What do Conservatives Want?
I just posted a perhaps too lengthy article (3,652 words) at my blog looking at some of the basic agreements and disagreements among conservatives and at the impacts they may have on the elections this November.
There are more substantive agreements than disagreements but at least a few of the disagreements are deeply rooted and could affect adversely the outcome of a close election. I hope they won’t. As noted in the article,
There currently appear to be only a few substantive issues as to which there is enough dissension to ease President Obama’s way to reelection. None of those issues are sufficiently crucial to the well being of the nation to justify that result. Many of us desire many things but are unlikely to get them all. I would like to be healthy, happy, well to do and twenty years younger with no loss beyond the detriments of age of what I now enjoy. If required to choose, I would prefer happiness first, good health second and a bit of material wealth third; I would concede that riches and finding the fountain of youth are highly unlikely and settle for only the first three in moderation. We have to make similar choices in politics and the Bill Buckley rule is a good one: select, support and vote for the most conservative candidate who is likely to win. Even a modest conservative resurgence will be far better than continuing on the present steeply downward trajectory.
The most important thing is to get started halting the mess creation that has long continued and then to roll it back.
The Bill Buckley rule always gets trotted out when an establishment-backed Progressive Republican is running. Last cycle, we were told to vote for McCain because he was more electable than Romney against Obama…that he would get the moderates. Remember how that worked out? Now we are told the same thing about Romney. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Governor Romney is not my choice because he seems to take whatever positions he deems temporarily expedient. It is, therefore, often impossible to know what his views actually are and how he would act upon them were he to become the President. Most politicians do that but Governor Romney has taken the art to an extreme. However, I think he would probably be at least marginally better than President Obama and, if he is the nominee, I will vote for him with no enthusiasm.
We must remember that the Buckley Rule calls for the support of the most conservative candidate likely to win, not the candidate of the Republican wing of the political self-styled elite. Was McCain that candidate in 2008? No. Is Romney that candidate this year? No.
Is THAT ever the truth!
True dat! There are Reagan Democrats, but no Bush, Ford, or Nixon Democrats. Why bother voting for a Republican who votes like a Democrat when you can vote for the real thing?
Conservatives must educate the public on key principles such as what is the role of government. I constantly hear the media tell us that voters elect people to get things done…really? Please define “get things done.”
We are in such a mess and so divided because the basic principles of what is the role of government is no longer in the national discussion and certainly not in classrooms, no longer do we define what services state / local governemt should do and fund v. federal government. At the Federal level, Protect our rights, enforce the rule of law and abide by the enumerated powers in the Constitution. I know we have strayed far from the enumerated powers but we must work to return to them, use them as a guideline on how to prioritize our spending. I understand that presents a problem with entitlements, we must follow through on commitments made to seniors but we cannot leave those programs as they are for furture generations. One read of the Medicare annual report states the facts, the program is unsustainable, we need adults in elected office to speak to us as a nation with facts. If we kick the can down the road further, the pain will be greater and we will be Greece.
Start with the basics, what is the role of government and then tackle some small issues, no longer fund NPR, NEA, PBS, all of those organizations can survive with private donations, instead of blasting the rich, ask them to consider making donations to support these organizations, Soros is already funding NPR, let him and others take it off taxpayer hands. Hollywood should embrace funding the NEA, artist supporting artists. Once you show success with smaller steps, then go for bigger reforms. It can be done, but only with people who can deliver the message…hint, McConnell and Boehner are not the ones to get in front of the cameras, if you cannot beat Sen. Reid’s support for “Cowboy Poetry” then how can you cut serious spending? We need to see more of Paul Ryan, he can articulate the message.
I am responding to my own post because I found a long piece on the role of governemnt. I think readers here will find the full article worth a read, there are other well written articles by this author, lots of history to absorb and share, an excerpt:
“First and foremost, the role of a government is to protect individual rights. According to Cicero, the preeminent lawyer of ancient Rome, and the great thinkers of the Enlightenment Era such as John Locke and Thomas Hobbs, the primary role of government is to protect individual life, liberty, and property. To so do, a government must perform three basic functions: (1) Police – to protect individuals from domestic criminals and predators; (2) Military – to protect the community and individuals from foreign threats; and (3) Judiciary – to provide the means for individuals to settle disputes according to established law and without resorting to force. The government of a free people does not regulate its citizens nor does it coerce or influence their behavior in any way. The government of a free people is benevolent and not intrusive. Free and good people should never be afraid of their government. They should never be afraid to criticize it or seek to alter it so that it better suits their liberty needs. And should never be confronted with such voluminous statutes that they can’t reasonably be expected to read or understand them or their implications and then be punished for it.”
http://forloveofgodandcountry.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/what-is-the-proper-role-of-government/
Today’s GOP wants the same wasteful of spending and personal liberty restrictions as O, just in different ways. Waste a trillion on weapon systems that don’t work or a trillion on EPA fantasies, it’s the same debt.These people actually believe we can endlessly print money and pay no interest as much as we please.O has discovered the secret of endless wealth–borrow our future. The GOP allowed O to finance his reelection with our grandchildren’s legacy.The genie is out of the bottle.Magic money.Rub and more appears.As long as we destroy all other currencies,our dollar can support endless borrowing.
Except one HUGE difference is that debt taken out to finance EPA or education or other liberal causes DIRECTLY funds the Democratic party. Debt taken out to finance wasteful military projects actually do provide jobs. Probably money to the military eventually leaks to Republicans, but equally probable to Democrats, also. So, if financially we tax paying citizens are screwed, at least let’s all be screwed fairly! Let us have equal opportunity to be screwed, rather than being screwed on a prejudicial or biased way, meaning we tax payers get screwed by the unions or “environmental” groups.
What do Conservatives want?
God
Guns
American Oil
Strong Defense
No Illegal Immigration
Spending Control
Less Government
Less Taxes
Less Abortion
A conservative pays his bill with his earnings.A liberal pays his bills by indenturing his grandchildren.
Good article Dan Miller. There are two very distinct factions calling themselves conservatives today. I just do not see any sort of compromise from either side, unfortunately.
The issue with conservatism at this point in time is that too many conservatives are too demanding. It casts the impression that there are serious disagreements and that there is no consensus.
But there is a consensus, and it’s pretty strong. The consensus includes at least:
- obama is a failure and a dangerous person
- the federal government is too big and wastes too much money
- the federal budget must be decreased in real terms not in terms of what it would have beene
- the national debt must be reduced
- our nation is not as secure as it should be
- the welfare state has to be reined in
- the original intent of the constitution must be restored
- governments meddle too much with people’s lives and with private business
Those and many other principles / observations are universally accepted by conservatives. Even Romney agrees with just about everything.
If we concentrated more on what we agree about, and spent less time arguing about the details, the country would be better off.
I’m very disappointed that Romney in particular has placed his personal ambition above the welfare of the party and the country. It’s shameful. Backman and Paul have been almost as bad.
Gingrich, Santorum, Perry, Huntsman and Cain, inho, have been less slanderous toward their opponents and closer to how I want Republican candidates to conduct themselves regarding their conservative opponents.
I also am convinced that Romney, even though he has savaged Gingrich without shame or remorse, will not do the same to obama. I find that appalling.
I would say that there are Institutional Republicans and there are Conservatives. Black Sabbath and proreason do a good job of laying out the common points of agreement among Conservatives. There may be differences in emphasis between points, but I could rally behind pretty much any candidate who really believed them …. and who would seriously fight for them in both the election and after taking office. It is that last condition that separates the Institutionals from Conservatives. They have been up to now good at pretending that they believed and would fight. But we have seen too often and too recently the falseness of their claims.
Paul is a squirrel, Huntman has taken “Obama’s Shilling” and his appointment to office, and Romney is, well Romney. And he is the favored son of the Institutionals. He is also the guarantee of an Obama victory.
the Bill Buckley rule is a good one: select, support and vote for the most conservative candidate who is likely to win.
People look at the clause “who is likely to win” as the takeaway from from Buckley’s Rule. I and many others look at “conservative candidate”. I have been asking Mitt-bots to name one actual conservative thing that he has done or consistently vocally supported [take them from either of the two lists cited above]. The answer is silence. I ask them to point out one case where he has stood up to the Leftist enemy and fought without eventually caving and collaborating. I get silence. Yet he has no problem going all out to attack Conservatives.
If the Institutionals get their choice and make him the nominee, and if we do have elections [there are some signs that are deeply disturbing to anyone who is either a historian or a political scientist, including one statute that can be considered an "Enabling Act" recently signed into law, and another one pending] Romney neither can nor will he fight our enemy.
The Institutionals are constantly accusing Conservatives/TEA Party/Patriots of being willing to work to throw the election to the enemy if we don’t get our way. Yet at every turn, it is Conservatives/TEA Party/Patriots who have rallied and held our noses to vote for whatever paper tigers they put up as candidates. Conversely, the Institutionals [especially in my poor state of Colorado] have had no hesitation in using the party structure we pay for to support and elect Democrats over Conservative/TEA Party/Patriots who legally win a Republican nomination.
I do not expect a split between the two before the scheduled election next November, if it comes to pass. I will admit that if Romney is the nominee, my efforts and money will go for Conservative/TEA Party/Patriots running for Congress in case Congress still has any relevance.
But November 7, 2012 should be the starting date for organizing a Patriot Party, under whatever name, so that the Institutionals can go ahead a merge with the Democrat wing of the Political Class.
Subotai Bahadur
Here’s the important thing:
If a Republican is elected, he will listen to us. He’s not going to do everything we want, and he may make some decisions that we don’t like. But he will listen, because we got him elected. After the election, it’s our responsibility to stand up, make noise, and lean on him with everything we’ve got to make sure he knows who we are, what we want, and how many of us want those things. If we don’t do that, it’s our own damn fault if he acts like a Democrat.
On the other hand, if we act like pissy little children and sit out the election, Obama will get re-elected. Then he will never listen to a word we say, and he and the Liberals will feel free to mock us and spit on us all they want.
We need to get a Republican in the White House, and take control of both houses of Congress, and win lots of local elections. Then we need to put pressure on all of them like they’ve never felt before. We’re not going to fix this country by sitting back and complaining that they’re not fixing it.
Don’t be stupid and allow Obama to be re-elected.
If a Republican is elected, he will listen to us.
I hope so but am not very confident in some of them and don’t look forward to encouraging “Institutional Republicans” (see comment #8). We need fewer, not more of them. They may listen but that’s not enough; positive and active responses to what they hear from us would be better.
Still, I shall vote for whichever Republican becomes the nominee. I may not do so with much enthusiasm, but I will do it anyway. Voting for a third party candidate would be little better than not voting. Getting almost any Republican into the White House and getting majorities in both houses of Congress — assuming that they don’t screw up too badly — may have an elephant’s trunk under the tent effect and that’s worth encouraging.
Sure. They’ll listen the way Bush, Boehner, and DeLay listened to us about their pork-barrel spending and Constitution-trashing (Yes, I mean BCRA, and no, I’m not going to stop harping on it). It works like this: every four years they promise us they’ll exercise fiscal restraint. Then, if they’ve won, their response to their party’s base is “we own you, where are you going to go?”
“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results.”