Russky general was going to figure that we were too weak to fight back and a nuclear conflict could result - the consequences of which were simply unthinkable.
Because of this concern and the state of the American military, Reagan had no choice but to accept the Democrat domestic spending to get his military increases and although the deficit rose during his time in office, the income produced by his tax programs raised the money going to Washington to such an extent that those deficits were actually going DOWN when George Bush won the White House. However, Bush's own tax increases stalled the economic growth and Bush lost to Clinton on the slogan, "It's the economy, stupid!"
Reagan didn't want to raise domestic spending but he considered the survival of the nation more important than a political battle with the Democrats. Of course, he had little or no help from Congressional Republicans who frequently sided with their KOMRADS across the aisle!
John, that was an excellent explanation which pointed out the differences in conservatism and whatever it is the Republicans are these days. Great to see more postings in your blog.
You don't hear that style of intellectual conservatism explained with that much detail too often, and it's a shame really because it is thought provoking, and provides an alternative to just bashing the current administration like the GOP seems to be doing now.
Republicans seem to be cornered in, they give lip service to conservative values, but they desperately need the populist vote which has drifted left. Bush admin focused on social conservative issues, and ended placing conservatism in a narrow morality based box. Christian values form the foundation of a great nation, but conservatives cannot govern by deferring to abortion and gay marriage on every issue that comes up.
I think Republicans will need to define what conservatism is, as you have done, and practice it as well as demonstrate it is fundamentally good and provides a functional means of governance. And it will also need to fix the economy, too....
Good luck with that...)
Great article and description of how conservatism differs from republican partyism. Since Reagan, conservatives have found the GOP mostly accomodating, but never really supportive. Six years ago, they could have tossed aside Specter with Pat Toomey by just staying out of it. Instead, Karl Rove decided to pick sides, though he now wants to lampoon/criticize etc. Specter for leaving the GOP. Like the TARP/Auto bailouts, the GOP would have been much better off just letting those liberals go and would be further on the way to recovery. But the GOP leadership is just too liberal to really trust conservatives. I agree, no money to the Natl Republicans or others until they learn. Send your money to the pro-life, free enterprise, conservative groups...
I am sort of techno challenged or distracted or both. Didn't identify myself.
Don (DW)
Brother John:
You fail to understand that many of the beliefs you say are held by those you describe as "conservatives" are likewise shared in one degree or another by those you describe as Republicans, and vice-versa.
Be that as it may, the GOP is a party totally controlled by big business and those whom you describe as "conservatives" will never, I repeat, never be able to control it.
You say your article is not advocating for a 3rd party. Yet, this is exactly what it (you) should be advocating for. Until those you describe as "conservatives" have an alternative choice, the GOP establishment will continue to throw you a "bone or two" in the form of a "conservative-sounding" candidate for an occassional major office.
When "conservatives" (and I - and many others - don't like this word but I know what you mean by it) learn the art of "balance of power" politics (as the Conservative Party practices in New York State), then and only then will you be able to make the GOP pay attention to you. It may take an unfortunate situation of causing a Democrat to be elected to an office in a 3-way General Election race. It may take two or three of these major losses. But after the GOP bigwigs realize "conservatives" DO have some place to go, (and they prove they are willing to go there even at the expense of Democratic victories) the GOP bigwigs will start dealing with you.
So I guess the choice is those whom you call "conservatives" can either develop the backbone to stand up to the GOP bigwigs, or you can continue to work within the GOP. I suspect the latter will happen as "conservatives will continue to vent their frustration via a primary election, but then after their candidates are trounced by the well-financed GOP big boys, they will then be intimated by the GOP bigboys appealing to you to "Grit your teeth and vote the GOP nominees in November - because you know you don't want the Democrats to win!"
And just like clockwork, "conservatives" will fall for it election after election.
So I say the ball is in the "conservatives" court now. The question is what will they do with it??
Two points
1)looks like you are having some serious comments on this May 14 post. Would be great if all who have posted here and your audience with the Alsbom, Gary Fenton and Jay Wolfe among others would read closely UAB proff Glenn Feldman's Religion and Politics in the White South.
Have Feldman and Bob Terry and Pam Huff on panel at Maytown Baptist Church and let's look at what he says there
2)Fascinating, icy, exchange yesterday on ABC Week with Stephanopolous between Liz Cheney's and Nation VanDenHeuvel
Many of you will want to google it up.
Jesus is calling yall to read Feldman and ask yourselves how conservatives are behaving in light of his rubric.
Huckabee: The Biggest Big-Government Conservative
Fair and balanced is a laudable goal with liberals offsetting conservatives. The problem with Fox News and the flawed programming is when you have a liberal acting and talking like a conservative. As pointed out on Foxnews.com, Mike Huckabee is the biggest big-government conservative. Did you catch the oxymoron? The Cato Institute rated Huckabee lower in Fiscal Policy than Rod Blagojevich of Illinois, Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, and Ted Kulongoski of Oregon. It points out that he increased spending by 65%, and raised taxes more than Bill Clinton. Under Huckabee the average tax burden increased by 47% and the state’s debt services increased by almost $1 billion. The number of state employees increased by 20% and while he touts reducing some taxes like sales tax on lawn care, the net tax increase over tax reductions was more than half a billion dollars in the small state of Arkansas. The article sums it up, “But Huckabee doesn’t just embrace big government in the form of big taxes. He truly appears to believe that if something is a good idea it should be a federal government program.”
The absurdity of Huckabee protesting taxes at Tea Parties and saying President Obama is spending like a drunken sailor is over the top. Are there any plans at Fox News to hire Rod Blagojevich? Maybe he would make a good fit as mouthpiece for a new Ethics Show.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316496,00.html
What Reverend Killian wrote here is be best thing I’ve read in a long time.
TYPO CORECTION OF MY COMMENT ABOVE:
What Reverend Killian wrote here is the best thing I’ve read in a long time.
I agree with your article Mr. Smith....As for me I belong to the Constitution Party! No more lessor of evils at voting time!
Post a Comment