Wednesday, February 23, 2011
A President's Day Tradition
Having viewed ridiculous descriptions of what President's Day means from the likes of CNN and MSNBC, I went with my tried and true President's Day tradition - Ronald Reagan's "A Time for Choosing" speech delivered at the 1964 Republican National Convention.
It's 28 minutes long, but this speech changed America because it marked the changing of a man - a man who became the greatest President of the United States in my lifetime. You see the passion for conservative principals that is in no way contrived or manipulative.
This is what I think of when we reach President's Day.
It's 28 minutes long, but this speech changed America because it marked the changing of a man - a man who became the greatest President of the United States in my lifetime. You see the passion for conservative principals that is in no way contrived or manipulative.
This is what I think of when we reach President's Day.
Labels: Conservatism, POTUS, Reagan
Sunday, May 24, 2009
What She Said
Terry Frank sends a passionate plea to Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey to show all conservatives and those who believe that the Tennessee Constitution means what it says why he is qualified to be our next Governor.
Labels: 2010 Tennessee Governor's Race, Conservatism, Judiciary, Ron Ramsey
Friday, January 23, 2009
"English Only" Goes Down to Defeat in Nashville
The "English Only" amendment - which, from my understanding, would have required that all government business in Nashville be conducted in the English language - went down to defeat in a special election yesterday.
Admittedly, I haven't been following this debate much, save the 10,000 posts over at Kleinheider's blog. I don't feel especially strong on the issue only because I'm not sure if legislation is the best way to have people speak in one language without erasing Title VI (which I might be in favor of). I experience communication difficulties every day with clients who do not speak English. I see the courts constantly having to scramble for interpreters, who end up getting paid more than the attorneys in the case. Just Thursday, I represented a native of the Sudan who only spoke Dinka. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to find a translator that speaks Dinka? I do. And it's not cheap for the State, I can tell you that.
The curious parts of this debate for me have been the posts of my friend Nathan Moore. Nathan has posted that conservatives could not support the "English Only" amendment. I have read his posts against the amendment, basically stating that this is bad politics for conservatives and won't save Nashville much money. That's all well and good, but what Nathan has failed to do in his various posts is explain how his position of opposition is conservative in nature. I can see the political arguments, but if this saves money for governments that are already suffering economically, how can it not be a fiscally conservative policy?
I ask only because I do not know. If the money is a wash (which I tend to doubt), then perhaps "English Only" is a politically neutral policy, neither conservative nor liberal in nature.
Would someone like to explain this to a guy who doesn't think he has a stake in the controversy (given that I don't live in Nashville and can't see this happening in Knox County, where we're too busy perfecting Republican-on-Republican crime)?
Admittedly, I haven't been following this debate much, save the 10,000 posts over at Kleinheider's blog. I don't feel especially strong on the issue only because I'm not sure if legislation is the best way to have people speak in one language without erasing Title VI (which I might be in favor of). I experience communication difficulties every day with clients who do not speak English. I see the courts constantly having to scramble for interpreters, who end up getting paid more than the attorneys in the case. Just Thursday, I represented a native of the Sudan who only spoke Dinka. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to find a translator that speaks Dinka? I do. And it's not cheap for the State, I can tell you that.
The curious parts of this debate for me have been the posts of my friend Nathan Moore. Nathan has posted that conservatives could not support the "English Only" amendment. I have read his posts against the amendment, basically stating that this is bad politics for conservatives and won't save Nashville much money. That's all well and good, but what Nathan has failed to do in his various posts is explain how his position of opposition is conservative in nature. I can see the political arguments, but if this saves money for governments that are already suffering economically, how can it not be a fiscally conservative policy?
I ask only because I do not know. If the money is a wash (which I tend to doubt), then perhaps "English Only" is a politically neutral policy, neither conservative nor liberal in nature.
Would someone like to explain this to a guy who doesn't think he has a stake in the controversy (given that I don't live in Nashville and can't see this happening in Knox County, where we're too busy perfecting Republican-on-Republican crime)?
Labels: Conservatism, English, Nashville
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
The Desire for GOP Unity
Our dear friend, the Conservatore over at Pensieri, returns to the blogosphere after a bit of absence spent campaigning to make a plea for unity amongst Republicans, with a focus on his native 1st District of Tennessee. Dave Oatney echos those thoughts, which is apropos given that Vance worked for Phil Roe and Dave worked for David Davis. They are both getting along, so why can't their candidates of choice?
It's interesting to hear Republicans talking like that. Here in Knox County, it's more of a bloodsport for Republicans to beat the hell out of each other. Primary, general election, church softball game - all of these are equal opportunities to kick each other's teeth in.
It appears that David Davis isn't going to take Conservatore's advice or Dave's advice. It appears that he is destined to push this to the brink and destroy any chances that he had - no, still has - at political relevance in the 1st District. He's lawyered up, and given that he's chosen a law firm that specializes in election challenges, I would say that it's a longshot that their legal advice would be to concede. (There isn't a lot of money in doing that.)
Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey is also asking Davis to drop any thoughts of an election challenge. I join in that plea. It is doomed to failure. Certainly, when the matter is presented to the Republican State Executive Committee, someone is going to point out that Davis was spared a recount upon his election in 2006. Isn't what is good for the goose also good for the gander? Then the case probably winds up in court, where a judge is going to look at an intraparty challenge that was turned down by the governing body of that party and he or she will punt it out of the courthouse. From what I am reading, there simply isn't any merit to the challenge.
Of course, as Ramsey points out, it is the law of the State of Tennessee that we have open primaries. When I see someone who doesn't like the laws, I tell them to contact their elected representatives. The irony here is that Davis was one of those representatives for many years. Does anyone know if Davis ever offered up a bill to close party primaries to declared party members? I ask because I don't ever recall such a bill, but I certainly could have missed it.
Conservative Republicans are a rare breed, and we only function well when we act like conservative Republicans. Don't act like a liberal Democrat, David Davis, because we don't play the part well. It will only come back to hurt you - and your party - in the end.
It's interesting to hear Republicans talking like that. Here in Knox County, it's more of a bloodsport for Republicans to beat the hell out of each other. Primary, general election, church softball game - all of these are equal opportunities to kick each other's teeth in.
It appears that David Davis isn't going to take Conservatore's advice or Dave's advice. It appears that he is destined to push this to the brink and destroy any chances that he had - no, still has - at political relevance in the 1st District. He's lawyered up, and given that he's chosen a law firm that specializes in election challenges, I would say that it's a longshot that their legal advice would be to concede. (There isn't a lot of money in doing that.)
Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey is also asking Davis to drop any thoughts of an election challenge. I join in that plea. It is doomed to failure. Certainly, when the matter is presented to the Republican State Executive Committee, someone is going to point out that Davis was spared a recount upon his election in 2006. Isn't what is good for the goose also good for the gander? Then the case probably winds up in court, where a judge is going to look at an intraparty challenge that was turned down by the governing body of that party and he or she will punt it out of the courthouse. From what I am reading, there simply isn't any merit to the challenge.
Of course, as Ramsey points out, it is the law of the State of Tennessee that we have open primaries. When I see someone who doesn't like the laws, I tell them to contact their elected representatives. The irony here is that Davis was one of those representatives for many years. Does anyone know if Davis ever offered up a bill to close party primaries to declared party members? I ask because I don't ever recall such a bill, but I certainly could have missed it.
Conservative Republicans are a rare breed, and we only function well when we act like conservative Republicans. Don't act like a liberal Democrat, David Davis, because we don't play the part well. It will only come back to hurt you - and your party - in the end.
Labels: 2008 Congressional Races, Conservatism, First District, TN GOP
Thursday, July 17, 2008
A Grand Time at Sir Goony's
We had a great time at Stacey Campfield's mini-golf fundraiser Wednesday evening. The VOLConWife, as a State Executive Committeewoman for the 6th District, could not partake as per Republican Party rules and watched Leo, who, as always, was the life of the party. I managed to have several fun and enlightening conversations with many true conservatives, such as Representative Bill Dunn, Representative Mike Bell, Lee Frank (Terry Frank's husband), the Center for Bioethical Reform's Fletcher Armstrong, and, of course, Representative Stacey Campfield himself.
Since most of us are of the opinion that Stacey's hard work and determination will carry him to a primary victory, much of the conversation was on other races around Tennessee. Of particular interest was the press release (discussed here by A.C. at Post Politics) by a group of conservative Republicans pointing out Representative Kent Williams - a leading RINO - and his uncanny ability to raise money from liberal Democrats. I was very much surprised when Williams knocked off a true conservative in Jerome Cochran during the last election cycle, especially in an area I know well, conservative Carter County.
The press release is additional evidence that Williams is not "one of us" and needs to be shown the door. Of course, I already knew that since I would never support one of the "Republicans" - like Doug Overbey - who supports the greatest threat to Tennessee civil rights in my lifetime, House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh.
In any case, the evening was fun, relaxed, and well-attended. I dare say that it might be Stacey's best fundraiser yet. So, to those like Georgiana Vines that are itching to write Stacey's political obituary, I have to think that your wait will continue.
Keep an eye on Stacey's website for some pictures and perhaps video from the event. I think that Lumpy Lambert had a video camera, so I assume that video may be forthcoming over at The Rep's site.
Since most of us are of the opinion that Stacey's hard work and determination will carry him to a primary victory, much of the conversation was on other races around Tennessee. Of particular interest was the press release (discussed here by A.C. at Post Politics) by a group of conservative Republicans pointing out Representative Kent Williams - a leading RINO - and his uncanny ability to raise money from liberal Democrats. I was very much surprised when Williams knocked off a true conservative in Jerome Cochran during the last election cycle, especially in an area I know well, conservative Carter County.
The press release is additional evidence that Williams is not "one of us" and needs to be shown the door. Of course, I already knew that since I would never support one of the "Republicans" - like Doug Overbey - who supports the greatest threat to Tennessee civil rights in my lifetime, House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh.
In any case, the evening was fun, relaxed, and well-attended. I dare say that it might be Stacey's best fundraiser yet. So, to those like Georgiana Vines that are itching to write Stacey's political obituary, I have to think that your wait will continue.
Keep an eye on Stacey's website for some pictures and perhaps video from the event. I think that Lumpy Lambert had a video camera, so I assume that video may be forthcoming over at The Rep's site.
Labels: 2008 Tennessee General Assembly Campaigns, Conservatism
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Coulter: Republicans Need to be Drunk to Vote for McCain
Ann, as usual, doesn't hold back on how she really feels about John McCain:
The irony is, the only people McCain can count on to vote for him are the
very Republicans he despises -- at least those of us who can get drunk
enough on Election Day to pull the lever for him. In fact, we should
organize parties around the country where Republicans can get drunk so they
can vote for McCain. We can pass out clothespins with his name as a reminder
and slogan-festooned vomit bags. The East Coast parties can post the number
of drinks necessary for the task to help the West Coast parties. For more
information, go to getdrunkandvote4mccain.com.
Heh, not sure that would work. The same conservative voters who wonder about McCain's skipping of the prayer breakfast to attend some phony baloney conservation rally probably aren't big drinkers.
Labels: 2008 General Election, Conservatism
Evangelicals Reluctantly Coming to McCain?
Interesting report from WorldNetDaily:
It's not like Phyllis Schlafly is the kind of person who would sell out her values for a vote. Remember what she had to say about Mike Huckabee, exposing him as a charlatan and conservative of campaign convenience?
I have expected the slow migration of Christian leaders toward McCain. However, the Christian base is totally uninterested in this election, so McCain would be best served to bring a strong, young Christian conservative onto the ticket to provide balance and energize the grassroots.
Dozens of Christian leaders meeting in Denver have concluded they should "get behind Sen. John McCain even if they didn't like everything about him" because the
alternative, presumptive Democratic candidate Sen. Barack Obama, actually could oversee the criminalization of Christianity, according to a report.
It's not like Phyllis Schlafly is the kind of person who would sell out her values for a vote. Remember what she had to say about Mike Huckabee, exposing him as a charlatan and conservative of campaign convenience?
I have expected the slow migration of Christian leaders toward McCain. However, the Christian base is totally uninterested in this election, so McCain would be best served to bring a strong, young Christian conservative onto the ticket to provide balance and energize the grassroots.
Labels: 2008 General Election, Christians, Conservatism
Friday, June 13, 2008
Laura Ingraham Yanked Off the Air?
This is somewhat disconcerting, because it is highly unlikely that popular conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham wasn't delivering the audiences that sponsors desire. If the reason wasn't financial, one has to venture a guess that some form of viewpoint discrimination is at work here.
From an e-mail I received from RedState.com:
Popular radio talk show host Laura Ingraham has been taken off the air with no explanation.
Laura's show is one of the top five most popular talk radio shows in the nation. Laura is a solid conservative voice on the air.
She is gone with no explanation. All anyone knows is that it is not her choice.
If radio networks can yank a conservative voice who is that popular, they can do it to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or anyone else.
Liberals are again agitating to shut down conservative talk radio. They have been pushing "diversity" regulations through the FCC to do just that. Taking out Laura Ingraham is just a step along the way toward shutting down conservative talk radio totally.
Here is a station guide for Laura Ingraham. Please call your local affiliate and tell the station you want Laura Ingraham back on the Laura Ingraham show.
You can stop liberals from shutting down talk radio by standing up for Laura Ingraham.
Sincerely yours,
Erick Erickson
Editor, RedState.com
Laura's show is one of the top five most popular talk radio shows in the nation. Laura is a solid conservative voice on the air.
She is gone with no explanation. All anyone knows is that it is not her choice.
If radio networks can yank a conservative voice who is that popular, they can do it to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or anyone else.
Liberals are again agitating to shut down conservative talk radio. They have been pushing "diversity" regulations through the FCC to do just that. Taking out Laura Ingraham is just a step along the way toward shutting down conservative talk radio totally.
Here is a station guide for Laura Ingraham. Please call your local affiliate and tell the station you want Laura Ingraham back on the Laura Ingraham show.
You can stop liberals from shutting down talk radio by standing up for Laura Ingraham.
Sincerely yours,
Erick Erickson
Editor, RedState.com
Labels: Conservatism, Free Speech, Radio
Thursday, June 05, 2008
The Guilt Trip Continues...
OK, maybe that's a little strong...
Thomas Sowell - the respected conservative columnist - has a piece on NRO that lays out the pragmatic reasons that conservatives should support McCain. Basically, he's won't placate those who want to kill us like Obama would.
Point taken, Thomas. But if this isn't the place to draw the line in the sand, where do you suggest is that place?
Thomas Sowell - the respected conservative columnist - has a piece on NRO that lays out the pragmatic reasons that conservatives should support McCain. Basically, he's won't placate those who want to kill us like Obama would.
Point taken, Thomas. But if this isn't the place to draw the line in the sand, where do you suggest is that place?
Labels: 2008 General Election, Conservatism
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
How Not to Ask for Help
The accounts of yesterday's McCain rally in Nashville are baffling.
Half of the stories deal with McCain acknowledging that he needs energized conservatives supporting him in Tennessee to have the Volunteer State in the red column come November.
The other half of the stories deal with McCain criticizing U.S. Senator Bob Corker, Tennessee's most conservative senator and one of the only Members of Congress who has shown any sort of fiscal discipline in the past year, and criticizing the Tennessee Republican Party, which is headed by conservative Robin Smith and staffed with conservatives like Bill Hobbs.
Seems to me like the two are incongruent. One does not ask for help by showing how polar one is from your own views. Quite strange.
Half of the stories deal with McCain acknowledging that he needs energized conservatives supporting him in Tennessee to have the Volunteer State in the red column come November.
The other half of the stories deal with McCain criticizing U.S. Senator Bob Corker, Tennessee's most conservative senator and one of the only Members of Congress who has shown any sort of fiscal discipline in the past year, and criticizing the Tennessee Republican Party, which is headed by conservative Robin Smith and staffed with conservatives like Bill Hobbs.
Seems to me like the two are incongruent. One does not ask for help by showing how polar one is from your own views. Quite strange.
Labels: 2008 General Election, Conservatism, TN GOP
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
I Love Tom Coburn
Tom Coburn, Republican Senator from Oklahoma, is one of the few Republicans in Washington for whom I would lay down my firm for here in Knoxville and travel to D.C. Anyone who has had the privilege of spending quality time with Senator Coburn (and, thanks to Ed Bryant, I can count myself as one of those fortunate people) knows that he's the real deal when it comes to conservative governance.
Senator Coburn's column in today's Wall Street Journal tells it like it is - Republicans have been sidetracked lately, venturing from ideology in pursuit of re-election vehicles like the K Street Project and "compassionate conservatism." With the exception of the last paragraph, Coburn's column might be one of the best I have read this year.
Regarding the last paragraph - it's probably the most evident sign that Coburn wouldn't mind the VP slot on McCain's ticket, supporting some rumors that I have been hearing for months now. And, yes, Coburn is one of those few guys that would make me rethink my inability to support the current GOP ticket.
Senator Coburn's column in today's Wall Street Journal tells it like it is - Republicans have been sidetracked lately, venturing from ideology in pursuit of re-election vehicles like the K Street Project and "compassionate conservatism." With the exception of the last paragraph, Coburn's column might be one of the best I have read this year.
Regarding the last paragraph - it's probably the most evident sign that Coburn wouldn't mind the VP slot on McCain's ticket, supporting some rumors that I have been hearing for months now. And, yes, Coburn is one of those few guys that would make me rethink my inability to support the current GOP ticket.
Labels: 2008 General Election, Conservatism
Friday, January 18, 2008
Buchanan: GOP is Growing Up, Not Dying
I recommend this column by Pat Buchanan on how the GOP is going through some growing pains, with reports of its death being greatly exaggerated. Of particular interest is Buchanan's view that the American electorate is repudiating Bushism, not Reaganism.
I believe Buchanan to be in error in lumping Fred Thompson in with establishment candidate Rudy Giuliani, but I agree with his overall thesis that these primaries are showing how out of touch the GOP establishment is with the grassroots.
I believe Buchanan to be in error in lumping Fred Thompson in with establishment candidate Rudy Giuliani, but I agree with his overall thesis that these primaries are showing how out of touch the GOP establishment is with the grassroots.
Labels: 2008 GOP Presidential Primary, Conservatism
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Buchanan: Sub-prime Superpower
Pat Buchanan has a tough (although depressing) take on the state of America in his latest column.
One point that I would like to make. Buchanan questions how we could pay for improvements in our infrastructure, but he unknowingly gives the correct conservative answer later on in his piece. The answer is by shutting down Social Security Disability - the 21st Century Welfare program.
As a classical conservative, I strongly believe that the two primary purposes of the United States government are 1) national defense and 2) infrastructure. This is in-line with the thinking of many of the founders, as well as a few modern day conservatives like Alan Keyes. The government is not here to prop up other regimes. The government is not here to make our citizenry totally dependent on the government for survival. The government is here to provide a safe environment for a free people to create a better life, to celebrate liberty, and to pursue happiness.
Do I agree with Buchanan that the sudden focus on the weaknesses of our infrastructure is media-driven and overblown? Yes. However, we need to start realizing that it's more important to keep the dam from cracking than it is for providing free government handouts to the people who live below the dam, just as we need to start focusing on our own dams, bridges, and transportation systems instead of providing the means to do so in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.
One point that I would like to make. Buchanan questions how we could pay for improvements in our infrastructure, but he unknowingly gives the correct conservative answer later on in his piece. The answer is by shutting down Social Security Disability - the 21st Century Welfare program.
As a classical conservative, I strongly believe that the two primary purposes of the United States government are 1) national defense and 2) infrastructure. This is in-line with the thinking of many of the founders, as well as a few modern day conservatives like Alan Keyes. The government is not here to prop up other regimes. The government is not here to make our citizenry totally dependent on the government for survival. The government is here to provide a safe environment for a free people to create a better life, to celebrate liberty, and to pursue happiness.
Do I agree with Buchanan that the sudden focus on the weaknesses of our infrastructure is media-driven and overblown? Yes. However, we need to start realizing that it's more important to keep the dam from cracking than it is for providing free government handouts to the people who live below the dam, just as we need to start focusing on our own dams, bridges, and transportation systems instead of providing the means to do so in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.
Labels: Conservatism, Infrastructure
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Stossel on Hamiltonian Conservatives
John Stossel (who proves himself far too knowledgeable to have ever been considered a part of the mainstream media) penned an excellent historical comparison of Hamilton and Jefferson and then applied their views to the fragmented conservative movement today.
Well worth the read, and it contains a profound quote by Thomas Jefferson:
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
True enough.
Well worth the read, and it contains a profound quote by Thomas Jefferson:
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
True enough.
Labels: Conservatism
Monday, June 04, 2007
Chavez Insults Those Who Oppose Amnesty
I want to start this morning by calling for the repudiation of longtime GOP leader Linda Chavez by the Republican National Committee. Chavez put forth the following characterization of conservatives who don't support the Bush-Kennedy immigration bill:
Is this what the Republican Party thinks of conservatives and those who wish to see the laws of the United States enforced? I am quite serious in calling for a reaction by the RNC (and FoxNews, which oft uses Chavez as a "political analyst") and a distancing of the official party from Chavez's stereotypical and ignorant remarks.
Of course, Pat Buchanan believes it's not Chavez that must go, but that it is Bush who needs to be repudiated by the GOP base.
I agree with Buchanan - treat conservatives like the proverbial whipping boy at your own peril, GOP.
"Some people just don't like Mexicans – or anyone else from south of the
border. They think Latinos are freeloaders and welfare cheats who are too lazy
to learn English. They think Latinos have too many babies and that Latino kids
will dumb down our schools. They think Latinos are dirty,
diseased, indolent and more prone to criminal behavior. They think Latinos are
just too different from us ever to become real Americans. ..."
"Unfortunately, among this group is a fair number of Republican members
of Congress, almost all influential conservative talk radio hosts, some cable
news anchors – most prominently, Lou Dobbs – and a handful of public policy
'experts' at organizations such as the Center for Immigration Studies, the
Federation for American Immigration Reform, NumbersUSA, in addition to fringe
groups like the Minuteman Project."
Is this what the Republican Party thinks of conservatives and those who wish to see the laws of the United States enforced? I am quite serious in calling for a reaction by the RNC (and FoxNews, which oft uses Chavez as a "political analyst") and a distancing of the official party from Chavez's stereotypical and ignorant remarks.
Of course, Pat Buchanan believes it's not Chavez that must go, but that it is Bush who needs to be repudiated by the GOP base.
I agree with Buchanan - treat conservatives like the proverbial whipping boy at your own peril, GOP.
Labels: Conservatism, Immigration, President Bush
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Libertarianism and Conservatism
A.C. has an outstanding post over at Volunteer Voters regarding the differences between libertarians and conservatives that stemmed from libertarian John Stossel's speech last night in Nashville for the conservative Tennessee Center for Policy Research.
(I had very much wanted to attend the event, but a) I live in Knoxville, not Nashville and b) a high-profile Blount County case in which I was heavily involved came to a head yesterday.)
A.C.'s post gets to the heart of the matter - libertarianism and conservatism are certainly different, with both having common enemies (liberalism, communism, socialism, anarchy, etc.). Where A.C. and I differ is whether each "Right" entity could carry the day on its own. Perhaps I am too optimistic - formed by reading too many of Ronald Reagan's writings and my salvation in the Holy Trinity - in believing that conservatism could save America from the bureaucratic nightmares that stifle freedom, innovation, and growth in the rest of the world. I certainly agree with A.C. and Stossel that libertarianism cannot win out on its own.
But that begs the question: does each group have to go it alone?
The answer all boils down to whether conservatism and libertarianism have enough common threads to bind the two to victory. It is my position that they do if each side can make a few concessions in regards to ticking off each other. Conservatives have to realize that the core of libertarianism - freedom from all, especially institutions like government - is not that different from conservative values. The problem with libertarianism from the conservative perspective is that it doesn't know where to draw the line - because there is no line. Libertarianism breaks down in the eyes of conservatives when the question is presented as to who has the greater right, the habitual rapist's right to rape or the victim's right to be free from rape? Conservatives solve this type of problem by instituting values (as seen through legislation or social mores) that maintain social order.
However, the point is that one only runs into these problems with libertarianism when one arrives at the fringes of libertarianism. The core is still solid and attractive to conservatives.
A similar problem lies with conservatism from the eyes of libertarians, and that problem is where the beliefs tend to come from - religion. Libertarianism doesn't find much purpose with religion, as liberty and desire trump restraint and social conscience. The conflict comes with religions that are evangelical (which would be the majority of religions and nearly all cults that sometimes get lumped in with valid religions) and wish to apply their values on society - even at the basic level of "murder is wrong." Thus, libertarians like Neal Boortz constantly pick fights with Christians, as libertarianism feels threatened by any restriction in personal liberty, whether well-intentioned, for the purposes of social order, or not well-intentioned, through the desire for power and world domination.
Therefore, in order for a marriage of libertarianism and conservatism to work, conservatives have to realize that libertarianism works most of the time in the same manner as conservatism, until you arrive at fringe situations through a slippery slope. Libertarianism has to realize (as Stossel does) that it is at this point that libertarianism loses public support and gets marginalized. Thus, it greatly assists the cause of libertarianism to focus on its core and not on the fringe hypothetical situations (decriminalization of behavior, not limited to but including drug use, for example), not only for keeping conservatives as an ally but for public acceptance as a legitimate ideology, away from the "scary margins."
By the same token, conservatives have to tone down the rhetoric that directly insults libertarians. As with the above concession for libertarianism, this should help conservatism with the public, as well. Speaking as a conservative Christian, where conservatism loses ground with the middle of the political perspective is when it tunes up the rhetoric that spawns whispers of a growing movement towards a theocracy. A great deal of the problem here is that the wrong voices are being heard the loudest, and those voices are being labeled by a liberal media as the voices of conservatism. (In much the same manner that we paint liberalism with the faces of their worst elements - Ted Kennedy, Al Sharpton, George Soros - liberals do the same with Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who are both good men but sometimes deliver sound bites that are indefensible to nonbelievers and only hurt the cause of conservatism.)
The blueprint for success for conservatives, as with so many other items, has been laid by Ronald Reagan. Go back and watch his speeches during his presidency. Read his writings. The man spoke of God and the Almighty, of divine Providence, regularly. However, no offense was taken as it is when some current politicians speak of faith. Conservatives need to actually learn from Reagan, not just throw out his name every election cycle in the hopes of winning brownie points with the base. (An analogy would be actually receiving an education compared to being granted a diploma. There is a difference, although the two are not mutually exclusive.)
If libertarians can stick to their core, mainstream beliefs while eliminating the fringe that marginalizes their movement, and if conservatives can realize that they need to be more like Reagan and not use their faith in an offensive manner, and if both sides realize that they are stronger together with a greater chance for success than they are apart working individually, then the marriage of conservatism and libertarianism could work.
If that doesn't or can't happen, then libertarianism will maintain its status on the margins of American politics and conservatism will continue to rally against the growing tide of socialism and liberalism in this country.
Unlike some, I don't see certain doom for conservatism if the marriage with libertarianism failed. I still think conservatism can win in the long run because it meshes with what is believed to be the founding values of America - freedom from tyranny, the power to make your own destiny, an economic environment that allows for success, leadership, strength in our people and not in our government, liberty to worship God, a strong work ethic, a bit of arrogance and jingoism, and an innovative spirit that knows no bounds on Earth or beyond.
But again, the question arises - why should conservatism go it alone if it needn't travel that solitary path?
Only time and logistics will tell.
Labels: Conservatism, Libertarianism
Thursday, February 01, 2007
WSJ Op-Ed on Conservatism
Take a minute to read through Charles Kesler's op-ed in the Wall Street Journal's Online Edition.
Kesler is a senior fellow at The Claremont Institute, and he has some interesting points that go along with many of my posts over the past 16 months. Give it a read and tell me if Kesler is right.
Kesler is a senior fellow at The Claremont Institute, and he has some interesting points that go along with many of my posts over the past 16 months. Give it a read and tell me if Kesler is right.
Labels: Conservatism
Friday, December 01, 2006
Mainstream Conservatism?
Volunteer Voters ended the day with a post regarding Frist's departure from the presidential race (preceeded by Allen's forced departure) leaving a titanic void in the Republican field. As Powerline put it, there is no candidate to carry the banner for "mainstream conservatism."
A.C. then questioned whether such a thing existed. While it is important to read the whole thing, I wanted to re-post my reply here:
***
ACK -
"...they are defending a big government, war mongering conservatism..."
Uh, who is? If 2006 taught us anything, it's that conservatives are not going to be the slave class of the Bush White House anymore. Big government and war mongering has nothing whatsoever to do with conservatism. Those campaign chameleons who ran as conservatives and then let D.C. change them into anything but conservatives represented themselves, not conservative values.
I understand your point about "mainstream conservatives" because political junkies have created these new breeds of conservatives (neocons, paleocons, Deceptacons - no wait, that last one is a Transformer). Those of us who never bought into all that still see mainstream conservatives.
Interesting thought - why no subdivision of the liberals? What would a paleoliberal be, anyway?
Cheers,
Rob
A.C. then questioned whether such a thing existed. While it is important to read the whole thing, I wanted to re-post my reply here:
***
ACK -
"...they are defending a big government, war mongering conservatism..."
Uh, who is? If 2006 taught us anything, it's that conservatives are not going to be the slave class of the Bush White House anymore. Big government and war mongering has nothing whatsoever to do with conservatism. Those campaign chameleons who ran as conservatives and then let D.C. change them into anything but conservatives represented themselves, not conservative values.
I understand your point about "mainstream conservatives" because political junkies have created these new breeds of conservatives (neocons, paleocons, Deceptacons - no wait, that last one is a Transformer). Those of us who never bought into all that still see mainstream conservatives.
Interesting thought - why no subdivision of the liberals? What would a paleoliberal be, anyway?
Cheers,
Rob
Labels: Conservatism
