CPAC AGENDA SHOWS CONSERVATIVES STILL IN DENIAL
The theme of this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) should be “Cocooning our way to Irrelevancy” or perhaps “How to lose the next 5 elections in 10 easy steps.”
From my point of view, it really is that bad. With the exception of some effort to bring conservatism into the 21st century communications-wise, the program appears to be an excellent panacea for what ailed conservatism in about 1980. It’s as if the debacles of 2006 and 2008 never happened. Does it matter that the very same people who helped get us clobbered the last two election cycles are running seminars and roundtables at the conference? Not if you’re a movement still in denial that it will take more than “message tweaking” and better utilization of the internet to bring conservatism back and make it relevant to a large portion of Americans again.
The side conference being sponsored by PJTV - “Conservatism 2.0″ - looks interesting but here again, we have familiar faces who haven’t expressed much interest in real conservative reform. (Some panelists on the communications side are the exception.) Glenn Reynolds and Michelle Malkin are internet friends of mine and I agree with them on many issues. But are they really the people to be running a “Conservatism 2.0″ conference? Perhaps I misunderstand what they are trying to accomplish. And I may be pleasantly surprised. But before we can even get to “Conservatism 2.0″ perhaps we should be thinking of taking a remedial course in what conservatism should mean in our modern society. I’m afraid this sort of introspection will reveal how far afield conservatism has strayed but may also generate thoughts and ideas about how conservatism can be relevant in a 21st century industrialized democracy.
Online activism is fine and seeking new ways to communicate is an excellent idea. But does it matter what we will be trying to get across? If so, I’m not sure that this PJTV side conference will accomplish anything useful.
Alright…so. My idea of “reform” is probably a helluva lot different than most conservatives. But maybe we could start with the recognition that in elections, the way you win is by getting one more vote than the other side. And no matter how you want to add up the numbers, the 30% of so of the nation that identifies itself as “conservative” will always fall short of 50% + 1. I hate to break this news to my fellow conservatives; you can use any kind of mathematical hocus pocus you wish but there just aren’t enough of us to only allow “true conservatives” a place at the table. The absence of conservatives like David Frum, Peggy Noonan, David Brooks, and others who probably agree with 90% of conservative positions on the issues but have been driven from the movement for their apostasy — real or imagined — is as incomprehensible as it is depressing.
This is the way back? It’s not a question of being “moderate” or “true-blue” but rather how long does conservatism want to wander in the wilderness? Ideas on how to reform conservatism — and I speak of real reform, not the cosmetic solutions that appear will be offered at CPAC — must come from as many sources as possible. Some conservatives might not like the smell inside the “Big Tent” but turning up your nose at people who disagree with you on one or two issues is just plain nuts. “Litmus tests” and the like are all well and good unless you are a minority, getting smaller and less relevant, and don’t wish to find a way back in order to compete in the marketplace of ideas.
Our dire situation doesn’t seem to have sunk in yet. This is evident by how many sessions are scheduled that appear to have been lifted from the agenda of a decade or more ago. To wit:
Thursday, 2/26 at 10:10:
“The Key to Victory? Listen to Conservatives”
Michael Barone, U.S. News and World Report
Rep. Aaron Schock (IL)
Rep. Peter Roskam (IL)*
Rep. Virginia Foxx (NC)*
Saul Anuzis, Michigan Republican Party
Moderator: Al Cardenas, American Conservative Union Board of Directors
I would listen to Michael Barone if he appeared in a bathtub. As for the rest, the day the conservative movement stops listening to members of Congress (with precious few exceptions) is the day we begin the road back.
Thursday, 2/26 at 1:50 pm
“New Challenges in the Culture War”
Rep. Chris Smith (NJ)*
Dr. Janice Crouse, The Beverly LaHaye Institute
Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel and Liberty University School of Law
Moderator: Marjorie Dannenfelser, Susan B. Anthony List
New, old, what’s the difference? The issues are losers. The GOP is no longer seen as the party of fiscal restraint, low taxes, and strong defense but rather the gay bashing, anti-woman, anti-minority party. Those who believe a simple tweaking of the message will change that are dreaming.
Friday, 2/27 at 9:00 AM
Breakfast with Phyllis Schlafly: “Doing the Impossible”
Schafly is one smart, tough woman but part of the ancien regime. The same goes for many of the speakers at the conference. Ann Coulter will once again try to make headlines by attempting to top her own outrageousness. Ralph Reed is selling a book and hardly relevant to my idea of modern conservatism. The Members of Congress invited are, with a couple of exceptions, an uninspiring lot. Mike Pence and Eric Cantor are two of the more thoughtful House members in the Republican caucus but the rest are vanilla and oatmeal.
There are a couple of interesting sessions including Thursday morning’s “Timeless Principles, New Challenges: The Future of the Conservative Movement.” But the panelists? Van Hipp, American Defense International, Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal, and Bay Buchanan, of the The American Cause would not be my choices to run this session. How about Ross Douthat or Marc Ambinder? These are guys who have given conservative reform a considerable amount of thought. Alas, they are not “pure” enough for this crowd.
Also a session I plan on attending will be “Building the Conservative Hispanic Coalition.” I will almost guarantee that it will be the least popular session as far as attendance at the conference. Given the way GOP candidates shamefully and inexplicably dissed Hispanics by refusing to show up for the Spanish TV debate, I would be ashamed to show my face at this session too.
And, as I mentioned, there is the PJTV side conference. At least here, there appears to be an effort to think outside the box. Patrick Ruffini will be on a panel with Jude Cristobal, singer-songwriter, Andrew Klavan, award-winning author and screenwriter, and Alfonzo Rachel, advocate of right-minded ideas on new media talking about “New Media Empowering Conservative Messages.” There isn’t a new message yet but at least we’ll be ready when there is one.
Saturday’s PJTV session is being billed as a “conservative answer to The View “and features some pretty savvy women moderators including Michelle Malkin, political strategist Jeri Thompson, and pollster Kellyanne Conway. The concept is interesting but I question how it plays into the “Conservatism 2.0″ theme. A take off of an MSM television show and transferring the format to internet TV may be entertaining but instructive how? It would seem to me that the format might get in the way of any kind of serious discussions about the future of conservatism but, I may be pleasantly surprised.
Perhaps I am expecting too much from a conference where conservatives are gathering to learn about activism (there are several sessions about “nuts and bolts” politics that are always very good), enjoy the company of mostly like minded people, and gape at some of the stars of the conservative movement.
But looking at the agenda and the speakers for CPAC 2009, I can’t help but think that this will be a lost opportunity. There is so much for conservatives to think about; facing up to the failures of the Bush years and conservative’s role in enabling those failures; less ideology and more pragmatism; a fundamental reassessment of how conservative principles can be relevant in a nation of 300 million people of varied ethnicity and interests; and a radical cleansing of limiting ideas that stifle debate and place more emphasis on assessing the purity of one’s conservative beliefs by a self-selected minority rather than accepting and embracing our differences.
And most importantly, fleeing the mindset that re-enforces the notion that there isn’t much really wrong with conservatism that a dab of message clarification here and a spot of renewed enthusiasm there won’t cure. Accepting the fact that there are fundamental problems is the first step toward recovery.
Unfortunately, CPAC fails miserably in that regard.
UPDATE
Here’s more from some clear thinking conservatives:
Could we possibly act more inadequate to the challenge? More futile? More brain dead?
We in fact have a constructive solution to offer, one that would deliver more jobs faster: the payroll tax holiday, an idea endorsed by almost every reputable right-of-center economist. But that’s not the solution being offered by Republicans in Congress. They are offering a clapped-out package of 1980s-vintage solutions, including capital gains tax cuts. Capital gains! Who has any capital gains to be taxed in the first place?
Almost 70% of Americans say that President Obama will change the country for the better, the CNN poll found Feb. 7-8. Asked whether President Obama is doing enough to cooperate with Republicans, 74% said yes. Asked whether Republicans are doing enough to cooperate with President Obama, 60% said no.
In every poll I’ve seen, hefty majorities approve of President Obama’s economic performance. Approval numbers for congressional Republicans remain dismal.
If we’re to make progress in 2010, we have to look serious. This week we looked not only irrelevant, but clueless and silly. Quite a job for a little mouse.
But that’s a big if - which is why the more likely road to revival for the GOP probably starts outside Washington, with politicians who can afford to be experimental without constantly worrying about what Rush Limbaugh would say about them. This is one of the ways reform happened in the Democratic Party of the ’70s and ’80s: You had a collection of distinctive and innovative political figures - your “Atari Democrats,” your neoliberals, your “New Democrats” - who were testing out new ways of being liberal in statewide races long before their ideas were embraced by the party nationally. (Some of them still haven’t been, of course, as Mickey Kaus will be happy to inform you.) What the Republican Party needs, above all, is a generation of politicians who can fill the “center-right” space currently occupied by time-servers like Arlen Specter and Susan Collins with a politics that’s oriented around policy, rather than process. It needs a reform caucus that’s actually interested in reform (as opposed to deal-cutting), and that’s populated with politicians who have tried something new in difficult political terrains, and proven that it might work.
If such a caucus doesn’t emerge in Washington, though, then the party has to hope it emerges in the statehouses - and that one such statehouse occupant has what it takes to win the party’s nomination, the Presidency, and singlehandedly turn the GOP away from it’s self-defeating, self-destructive habits along the way. This is both the easiest way for the party to acquire the leadership it needs, and the hardest: It’s the easiest because it only requires the emergence of one great politician, rather than the slow cultivation of a generation of them; and it’s the hardest because it depends on the skills and vision of a single reform-minded leader, rather than a pooled efforts of like-minded cohort. Some of the failures of the Bush Administration, it’s worth noting, reflect precisely the latter set of dangers: You had a President trying, fitfully but with some sincerity, to create a new kind of conservatism (compassionate, big-government, whatever) without the kind of institutional and intellectual support that his project required. And it’s easy to imagine the next Republican President - whether it’s Jindal in 2016 or whomever - running into the same sort of problems, and running aground on them as well.
And yet, these guys are frozen out of CPAC and Ann Coulter gets center stage?
Rick,
Agreed.
A review of and agreement about Conservative Principles is a must. Then we must look at the real America and the challenges it faces and demonstrably show how these conservative principles address these real problems.
Speaking for myself, saying the only real problem America has are Democrats is not going to cut it.
Bravo! Well said. One of the big problems as I see it is to propose solutions to real world challenges without sounding like liberal lite. I’m sure there’s a way that can be accomplished but haven’t a clue where to begin.
ed.
Comment by bsjones — 2/16/2009 @ 2:03 pm
A worthwhile criticism, Rick. But what would you recommend as an alternative? I’m sincerely interested.
Jim
As I try to point out on this site, I am not an intellectual. But we’re all born with common sense and while the problems are identifiable to me, the solutions are hard to fathom. If I was carrying on a conversation with more than myself, solutions might present themselves. But since no one this far down the blogger food chain really wants to do much except excommunicate me, I am at a loss as to how to go about the task of reforming conservatism.
ed.
Comment by Jim Digriz — 2/16/2009 @ 2:07 pm
“Some conservatives might not like the smell inside the “Big Tent” but turning up your nose at people who disagree with you on one or two issues is just plain nuts. “Litmus tests” and the like are all well and good unless you are a minority, getting smaller and less relevant, and don’t wish to find a way back in order to compete in the marketplace of ideas.”
You could not be right enough there.
Jim D, changing this aspect of GOP attitudes alone would be the first alternative that needs to be considered for conservatism to begin a comeback.
Comment by Eddie — 2/16/2009 @ 2:50 pm
This one sentence says so very much. It’s a painfully true summary to an excellent post. Looking to these so called conservative rock stars is exactly the opposite of what should be happening. But hey, maybe Coulter will sell a few more books.
Excommunicate? wtf are you talking about?
I am overstating. Most of the base deserted this site long ago but since I was just linked at Free Republic, I expect to be chastised well and good for the above.
ed.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 2/16/2009 @ 3:16 pm
I didn’t know Ronald Reagan was the standard bearer in 1976, and when I voted for him in 1980 I wasn’t at all sure he was on the right path. However in 1994 I knew Newt was the standard bearer and I was dead sure he was on the right path. The GOP strayed from its 1994 principles, and the 1994 electorate seems to have strayed into favoring more nanny-state government. I think the question is, does the GOP want to appeal to the current flavor-of-the-day electorate, or do they want to begin a long slog to lead the electorate back to embracing fair and limited government principles resembling the Contract with America?
Comment by Mark30339 — 2/16/2009 @ 3:47 pm
You don’t seem to acknowledge the main arguments against your point of view that have been made countless times.
If you want to be “Democrat-lite” that’s a losing proposition: your “customers” will always chose the real thing. They don’t need an artificial substitute.
Having principles is not negotiable, otherwise they would not be called principles. If you believe in something, there is not point in saying the opposite just to win elections, unless your very interest is raw power. And why do you want to support people whose main interest is raw power without principles?
Conservative principles attract people when liberal action fails. If “conservatives” like George Bush fail by spending money like liberals, there is no way to make an argument that “conservatism will save the country from financial ruin” because the liberal will always point to “you guys” not protesting against the drunken sailor-type spending last time “you” were in power.
You are confusing “ideology” with “principles.” You are correct. There is no negotiating principles. You are also correct that there is a danger that any accommodation with modernity will doom the GOP to being seen as “liberal lites.”
But there is a way to apply conservative principles to government as it is and not as we would wish it to be. That is my major point - conservatives must forge a new understanding of the role of government in society and how it interacts with citizens. I believe it can be done by applying first principles.
ed.
Comment by Igor R. — 2/16/2009 @ 3:49 pm
Ed, as you may suspect I disagree. You say “there is a way to apply conservative principles to government as it is and not as we would wish it to be. That is my major point – conservatives must forge a new understanding of the role of government in society and how it interacts with citizens”.
The main point of conservatism as I understand it is that the FEDERAL government and to a lesser degree STATE government should have a small and well-defined role in society. Its role is (a) to protect us from external threats (b) set up internal rules that promote fairness in individual interactions, such as contract laws, laws prohibiting most form of physical violence, disclosure rules, etc (c) enforce these rules. Clearly there could be arguments about the government’s role in education and foreign trade. But to accept the government as it’s found today and the expectations many voters have for the government simply to placate those voters seems counter-intuitive UNLESS one believes that (a) that’s what wins elections for “conservatives” (b) it’s worth it for those “conservatives” to win elections. I say let the Democrats argue among themselves whether the deficit should be 1 trillion or 5 trillion or whether the illegals should be legalized immediately or with a one year delay. Conservatives should always argue for limited government. If the liberals succeed with large government, they will win and deserve to win. If they fail, at least there should be a clear alternative.
Comment by Igor R. — 2/16/2009 @ 4:20 pm
Arlen Specter and Susan Collins???? Good lord. Where in God’s name do these two fit into a conference of conservatives? It is you who are conflating…not “principles” and “ideology”, but politics with ideology. You actually believe that government ‘as it is’, with an Obama administration and a willing Congress, is good for this country? What do you see different in what is going on now at the federal level and what went on for 50 years of New Deal Democrats? That they’re communicating on Twitter and using Blackberrys? The liberal message is no different today than it was when McGovern ran for president; there was no ‘adapting’ done by Democrats and liberals when they were rejected in 1980 and 1994. What they did to, however, is get their message out, and govern in the manner in which they campaign. Republicans, unfortunately, did not. The message of lower taxes, smaller government, individual liberty and responsibility is wonderful, but when the party doesn’t follow through, it is the party that is rejected, not the message. Mocking capital gains tax cuts? Oh, just brilliant. No sir: Igor R is spot on. If you want a party of Collins’, and Specters, Lugars and Lotts, have at it, because this conservative wants nothing to do with it. And that, sir, is very much sacrificing principle, rather than honing the message and doing what politics is meant to do, and that is convince the citizenry that your way is the better one.
Wha? Who? WTF? What are you talking about? Where do I say that Collins and Specter should be invited to CPAC? Where does it appear anywhere on the blog?
There is nothing that make me angrier than some dumbshit getting his nose out whack without even reading what I’ve written.
I think you better go back to Freeper land and resume your nap. It’s clear everything I wrote, Frum wrote, and Douthat wrote went so far over your head it didn’t even muss your hair.
ed.
Comment by Bob C — 2/16/2009 @ 4:35 pm
I think you’re all missing the fact that it’s a fluid game, not a static one. Reagan managed to move the entire dialog toward his position, and he didn’t do it with extremism. He found the conservative edge of the center and planted his flag there. You guys are planting your flag on the conservative end of the Right and wondering why you’re not seeing Reagan reincarnated.
Plant your flag on the right coast of the center, on Main Street, on making government an effective tool to aid economic growth. You’ll move the center your way and isolate the Left. If you isolate them they distill into purified essence of Left, much as the GOP has now done on the Right.
You have to firmly walk away from gay-bashing, immigrant-baiting and dog whistle racism and fanaticism on abortion. Even then it will be a while before you see power again, but you need to play the long game.
Comment by michael reynolds — 2/16/2009 @ 4:38 pm
I was hoping I would see something more than the usual bitching and moaning that conservatives have to change their message to something … y’know, different.
How silly of me.
Your idea of “clear-thinking conservative[s]” are David “Axis of Evil” Frum, whose 2/15 piece that you quoted runs 493 words. 31 of those words offer a job-boosting alternative to the trillion-dollar stimulus bill: a FICA holiday. The remaining 462 words detail how despite the increasingly restrictive and confiscatory central government Obama is ramping up, he still kick’s the GOP’s elephantine posterior in opinion polls. He bashes GOP congressmembers as “clueless,” “brain dead,” and “futile” for hitting Obama’s stimulus on pork issues. If they would only listen to me, Frum implies, “we” would be seen as “serious” by whoever those pollsters question.
The FICA holiday idea is a good one. But does Frum sincerely believe that if promoted, it would make an impact greater than directly contradicting Obama’s fatuous proclamation that there were NO earmarks in the 1,000-page stimulus bill? Should the GOP let go unchallenged Charles Schumer’s snark that the American people don’t care about pork? Why is it “silly” to focus on “protecting” a mouse but NOT silly (or outrageous) for Nancy Pelosi to extract $30,000,000.00 for it in a so-called “emergency,” and then lie about it? As for his laughing that conservatives are offering up “1980s-vintage solutions” in 2009, has it been lost on him that Obama, Pelosi, & Reid are harkening back to Nineteen-Thirty-Freaking-Six?
Comment by L.N. Smithee — 2/16/2009 @ 4:41 pm
Actually the whole idea that the government should play with FICA withholdings to promote recovery is a highly non-conservative idea. The government should tax in order to support its operations. Using taxes as an economic carrot or stick is anti-conservative. Saying that in general taxes should be cut because people know how to us the money better than the government is conservative.
Comment by Igor R. — 2/16/2009 @ 4:52 pm
The polls also suggest that no more than 28% of the population is Liberal. Your math would seem to also apply here, but the numbers are even worse for them, and yet Democrats have won recent elections. Reform is a good thing, but I think understanding is a pre-requisite: what is the “problem” and can it be corrected without sacrificing principals. If not, perhaps more Conservatives need to become Democrats and reform that party, instead.
Comment by Billy — 2/16/2009 @ 4:58 pm
Michael Reynolds wrote:
Excuse me — “conservative edge of the center”? What political figure in 1980 was perceived as further to the right than Ronald Reagan? In the 1976 GOP primaries, Gerald Ford (or his supporters) ran a TV commercial in which a woman warned, “Governor Reagan can’t start a nuclear war. President Reagan can.”
Oh, brother. I knew we would get here eventually.
I strongly reject your premise of conservative “bashing,” “baiting”, “racism,” and “fanaticism.” But putting those aside for the moment, why don’t you tell me what the difference would be between Dems and Republicans once those traits are eradicated.
Don’t chicken out, Michael.
Comment by L.N. Smithee — 2/16/2009 @ 5:00 pm
There IS no “coming back,” not while conservatives refuse to undo the deal with the devil that people like Lee Atwater and subsequently Karl Rove concocted between conservatives and the Religious Right to secure Reagan’s win. While that wing of your party continue to call all the shots and insist that they can dictate everyone else’s private life, fiscal conservatives like myself have no choice but to vote elsewhere. The shrill, exclusionary rhetoric is utterly out of step with the reality of the electorate’s composition, but no one seems to “get it.” I don’t really like Democrats any more than I like the Religious Right, but I’m going to err on the side of those who aren’t going to tell me how I MUST live my life.
Comment by Richard Chicago — 2/16/2009 @ 5:05 pm
[...] the (as the One hath so often reminded us) “failed policies of the last eight years?” Rick Moran has a point here: Ann Coulter is the keynote speaker at the upcoming CPAC conference?? Ann [...]
Pingback by Republican revival or recession? - Whatever Is Right — 2/16/2009 @ 5:16 pm
Richard #14
You’re kidding right? OMG! That statement is so incredibly devoid of reality I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
Nancy and Barney and Harry want nothing short of total control of your life. The Democrats want to keep you from smoking, from eating too much, and only the right foods. They want to dictate the car you drive, the temperature of your house. They’ll check the curb to make sure you are recycling. They want to limit what you earn, and if it’s too much, they’ll tax you to make you equal with everybody else. Don’t spank your child! Wear a seatbelt! Watch what you say, or else you can be jailed for hate speech.
From the cradle to the grave, they’ve got plans for you. And you are worried about !. abortion and 2. gay rights? WTF? That’s it? Are you planning to have one or be one? If not, then get a grip.
Comment by sara in va — 2/16/2009 @ 5:48 pm
And which side would that be Richard Chicago???
The side that is going to dictate which kind of light bulbs we use; how much carbon we’re permitted to exhale with each breath or each item produced; what we can eat or drink if we want to be eligible for the state-mandated health coverage; or what we are even allowed to hear on the radio or read on the Internet. Those are all ideas coming from the side you claim isn’t telling us how we MUST live our lives. The side that includes funding for smoking cessation in the stimulus, passes every smoking ban possible (even in your own car or house if they get their way) and then decides the way to raise funding for the S-CHIP expansion is to raise the cigarette tax.
Comment by Michael S. — 2/16/2009 @ 6:36 pm
John McCain ran the kind of campaign Frum, Brooks etc have advocated. And guess what, he lost!!!! Why do you want to replicate their ideas Rick?
Your use of the term “freeperland” says oodles about who you really are. The disdain shown for conservative Republicans by Frum,Brooks and now sadly yourself, show who are really intolerant. Sadly, I have lost a great deal of respect for you. As one who reads “freeperland” frequently I laud all types of conservatives. Its too bad you don’t.
John McCain ran a very bad campaign - worse than Kerry and far worse than Al Gore. He didn’t follow anybody’s advice nor did he run his campaign the way any professional would have wanted. He lost because he was a horrible candidate - as inspiring as a jello mold and as clueless as a tapir.
The Freepers have come to this site many times and have shown that they don’t know what a conservative is. They are mindless parrots, mouthing their talking points and calling anyone who disagrees with them a liberal. It is apparent that they have no knowledge of political labels and can only spout hate. If you respect them, I have to assume you are as ignorant as they are.
ed.
Comment by Kate — 2/16/2009 @ 6:37 pm
Richard Chicago,
“While that wing of your party continue to call all the shots and insist that they can dictate everyone else’s private life, fiscal conservatives like myself have no choice but to vote elsewhere.”
They continue to call the shots because they volunteer for the GOP like no one else does - they continue to call the shots because they can show their power at the polls. They are not some monolithic movement that liberals like you try to portray them - but they have more courage in their convictions than any one else in the country does.
It is laughable for you to say that they dictate your private lives while ignoring how the Democrats have been doing the very same thing for the last 75 years - they will tell you which schools your children cannot attend with Govt vouchers, which cars you cannot drive, which food you cannot eat, which people you HAVE TO contribute to from your pay check for their pension/old age…. which way you should look at Islamic terrorism, which way you should feel about minorities… Either you are Rip Van Winkle or you have an amazing level of awareness about the Democrat party.
Fiscal conservatives voting for ANY political party now is a joke - after whining about how Bush spent trillions of dollars of money that the country did nt have ( with which i agree btw), the Democrats have now signed on to a plan that will in actuality cost 3 trillion dollars in the next 10 years - and scuttled Bush’s plan on reforming entitlements such as Social Security - how’s that for fiscal reform ??
“I don’t really like Democrats any more than I like the Religious Right, but I’m going to err on the side of those who aren’t going to tell me how I MUST live my life.”
Well, you have chosen the “right” party then. The Democrats will never tell you how you must live your life. And Unicorns exist as well.
Wait till the baby boomers start retiring with in the next 10 years - we will then see how far the Democrats go to keep their favorite Ponzi schemes of Medicare and Social Security alive.
And Ive got to say this - many conservatives, as well meaning as they may be have lost their nerve.
Comment by Nagarajan Sivakumar — 2/16/2009 @ 7:22 pm
L.N.
You know how many times Ronald Reagan tried to outlaw abortion? Zero. You know how many government departments he shut down? Zero. His Supreme Court appointees? Oconnor, Scalia and Kennedy. He was not the furthest Right. He was as far Right as he could be and still touch the center. Which is the sweet spot for you guys.
What would be the difference between a center right GOP and a center-left Democratic Party? Your side would still look primarily to free market solutions with government as a competent handmaiden. The Democrats would reverse that. A smart GOP would push power back to the States. The Democrats would continue to centralize power in Washington.
You don’t think the GOP is guilty of attacking gays, blacks, Hispanics? Then explain why your party is as white and straight as a Utah country club? Obviously gays, blacks and Hispanics don’t feel comfortable with you guys. Do they? Your party is rural, white and old. If you think that’s a winning coalition going forward then you must be doing the new new math.
As long as the GOP is the party of gay-bashing, dog whistle racism, immigrant-baiting and abortion fanaticism, that’s all you’ll be. You slam the door on people in the center who might vote with you on economic issues and defense but can’t stomach the Religious Right’s nastiness.
Comment by michael reynolds — 2/16/2009 @ 7:26 pm
Richard Chicago,
Here is another factoid for you, which you must have surely missed - that rabid hot bed of conservatism known as California voted yes on proposition 8, a few months back to ban marriage between gays.
Those raging homophobic Californians ! The state must surely be full of right wing evangelical conservatives who reliably vote Republican in every Presidential election !!
Comment by Nagarajan Sivakumar — 2/16/2009 @ 7:27 pm
Richard Chicago, perhaps you would like to tell me what laws have ever been enacted under a Republican Congress that told you how to live your life? Are you not allowed to pull out of your driveway and go any damn place you would like to go?
It is not the “religious” right bringing law suits to have any mention of God removed from the sight of all you non-believers. You are free to not believe. But that is not good enough. You want me to have to climb into some dark catacomb like ancient Christians so your sensibilities are not insulted. Here is a suggestion for you; if you don’t like the signs of Christianity in the U.S., don’t look at them. And here is another suggestion; take your stance against religion to your nearest mosque.
Now the owner of this blog says that in order for conservatives to start winning elections again, we must find a way to mold ourselves to the politics of the times. And how do we do that? The simple fact is that people vote their wallets. The more you promise them in goodies, the better chance you will have of winning. That was Obama’s message, and he delivered it with all the skill of a wealthy used car salesman.
So should conservatives become the same way? Should we turn in to Marx lite just because the nation is being convinced that collectivism is really not a bad thing?
Perhaps the question should not be how do conservatives start winning again by changing their message, perhaps the question should be how do we create a nation that is like the past generations that make this nation great and not like what we have now; a nation of people who subscribe to the “everyone is a victim and everyone is entitled to something for free” mentality.
Comment by retire05 — 2/16/2009 @ 7:40 pm
“Most of the base deserted this site long ago”
Indeed.
Yes. Your point? That you’re such an idiot that you waste your time visiting sites you have no interest in?
I bet you like watching grass grow too. About as much stimulation as your mind can take.
ed.
Comment by Kat — 2/16/2009 @ 8:21 pm
I couldn’t agree more however I do have a problem with the Peggy Noonan types who helped Obama win this election.
Comment by Dennis D — 2/16/2009 @ 9:06 pm
You’re kidding right. Coulter, Reed, Malkin, Phyllis Schlafly, and Bay Buchanan. Wait, here’s a plan for our comeback, present the lunatic fringe as standard bearers of the conservative movement and wait for the 20 point bump, although I wouldn’t hold your breath. Say what you want about Spectre, Snow, and Collins, at least they can interpret the numbers, or maybe you would like 3 more Democratic Senators from the Northeast.
Conservative=Coulter, Reed, Schlafly, Malkin, and Buchanan, the world is flat, and Christ rode into Jerusalem on the back of a friendly Brontosaurus, the equation for years of wandering the political wasteland and eventual extinction.
BTW, Rick, thanks for understanding the numbers and admitting it.
Comment by Hyde Park Libertarian — 2/16/2009 @ 9:38 pm
Rick,
What I believe is the republicans that are currently in Congress and Senate are more concerned about how the MSM is going to report their actions, than what is what is principled convictions. If they are standing on their convictions and principles, then we need to dump the lot and find some that have integrity and true convictions about what they believe.
Comment by DB in NJ — 2/16/2009 @ 10:07 pm
Nagarajan
Yeah, the democrats try to control all that because the republicans tend to stick to controlling what goes on in peoples bedrooms.
You know what Nagarajan? I don’t like either choice. Show me the light.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 2/16/2009 @ 10:23 pm
I think we can build on the self reliant, fun and creative side of conservatism. Not the over the top liberal bashing I’m soooo tired off. I believe only our creativity can get us out of this mess. Take science for example. How can we best create a fuel efficient, sustainable economy? Is the DOE system really the best way to stimulate success in this area? You can’t really always say “Ohh, government needs to get out of the way, that is the problem”. Not necessarily so. If you look at China and India who invested heavily into their education and research, you can see a vast improvement. However, the United States is still the leader in many fields because we try to foster this creative environment both at Universities and private companies by not being over regulated and controlled by government agencies. Allowing a little anarchy sometimes does wonder!
You might say, what does that have to do with conservatism? To me it has everything to do with it. You need the private sector as well as the government to have world class science but most of all you need a passion for your goal and the courage to have fun. Maybe it is the ultimate fun for some to be vindictive and it has to be the same old ‘global warming hoax’, Al Gore this’ evolution is nothing but a theory’ over and over again. Wtf, yawn. I for one want to work on solutions to get us out of our foreign oil dependency by for example improving the efficiency of microbial hydrogen production.
Lastly, as I have stated before if we are not even close to being competitive in New England, West Coast and Lord behold New York City it might be quite some time in the wilderness (sure, grave mistakes by Obama might shorten this). Perhaps the ’say it louder’ faction of my fellow conservatives have to feel to believe and the inevitable outcome of a Palin 2012 run might make them more accessible to reason.
Comment by funny man — 2/16/2009 @ 11:31 pm
In case the author hasn’t noticed ever since the conditions he advocates have been utilized the GOP has been in trouble. Who would better fit his definition of a big tent Republican than McCain, a man who suffered defeat at probably the worst candidate any party has ever fielded.
Conservatives will wander as long as their are those who reject principle for temporary gains or a big tent. Clearly standing up for principles and making those the cornerstone of the party and rejecting those who stray from them will serve the party well. One notes how good democratic party discipline is compared to the GOP. This is not because the Democrats are so unified but because it has tight controls and stresses party unity.
Why should Snowe, Collins, and the other RINOs be tolerated if they make a mockery of the GOP and reduce it to a nonentity? Better to lose those seats than sacrifice everything to appease a Pell or a Spectre.
The party should decide if it wants to protect the individual and limit the government or promote the government and restrict the individual, just not as much as the Democrats.
One path will lead to success. The other to the wilderness. If the party follows the Bushes and the other Big Tent advocates then it is doomed to irrelevance. Do we really need more politicians like Spectre and Arnie?
Pathetic.
Comment by Thomas Jackson — 2/17/2009 @ 2:10 am
“Bravo! Well said. One of the big problems as I see it is to propose solutions to real world challenges without sounding like liberal lite. I’m sure there’s a way that can be accomplished but haven’t a clue where to begin.”
ed.
In the first place, the problem is not sounding like liberal-lite, but actually being liberal-lite in intent. If what we come up with is merely a rephrasing of liberal positions in conservative terms to hide their real roots in liberalism, we are not only liberal-lite, we are liberals and should go sit with them.
Second, if it is so very difficult to find the way through this maze for you, then it must eventually dawn on you that what you are trying to articulate is most certainly too thin to be grasped by the rank and file, and too conscious of trying for the middle of the road to stir up the center-right or right partisan fevers needed to win elections.
By seriously trying to include the center-left in the big conservative tent, you are by definition threatening to compromize the principles of conservatism, or its other defining word preservation.
Just what must be preserved is the essential problem. No preservation, then no conservatism. Your statememts all along appear to me to be headed towards some compromise between right and left that truly leaves much of preservation behind, or so it seems.
Do we want to preserve the constitution, yes or no?
Do we want to stop legislation from the bench, yes or no?
Do we want to ensure fiscal responsibility in Congress, yes or no?
Do we want a fair contest in election cycles, yes, or no? By what means?
Do we want to eradicate corruption in government, yes or no? How?
Do we want to ensure that our legislators have the time and the obligation to read the bills they have had written, yes or no?
Do we want greater efficiency in how the government conducts its business, and without undue influence and micromanagement exerted by the Congress itself, yes or no?
Do we want a very strong military, yes or no?
Ddo we want to curb the power of congressional committees, their number, and their operating rules, yes or no? How?
Do you want to limit the number of terms one can serve in the Congress, yes, or no? Can we prevent the rise of political czars in each state?
Do we want the federal government out of education entirely, except for funneling no-strings grants to the states by some apportionment formula, yes or no?
Do we want to stop the practice of earmarks and pork, yes or no?
Do we want better, more objective criteria for assessing the worth of major federal tax receipt ecpenditures in specific districts, yes or no? (bridge to nowhere anyone?)
By formulating and answering a much broader set of questions such as these, you might see a pattern arising that more clearly defines what a conservative really wants in government. I would guess that there are at least 100 or more such questions for which we need definitive answers and the rationales behind them.
The result would be a conservative platform of considerable strength and depth, understood by all, and would lead to specific plans to achieve results in real life. It would trump Hope and Change with down-to-earth specifics.
Comment by mannning — 2/17/2009 @ 5:14 am
“There is nothing that make me angrier than some dumbshit getting his nose out whack without even reading what I’ve written.”
No, there is nothing that makes you angrier than someone who writes on your blog questions you have to actually think about to answer, so you dismiss them by picking one small phrase, building your straw man, and demolishing it, while completely ignoring the bulk of the post.
“Freeper”. Now that’s a page out of the left’s book, isn’t it. Just toss a couple of “Freeper”, Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter references into your rant and declare victory. No, no Freeper here. My daughter is Political Director for our congressman, Eric Cantor, whom you seem to have some positive things to say about. She learned that from her father. No, no ‘God and guns’ here…I’m a somewhat lapsed Catholic, and have never owned a gun. I abhor labels, and I suggest that your dialog might be more effective if you did as well.
What I do suggest is that the brand has been rejected, not the ideals…ideals that are every bit as applicable today as they were back in the Reagan ’stone age’. I suggest that the ‘redefinition’ of the party, as pushed by the likes of Patrick Ruffini, Ross Douthat, David Frum and their ilk, is exactly the colossal error that brought George Bush into office. “Compassionate Conservatism”? You’re seeing compassion, as defined politically, in spades in the ’stimulus’ bill Congress has just passed. A moratorium on payroll taxes. Brilliant. Yes, that’ll put some money in the pockets of citizens. What it won’t do is what cutting capital gains taxes and corporate taxes (among the highest in the industrialized world) will do: free up capital for investment and create jobs. Not make work jobs, not the temporary consumer spending that tax ‘moratoriums’ might create, but the kinds of jobs that will bring the economy back long term.
Again…those that believe as I do…that conservatives (and Republicans, to the extent that the party’s core tenets so define it) don’t need to look to fill the “center right” occupied by Snowe and Collins and Specter with “process”. If the party had governed by the principles that brought it to power from ‘80 to ‘94, you would not have the “specter” (pun intended) of Pelosi/Reid/Obama haunting your electoral dreams today. It did not. It abandoned those principles in return for K Street money and the inevitable corruption it brought, to simply win elections and pay off voters with spending, while allowing the Democrats and their media lackeys to falsely define them as the ‘bitter clingers’ that you seem to abhor.
If I were indeed the caricature of a “freeper” as your intended insult portrays, I might be tempted to return the insult, calling you and your chosen messengers Douthat et al no better than the elitists on the left, and dumb as a box of rocks to boot. But I’ll pass.
I see the problem pretty clearly now. Goofs like you are unable to grasp the simple concept that you can promote “core beliefs” while dealing with the world as it is - not as you click your heels together three times and wish it to be. And you are another who confuses ideology with philosophy - something Reagan never did and because of that was able to accomplish a lot. Low taxes is not a “conservative” principle. It is not a principle at all. It is a talking point (even though I support low taxes - the conservative principle that taxes should be as low as is consistent with meeting the obligations of the government), an issue on which you have taken an ideological stand. The “core belief” behind low taxes is what is important - a well ordered and free society should have a government that does not seize the property of its citizens in the form of taxes without good cause. Low taxes for the sake of having low taxes is meaningless drivel.
As for Mr. Potato Head, why should I listen to anyone who didn’t bother to read what I wrote - a not insignificant point. How could the gentleman criticize what I wrote without reading it? Are you really that much of an idiot that you would defend someone’s critique based on whatever the hell the person thinks I wrote rather than the actual words on the page? And you call that a “strawman” argument?
ed.
Comment by Bob C — 2/17/2009 @ 5:57 am
“I see the problem pretty clearly now.”
Followed by semantic gibberish about differences between “philosophy”, “ideology”, “principle”, and topped off by a simplistic portrayal of what was written. No, einstein, I don’t believe in low taxes simply for the sake of low taxes; nor do I believe that taxes should be low enough to ‘meet the obligations of the government’…that, of course, would be a really stupid belief, since the party in power gets to define what the obligations of the government are. Nor do I believe that taxes should be low because government shouldn’t sieze the private property of the citizens without “good cause”…since, again, it is the party in power that defines what those good causes are. There are a boatload of “good causes” in the stimulus bill, sport. Few, if any, of them are defined as responsibilities of the federal government as provided by the citizens in the Constitution. The government ‘as it is’ is a behemoth, an incomprehensible almalgam of “good causes”. Yeah, let’s ‘adapt’ those conservative ‘principles’ (or ‘ideologies’, or ‘philosophies’, or whatever word of the day stains your shorts) to government “as it is”, rather than working long and hard….as the Democrats have done…to make the government what we want it to be. Hah. “Low taxes”, without nuance and context. What a maroon. Doesn’t see the genius of Douthat, or Frum, or Noonan, or Parker, who in their refined wisdom see Sarah Palin for what she really is, no doubt.
Noonan, for example, got caught on open mike. She tried, at first, to make silly excuses, but the cat was out of the bag. She, and those mates of her you write of, despise the flyovers, people just like Sarah Palin, so much that they are quick to define her falsely, with canards about ’social conservatism’, portraying her as some kind of speaking-in-tongues, Ruby Ridge “godbag”, when she is exactly what the party, and the movement, needs. A plain speaking, dedicated reformer, who applies her conservative (fill in the blank) on a practical level in her state, who believes that individual liberty is sacred, that the Constitution means what it says, without the need for emanations and penumbras, and that it is the citizen, not their government, that is the key to prosperity and security.
“Goof”. You betcha. Now carry on with your childish insults.
Comment by Bob C — 2/17/2009 @ 6:54 am
Rick — If you are addressing the issue of tactics necessary to bring about an era of Reaganite limited-government and Liberty, I am interested in this discussion. But I have better and more fun things to do with my remaining years (I’m your age) than merely helping move America to European-style socialism. I’m not accusing you of suggesting that, just saying I’m not sure what ultimate goal you have in mind for the “conservative” movement. I am tired of Ann Coulter’s hysterics, yes, but I also disagree with David Brooks’ writing that we need to accept big government forever.
Activists don’t want to follow an uncertain trumpet. And I say that as someone who was once a GOP county exec board member and activist.
Define “limited government.” And be specific please. What departments-agencies would you eliminate? What would be the effect of eliminating them? Remember, we are talking about a $3 trillion budget with literally thousands of agencies and dozens of departments. What about the ordinary citizens who would be affected by the elimination of those departments and agencies? There are 300 million American citzens with an incredibly diverse set of needs - and yes, desires when it comes to what they want out of goverment.
Eliminate or modify regulations? Absolutely. Which ones? What would be the effect of eliminating or modifying them? Which citizens and how many would be adversely affected?
Do you think the argument “We are doing this for your own good” will resonate politically? Or what other argument would you make?
It’s not as simple as many conservatives make it out to be, is it?
ed.
Comment by John E. Howard — 2/17/2009 @ 7:26 am
Wow, what a thread between Rick and Bob C. At the risk of being f bombed and slogan slandered by the editor (despite being a tip jar member, I might ad), I prefer the click my heels 3 times approach embraced by Goldwater, Buckley, Reagan and Bob C. Trying to package a new flavor of conservatism to appeal to this fickle electorate is counterproductive. Let them have their fill of the remedy they chose — that will be more persuasive than some “new” conservatism that is yet to be articulated or agreed upon.
Now as issues are presented, conservatives need a sound spokesperson to respond — I suggest bypassing senators and house leaders, and have GOP governors giving the “what would conservatives do” retort to the leftist agenda. The governors of MN, SC, LA, AK and Puerto Rico should be the public eye on a regular basis. I think we’re all tired of seeing Boehner and McConnell as the faces of conservatism, plus governors are great prospects for a national ticket.
But again, this is all “click my heals” wishful thinking because CPAC, GOPAC, and the RNC will probably resume the same old convention formulas, and the conservative blogosphere will probably continue with its circular firing squad strategy.
Comment by mark30339 — 2/17/2009 @ 8:52 am
It has taken Democrats and liberals 7 decades to assemble the thousands of agencies and dozens of departments of which you speak. I don’t pretend to speak for Mr. Howard, but I suspect that he believes, as I do, that the process of dismantling it is not one of eliminating them with the stroke of a presidential pen; it is the proverbial journey of a thousand miles that begins with one step. Would conservatives like to do just that…send educrats at the DoEd scurrying home to make a living outside of the federal cocoon? Most assuredly. Do conservatives believe that is remotely possible? Most assuredly not. What many do, however, believe is that it should not be accepted, QED, that because that’s the government we have that’s the one that we must learn to deal with. They believe that, had a Republican congress simply controlled spending, as they promised they would, protected the borders, as they promised they would, and maintained a strong national defense, as they generally have, there would be little need for $1 trillion dollar handouts.
The seductive nature of government largesse has always been, and always will be, a difficult opponent for those whose message is ‘you can make it on your own efforts’. When Democrats define the issue…and they are very, very good at that (recall how Bill Clinton’s veto of Republican budgets was ultimately twisted into Congress shutting down the government)..conservatives lose. Defining ‘compassion’ as that only provided by government is what has succeeded. We have to do better than ‘compassionate conservatism is redundant’ bumper stickers.
Comment by Bob C — 2/17/2009 @ 8:55 am
“Wow, what a thread between Rick and Bob C. At the risk of being f bombed and slogan slandered by the editor (despite being a tip jar member, I might ad), I prefer the click my heels 3 times approach embraced by Goldwater, Buckley, Reagan and Bob C”
Not to worry, fellow dreamer. It’s all part of the ‘big tent’ of the “new” Republican party/conservative movement.
Before you inadvertently squeeze off another round into the circular firing squad by asking for your money back from the tip jar, I’ll duck the next “poopyhead” response from the editor and say that there is indeed much to be said for a new approach for Republicans and conservatives, and agree with Ruffini in saying that we’ve been outgunned by Dems and liberals over the past several election cycles in getting out the message, and in recruiting a new cohort of candidates and citizens. That much, I think, we can all agree upon. The remaining difference, unfortunately, is that you and I seem to agree that there is a timelessness of the Reagan/Buckley message that we’d be insane to abandon. And as I see it, that message doesn’t include acceptance of ‘the government that we have’, at the expense of the government we believe should be.
I never said accept “government that we have.” I have been writing for 4 years about accepting the best conservative government we can get, applying conservative principles to governance. By doing so, it will change government, make it better, more responsive, less intrusive. My basic message has been directed against those who believe we can repeal the Great Society, or Nixon’s vast expansion of government, or most of the growth that we have seen from government the last half century. This is not going to happen. It is unserious to argue it. And it is daffy to promote it.
ed.
Comment by Bob C — 2/17/2009 @ 9:28 am
“Apply conservative principles to governance”. Sounds like a plan to me…but in my advancing years, the short term memory is lacking. Remind me again where I, or anyone else on this thread, has said otherwise.
Where we, apparently, part company is that I believe that conservative principles are an anathema to that Great Society, New Deal, Nixonian government; applying those principles begins the process of doing exactly what you claim is “daffy” (can we be adults, just for a post or two, and dispense with the name calling?). As I’ve said (post 35)…I’m not so Pollyannish to believe that conservatives can sweep to electoral victory by promising to “repeal” the Great Society. I’ve also said that it took 70 years for the Democrats to construct the government we have. Incrementally, stealthily in some cases, but inexorably. And they continue that slow, unflinching move to include health care, the Fairness Doctrine, and the Rodney King approach to foreign policy. Why do you, and others, convince yourselves that those of us who disagree with you are somehow mired in some “daffy” belief that what took 70 years to assemble can be disassembled in one fell swoop…or over one political term in office, or in anywhere less than another 7 decades? It will be a long, slow, difficult process…but it is a process that this nation desperately needs, lest we end up destroying that which we hold most dear.
Now be nice.
Comment by Bob C — 2/17/2009 @ 10:03 am
I can’t believe I’m going to type this but: Politicians aren’t the problem. We the People are.
I’m sorry, but most people I come into contact with are laughably ignorant about…well everything re: the history and governance of this country.
I know a living breathing human over the age of 30 who walked around all of 2008 with an Obama button on who admits that he never really heard of the Vietnam War. “Well, I’ve heard of it, I guess, but I have no idea who fought in it. Was it the US?”
You blame Bush for Compassionate Conservative? How the else can you get elected when I’d venture to guess that 25% of the US population thinks that government has its own money and has a Constitutional duty to give it to us?
I’d venture that most looked at The Messiah and thought: “He looks good on TV. Let’s cast him in the part. Plus, Sarah Palin has cooties. I know because Tina Fey said so and why would TV lie?”
There are living breathing Americans walking around who survived the Great Depression and have said to me: Isn’t Obama so fresh? Aren’t his ideas so new?
We have the government that we have because unfortunately, this is what most people want.
>>The absence of conservatives like David Frum, Peggy Noonan, David Brooks, and others who probably agree with 90% of conservative positions on the issues but have been driven from the movement for their apostasy—real or imagined—is as incomprehensible as it is depressing.<<
Other than helping to get Obama elected by consistently trashing Palin and drooling over The One (”Gosh, I hear Obama reads Neibuhr! Isn’t he so dreamy? Does anyone have an extra pair of underwear?!”), Frum et. al. are real bedrock conservatives. Right? Right?
I say we suck out Brad and Angelina’s brains, replace them with real conservative brains and run e’m in 2012. It’s our only shot.
Comment by Long time Lurker — 2/17/2009 @ 10:57 am
Oh, this is just too good to pass up…as posted on Ace of Spades, taken from a WSJ op-ed:
“Genuine bipartisanship assumes an honest process of give-and-take, and that the quality of the compromise is measured by how well it serves some agreed-upon goal, whether better schools or lower deficits. This in turn assumes that the majority will be constrained — by an exacting press corps and ultimately an informed electorate — to negotiate in good faith.
“If these conditions do not hold — if nobody outside Washington is really paying attention to the substance of the bill, if the true costs . . . are buried in phony accounting and understated by a trillion dollars or so — the majority party can begin every negotiation by asking for 100% of what it wants, go on to concede 10%, and then accuse any member of the minority party who fails to support this ‘compromise’ of being ‘obstructionist.’
“For the minority party in such circumstances, ‘bipartisanship’ comes to mean getting chronically steamrolled, although individual senators may enjoy certain political rewards by consistently going along with the majority and hence gaining a reputation for being ‘moderate’ or ‘centrist.’”
Wow. If that doesn’t describe to the letter what is going on in some Republican circles today, I don’t now what does.
The writer? Barak Hussein Obama. Smart guy, no?
Comment by Bob C — 2/17/2009 @ 11:01 am
Define “limited government.” And be specific please. What departments-agencies would you eliminate? What would be the effect of eliminating them?
Heh, big question considering that at this moment I’m with a relative who only has bad dial-up (and I’ve already lost the connection once while typing this), but for starters let’s eliminate the Dept. of Education. It’s nothing but a massive administrative black hole. The effect of eliminating it would be to place more emphasis on local control of education. Monetary disparities between school systems can be handled in more cost-effective ways.
Remember, we are talking about a $3 trillion budget with literally thousands of agencies and dozens of departments. What about the ordinary citizens who would be affected by the elimination of those departments and agencies?
I’m sorry some people’s lives might be affected, but none of us has a right to live out of our countrymen’s pockets (I believe it was James Madison who wrote, “The Constitution does not contain the word ‘charity.’”) What you wrote implies that no government program can ever be cut.
Eliminate or modify regulations? Absolutely. Which ones? What would be the effect of eliminating or modifying them? Which citizens and how many would be adversely affected?
Rick, I don’t have access to the committees and data and staff to answer this. Hopefully, you are just pointing out to me that eliminating departments have consequences. Fine. Otherwise, you’re just telling me my opinion doesn’t matter because I’m just a little guy who doesn’t understand the specific consequences of down-sizing government. That’s fine too, if it’s true. LIke I said, I’d rather re-read the classics, hang with my family, hike, etc. I hated political activism. I did it as a duty. Maybe I should just let the experts handle things.
Do you think the argument “We are doing this for your own good” will resonate politically? Or what other argument would you make?
I think you are right that the present climate of dependence and fear weakens this argument somewhat, but I also think Americans still value individual liberty and distrust government control. That’s how I’d frame the argument if I were the GOP.
I also think this will be a very good argument in years to come when inflation and entitlement payments are gutting the earnings of young people. This is where I’d put my energies — educating young people in the basic principles that underlie American freedom. And small government is one of them.
Comment by John E. Howard — 2/17/2009 @ 12:32 pm
Bob C
Very well argued, thank you. Eric Cantor is my Congressman. I’ve probably met your daughter. Cool.
I also do not favor taking a center-right approach. My son and his high school buddies are all Ron Paul supporters. These kids understand what a trillion is, they know they are being screwed by Washington, DC.
Running center-right candidates will not get their votes. Young people want new ideas, new energy, a bit of a rebellious spirit and center-right candidates do not embrace that. Instead they exude “we’ll do it this way, we’ll give in, because we HAVE to”. Young people don’t want to hear that. They don’t mind fighting on principle. They want to matter.
:
:
Enough about that, you already covered it.
:
:
However, since we are speaking about CPAC, let me just add a note about it, and perhaps further explain why people become disenchanted with conservatism.
On Monday I called the American Conservative Union to ask about student pricing at CPAC. The man who answered the phone was the biggest jerk ever. He was rude, unhelpful, too lazy or too tired or bored or whatever to answer with full sentences. He appeared to not care at all what kind of image he projected for the organization.
After asking about banquet ticket availability at the youth rate, I asked whether the speaker was set (there have been some changes to the agenda). His reply: “Got a computer? Read it.”
Whoa. You want to know why people turn away from conservatism? Right there, in a nutshell.
Comment by sara in va — 2/17/2009 @ 1:56 pm
Kate wrote:
Rick Moran responded:
For the record, David Frum supported Giuliani for the nomination, and pulled the lever for McCain despite reservations about the selection of Governor Palin. “Conservative” David Brooks, on the other hand, melted under the Obama “charm offensive” like a smitten schoolgirl. When Brooks discovered he and Obama shared an affection for the writings of Reinhold Niebuhr, he was a goner — once Obama won the nomination, it seemed like Brooks was looking for reasons NOT to vote for a Republican. “Conservative” Peggy Noonan’s true colors shown through in her open mike moment on MSNBC. She backtracked at first, but reiterated her trashing of Palin in the weeks before the election, echoing Brooks’ admiration of Obama’s honed image of “coolness” and even demeanor. “Conservative” Christopher Buckley — son of the most revered conservative thinker of the latter 20th century, and who once wrote a campaign speech for John McCain — endorsed Barack Obama, thinking BHO was too smart to believe the ideology he embraced for most of his adult life would work. Here’s young Buckley:
That shows you how well secular prayers work. I have more to say about Christo Buckley’s folly on my blog.
The idea that “political labels” like “conservative” are easy to perceive when their side is sticking to its guns and the our side is laying ours down is ridiculous.
I registered at Free Republic a decade ago (in the thick of the Whitewater/Lewinsky investigation) and used to log on and comment daily, but, I admit, the level of discourse has devolved in recent years. I finally grew weary of trying to talk down people who thought Obama could be stopped by a certifiable career criminal who insisted he and the then-Senator shared cocaine and fellatio in a limousine nine years ago, and only occasionally check FR out nowadays. I was part of the minority of vocal FR members who joined you in saying that Ann Coulter’s name-calling and bomb-throwing was counterproductive to the cause. So I am mystified at what you think is being accomplished by your dismissive, profane tone.
Since you’re so keen on statistics and demographics, you must realize that the electorate is a sliver of the adult population. A lot of people want to make a living, support their families and communities, or even be rich. Not all of us went to college for the purpose of pondering for a living, Rick. But usually there is some issue that forces up to sit up, take notice, and ask, “What’s going on here? How can I stop what’s going wrong? Who’s responsible for causing this?” To meet such people with “Shut up, you ignorant dumbshit!” goes Coulter one worse in alienating applicants up for a fight. And it also shows who has the “hate.”
Comment by L.N. Smithee — 2/17/2009 @ 3:31 pm
In my previous post, the paragraphs after each of the blockquotes should have been included in the . I was not aware this version of WordPress automatically closes the blockquote tag after a hard return.
Comment by L.N. Smithee — 2/17/2009 @ 3:43 pm
Sara in VA:
I don’t doubt your tale. But what really turns people away from conservatism is the daily barrage of lies and distortions that come from the media– mostly TV and movies, which is where most ‘youts’ get their worldly info from.
Few, except for political junkies, read blogs and newspaper editorials and watch Meet the Press, etc. But sitcoms, movies, Daily Show type stuff. That’s where conservatism gets drubbed.
“Young people want new ideas, new energy, a bit of a rebellious spirit”
That’s the problem right there. Politics and government isn’t day in/day out Boston Tea Party meets Rave in the Desert.
Comment by Long time Lurker — 2/17/2009 @ 3:57 pm
Michael Reynolds wrote:
My question to you was “What political figure in 1980 was perceived as further to the right than Ronald Reagan?” The only one that I could think of is Jesse Helms, but Helms never ran for President. Barry Goldwater was sixteen years removed from his firebrand days, and had moderated many of his views. Nevertheless, I was pretty confident you couldn’t give me an answer. And you didn’t.
There is a new biography of former Reagan Administration Deputy Secretary of State Bill Clark in which it is revealed that Clark – a California judge under Reagan – turned down Reagan’s offer to nominate him to replace Potter Stewart. Clark believed Roe needed overturning, and after interviewing Anthony Kennedy at Reagan’s request, recommended Kennedy’s nomination partially because he felt Kennedy also would vote against Roe. Stewart’s slot went instead to Sandra Day O’Connor, a former pro-ERA Arizona Republican legislator appointed to the bench by Gov. Bruce Babbitt (who may have feared she would run against him). Here’s what Reagan wrote in his personal diary on July 6, 1981:
I hope I don’t have to inform you about Scalia. If you don’t know where he stands on Roe and abortion, you haven’t been paying enough attention to even have an opinion.
Reagan himself authored a book while in office about his feelings on the right to life called Abortion and the Conscience of Nation. It was the Reagan Administration that in 1984 established the “Mexico City Policy” that was reversed by Clinton, reinstated by GWB, and reversed on day two by Obama. So no, Reagan did not ever threaten to issue an executive order “outlawing abortion,” but it’s clear how he felt about the right to life. There has been no serious Presidential candidate who has ever “tried to outlaw abortion.” You read like one of those fact-challenged folk who are under the impression Roe v. Wade “legalized” abortion.
I disagree. Everything Reagan was able to accomplish he did despite having to contend with House Speaker Tip O’Neill and Robert Byrd as Senate Majority Leader. He moved away from the center; George W. Bush and his father (to a lesser extent) moved toward it when they didn’t need to.
So, in other words, smart Republicans would encourage state government to grow up, and not rely on Washington pork-barrel spending so much. Hey, you know who said that sort of thing back in 2007? Sarah Palin. But Dems didn’t like her because she’s too pro-life, too Christian, too pro-gun. Don’t try to tell me it’s all about her intellect or readiness; the long knives of feminist liberals were out for her before her shaky response in ambush interviews raised those issues. Oh, and don’t forget that Roe v. Wade is the ULTIMATE states rights issue nowadays.
Comment by L.N. Smithee — 2/17/2009 @ 4:00 pm
Your editorial snark is why you will never be a blog worth reading. You are boorish.
Edit this bitch.
Comment by Kat — 2/17/2009 @ 10:48 pm
LN:
I don’t see anything wrong with being white and straight. I’m both. But I’ve kind of noticed that an increasing number of voters aren’t.
You can deny until you’re blue in the face that the GOP is anti-gay, anti-Hispanic or anti-black, but it doesn’t matter in political terms because each of those groups believes you are. So, you say “No, we don’t practice dog-whistle racism!” and then you lose 95% of the black vote. “No, we don’t demonize Hispanics,” and then you actually manage to lose ground among a highly religious, socially conservative group like that. “No, we don’t bash gays,” and the only gay supporters you have are your closet queen Senators.
Let me put it this way: you may think the GOP’s not anti-black and anti-Hispanic, but they sure think you are. So one way or the other, you have a bit of a problem.
Look, it’s not my job to help you idiots win elections. As an American patriot I think we need a functioning second party. But if you insist on suicide, well, okay. Someone will eventually step in to take your place, just as the GOP replaced the Whigs. Rick is trying to be a voice for survival. But I’ve thought all along you guys would rather cut your own throats than grow up. This comment thread makes the point more eloquently than I could.
So, dude: everything is great. Black people love the GOP. Hispanics are going to come over to your side. Attacking gay marriage is totally going to work for you. The elderly, white and rural strategy is the pathway to future success! Keep on keepin’ on. Boo yeah! Next year you may win back Indiana!
Comment by michael reynolds — 2/17/2009 @ 11:25 pm
“Low taxes is not a “conservative” principle. It is not a principle at all. It is a talking point (even though I support low taxes – the conservative principle that taxes should be as low as is consistent with meeting the obligations of the government), an issue on which you have taken an ideological stand. The “core belief” behind low taxes is what is important – a well ordered and free society should have a government that does not seize the property of its citizens in the form of taxes without good cause. Low taxes for the sake of having low taxes is meaningless drivel.”
*Standing ovation*
Comment by busboy33 — 2/18/2009 @ 3:11 am
Rick, you write many well thought, exquisitely executed posts. Please forgive my simplicity, but I have a really difficult time wrapping my mind around what seems to me to be not much more than an intellectual circle jerk when you start discussing what is wrong with the conservative movement.
Conservatism is (as its name implies) what it always was…an acknowedgement of man’s eternal desire for freedom, independence, and liberty. Whether you wish to ascribe these traits as having been endowed by a creator or deity or just having evolved from the Ape doesn’t matter to me.
Why don’t we talk about the positive and natural aspects of conservatism as it relates to government and societal problem solving?
Who cares about Frum or Douthat or Chris Buckley or David Brooks or Peggy Noonan? If even half of these folks voted for Obama, even with a weak cnadidate like McCain, they have been doing way too much of the same intellectual circle jerking as you seem to be doing in this article.
Comment by cdor — 2/18/2009 @ 9:45 am
Rick Moran, truly, you’re a man of many words. What a long-winded narrative. If I understand the warp and woof of this piece, conservatism must somehow adapt or change and become relevant in this 21st. century. I do not agree. The GOP got it’s butt kicked in 2006 and 2008. This is obvious. The reason this happened (and here is one of my rare agreements with Limbaugh), is because the GOP threw conservatism under the bus. Does that brand me as a dogmatic conservative? If yes, I’ll wear the label proudly and no, I probably wouldn’t like the smell inside the “big tent”.
Comment by jazplyr — 2/18/2009 @ 9:58 am
Sara said:
Wrong. What turns people away from conservatism is the number of litmus tests you have to pass before you’re in the club.
Take this blog, for example. Rick is one of the most thoughtful introspective conservative bloggers around. Yet I watch other so called ‘true’ conservatives trash and belittle him with more ferocity than almost any the liberal commenters, combined. If you stray outside the norm on any number of decisive issues, you’re ostracized and mocked. Who would want to be a part of that?
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 2/18/2009 @ 10:09 am
So, Chuck, you are saying that liberals do not have litmus tests? Seems to me that for just about every conservative litmus test you can identify, there is an oppposite litmus test for liberals, which is a sort of backwards way of defining what liberals want out of life: hedonism and nihilism in short. Moral relativism and a heavy anti-religious bent goes with the liberal territory too. Your litmus tests not only turn me away from liberalism, it turns my stomach to realize just how many odious conformity and PC tests you actually demand of your denizens, in order to be….non-conservative!
Comment by mannning — 2/18/2009 @ 4:03 pm
Not at all. Also, you fail at assuming.
Yeah, I don’t really care.
Morality is literally evolved. It’s a more complicated genetic fight/flight mechanism. Furthermore, you’re confusing “anti-religious bent” with “keep your particular interpretation of your religions branch out of my bedroom.”
They’re not mine. Plus, I don’t care.
I’m a fiscally conservative independant. These imagined tests are not mine. Also, for the most part PC is just a way of proper labeling. Sometimes taken too far, but mostly it’s a way of telling people to stop being assholes to people who aren’t like them.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 2/18/2009 @ 5:08 pm
Duly noted that you are a FC/I, and also noted that you by definition have litmus tests for your positions, if only by the negation of conservative ones that you reject.
To succeed in getting a significant agenda of legislation passed, it is quite useful to have a solid voting majority of like-minded legislators. This is a situation you Independents will never have.
Comment by mannning — 2/18/2009 @ 11:50 pm
Chuck Tucson wrote:
I’m not surprised. You answered “I don’t care” to relevant counterpoints twice in your response to manning. Independents say “I don’t care” a lot.
Puhleeze. Political correctness is perhaps a-holes’ favorite weapon! It’s like a stun gun: If you’re making a sound, literate point, they whip out PC, and say (as I detailed in a previous post) “I’m being attacked!” and the usual suspects rush to their defense and counterattack without question. You can’t continue to make your point because you have to fend off false accusations that you’re a some sort of bigot.
Comment by L.N. Smithee — 2/19/2009 @ 1:09 am
Relevant is relative. I was saying that I don’t care, because I really don’t care what his opinion of liberals is. It wasn’t relative to the discussion. Thus, I didn’t care.
That’s interesting. I’ve never had to fend of accusations that I was a bigot. I can see how that might get annoying for you.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 2/19/2009 @ 10:04 am
The problem is that alleged genius Karl Rove insisted on pandering to minorities instead of treating them like adults. Instead of cowering and hiding from the NAACP, George W. Bush should have stated forthrightly, “Harry Belafonte should be ashamed of himself, and Julian Bond does the NAACP no favors when he deliberately misstates facts.” When he was scapegoated in the DNC/AFL-CIO-sponsored open-border protests, he should have pointed out that he is in favor of legal immigration, but that he swore to protect this nation from criminals (and, potentially, terrorists) crossing over and back across the border just as much as at the nation’s airports. But Rove thinks the way to get Hispanic votes is to imitate the Dems’ strategy: Let immigrants in without question, and give ‘em everything they demand.
Blacks born in America are controlled by poverty pimps who perpetuate the idea that unlike immigrants who fled here, they are owed “The American Dream” as retribution for past wrongs (African and Caribbean immigrants generally don’t fall victim to such attitudes). Look at the way Al Sharpton is sapping the energy of people by raising phony outrage about that New York Post editorial cartoon).
Let’s put it this way: If you have teenagers who sneak out of your house and meet at friends’ homes for drinking, drugs, and sex, instead of alienating them by grounding them or punishing them, you can stay in their good graces by letting them booze, bong and bang in your living room. They’ll either love you until the day they die or when they come to their senses and realize they were out of control and needed reigning in and counseling, whichever comes first.
Policies discouraging initiative are bad for blacks and America. Unfettered immigration is bad for Hispanics and America. Destroying the concept of the nuclear family is bad for America. Histories of past civilizations have shown us the longterm effect of policies that perpetuate overreliance on welfare, open borders, and family erosion. If no entity stands for those things, it won’t matter if there is a “functioning second party” or not — neither will stand on a foundation that aids the nation’s continued strength.
Comment by L.N. Smithee — 2/19/2009 @ 1:08 pm
Chuck Tucson wrote:
When all you do is bash conservatives, nobody accuses you.
Comment by L.N. Smithee — 2/19/2009 @ 1:34 pm
It must be rough being to misunderstood.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 2/19/2009 @ 2:08 pm
It’s rough being surrounded by people who are so thoroughly duped. Heaven help the first person who talks face-to-face with me about that New York Post cartoon that ignoramii believe is racist.
Comment by L.N. Smithee — 2/19/2009 @ 5:28 pm
L.N. Smithee,
do you honestly think Al Sharpton is taken serious in the black community. Just go to any black barber shop to find out. People know what he is.
Comment by funny man — 2/19/2009 @ 6:04 pm
funny man wrote:
It doesn’t matter. As long as he is propped up by the MSM as the go-to guy for blacktivism (replacing loose-lipped hypocrite Jesse Jackson), nobody will pay attention to more reasonable voices. How many black people did you see on the news last night who looked at that cartoon and said, “You’re overreacting?”
Comment by L.N. Smithee — 2/19/2009 @ 7:06 pm
Funny Man
Yes he does Funny Man. Or at least he wants to. Because without guys like Sharpton to hone his message and indirectly prove his (awesome for America) points, he’d have to start digging deeper, where the tough questions lie. Questions with more complicated answers than “with proper initiative and work ethic, minorities can become productive members of society!”
ps. Smithee, thanks for catching my error AND pointing it out to me. That really says a lot about your character right there, and sends a positive message to the kids. Well played.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 2/20/2009 @ 1:37 am
L.N. Smithee, Chuck,
ok the media wants to sell the news, what better way to put up a clown making silly noises. Same deal with conservatives, if the media wants a ‘conservative voice’ ridiculous figures like Ann Coulter are dug up. However, all this doesn’t matter to me. Case in point is the terrific job Michelle Rhee is making as chancellor of the public school system in DC. Sure, fossils like Marion Barry are mad about her but the majority of black parents support her. I used to live in Detroit so I know a school system that needs reform badly (ever since Coleman Young’s soultrain came to town). I know a lot of people in the inner city are not as usually portrayed in conservative blogs but want practical results not Al Sharpton enjoying his own voice.
Comment by funny man — 2/20/2009 @ 9:14 am
Chuck Tucson wrote:
You don’t like “my” answers, it’s clear. You suggest that they are a simplistic response to the “tough questions with more complicated answers…”
So, Chuck … what are the “more complicated answers?” Where are those “tough questions?” Do you have any idea what any of them are?
Your thinking is classically bassackwards. Not that I’m surprised.
funny man wrote:
Your doubting of Sharpton’s influence (whether he has rank-and-file support or not) should have been answered this past week, as the Poverty Pimp Blimp has whined, wailed, and threatened his way to another high-profile CEO apology (first Sumner Redstone, now Rupert Murdoch) and reignited racial controversy. This has nothing to do with “selling the news” — Sharpton is a conduit through which political pressure is placed on the right of center. His phony outrage is covered by the MSM, then the MSM — always viewing the right as guilty until proven innocent — leans on the right to defend itself and more often than not, the right caves.
Here’s a perfect illustration of how it worked this time around: Watch these CNN videos featuring Anderson Cooper and Kyra “The Zipper” Phillips. On AC 360, black former Bush Admin official Ron Christie is sandwiched between fake centrist David Gergen and black minister Roland Martin. Watch as Gergen and Martin snicker at Ron Christie’s logical, sensible case for the chimpanzee NOT to be taken as representative of Obama. Cooper actually was pretty fair, but Phillips, talking to Sharpton and some whoozat black professor — back up the agenda dump truck and pile it through your TV screen.
Comment by L.N. Smithee — 2/25/2009 @ 4:16 pm
Dagnabit. Here’s the link to the Cooper and Phillips videos.
Comment by L.N. Smithee — 2/25/2009 @ 4:24 pm