« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Conservatives Escaping the Winderness

Anything Worth While is Worth Doing Right

I am typing this post as an impromptu post. It may wander some, but I will do my best to keep it focused.

In the General War on Terror, we came to realize that the terrorists had declared war against us, and were actively engaged in it long before we even bothered to pay attention and lift a finger about it. However, it took 911 for us to actually pay attention to their declaration of war against us ten years earlier. This election, and the criticisms of conservatives and especially the treatment of Sara Palin by “Republicans” has finally crossed a line.

In the Republican Party a similar situation, though not as deadly, has been going on since 1994. When Ronald Reagan came to power, it signaled a shift from old style Republican politics to a new conservative era sparked by Barry Goldwater. However, the Democrats still controlled Congress. The fact Reagan won and stood for something new in the American political landscape was to forever change things, and not just for the Democrats.

There has always been a faction of Republicans who shared an uneasy alliance with “conservative” Republicans. These are typically referred to as “Rockefeller” Republicans. This is the moderate faction in the party. These normally have been good and decent politicians who felt differently than conservatives on principles. However, they shared enough in common to want to align together to share common goals.

Until the Reagan Revolution, the moderates had always been the dominate faction of the party, and always professed a desire to having “gentlemanly” relations with the opposition. There is nothing wrong with this preferred style of governance, if the other side believes in it too. Rep. Bob Micheal was famous for being just such a politician. It has been said that as long as he got his share of the pie for the Republican members, and his tee times with Tip O’Neal, he was content as the minority leader and didn’t want to rock the boat.

Then a politician who came to Congress as part of the Reagan Revolution quickly realized that this was not good for the country if we, as Republicans actually believed certain ideals of governance.

I once heard a pastor give a sermon, and part of that sermon recalled a meeting he had with one of his church members when he was asked to pray with them about their desire to have a baby. He ever so slightly balked, not wanting to do anything to disappoint them with hopes that may not materialize. The man noticed it. Then stated something that has marked his attitude about his beliefs since that moment. The man stated, “Either we believe God can do this, or we are just playing church”. Think about that for a moment. “Either we believe God can do this, or we are just playing church”.

This post is about politics, and not religious beliefs. However, the fundamental question still applies. Do we really believe what we believe, or are we just playing “politics”?

There comes a time when we are all tested. At that point, we have to look deep inside ourselves and ask what it is we truly believe. We need to act upon those beliefs or walk away from the game. There is no need in wasting our time just playing a game.

This Congressman, his name being Newt Gingrich, didn’t believe in just playing “politics”. He actually meant it! Then he did something about it. He engineered the take over of Congress by Republicans in 1994.

The moderate faction of the Republican Party was not happy about it either. They wanted their party back under their control and decided to do something about it. The started a group now know as The Republican Main Street Partnership. The stated objective of this group is to combat conservatism!

They have been at war, although a cold war mostly, against conservatives ever since. This same group has preached that it is better to reach across the isle and “work with Democrats” in the name of bipartisanship at the same time.

What kind of warped psychology does a person have to have to wage war against their own party, and actively work to establish a friendship with people who want you politically destroyed?

Now as conservatives, we must not, under any circumstances, wage war against those in the Republican Party who are moderates, but see the danger with Democrat governance too. There is room for all of us here, but only for those who do not see their own party members as the enemy. Now, for those in our party who are willing to wage war against their own party members, or profess that we must now come together in the name of bipartisanship with those who want our political death, we must now draw the line. It is time to finally push back and wage war against those who have been fighting us all along.

It is time to determine the heart and soul of the party and what we really believe in, or we are just playing politics.

PS: I do not expect this post to get much in the way of readers. I do not expect any comments or recommends. If there are any comments, I expect them to be by those who take offense to this post. If it offends anyone I apologize in advance. That is not my intent. I have finally reached a point where I am tired of this slide into oblivion, lead by people who want to govern in the center, and have led us into the center of the wilderness.

There will be another post about “conservatives” who talk a good game, but are as corrupt as they come. Those need to be dealt with too, and they will be, I am absolutely sure of that today. If this election has done anything, it has finally woke people up to the cancer in our midst. It is time to cut it out of the party.

COMMENTS

  • pilgrim

    Is this diary about conservatives escaping the “winderness” of gas bag politicians who have no core principle belief in anything more than winning their seat in the next election? Or is winderness a misspelling you will have corrected by the time that I post this comment? ;>)

  • Wubbies_World

    thanks

  • bs

    We cannot expect to go in with our list of standards, requirements, etc. and expect to get EVERYTHING we ask for. We have to be willing to work towards it gradually. And, we have to be in (relative) agreement on where we will compromise and where there is no room for compromise.

    I think squishes like McCain (sorry, but the party’s over and I can say what I want about him) stepped way too far over that line of where there is no room for compromise. The problem: not everyone sees that line the same way as I do. I’m not convinced we’ll ever be in agreement of what that is. The important part is to not demonize those who agree with us on minor issues. If they disagree with us on those majors, then we must fight them, or at least engage in active debate.

    In short, the name of the game is not “our way or the highway,” it is “this is what we believe – let’s see how close we can get before we decide to part ways”.

  • rbdwiggins

    or it doesn’t. Which one is it?

    History dictates that the Party’s electoral success is solely dependent on the answer to that single, but all important, question.

      Moderate, by definition, requires less…

    • Moderately pro-life?
    • Moderately pro-liberty?
    • Moderate support for the US Constitution, enumerated powers, fiscal restraint and limited government?

    I see very little chance that compromising or diluting principled conservative positions will lead to the Party’s electoral success.

  • Wubbies_World

    Either we will fight for the right to drive the bus because what we believe is true, or we don’t.

    I am not about to cut off those who share enough of our beliefs and want to join our efforts for common goals. We just need to cut off those who are fighting us from within.

    If we want to purge all but the absolutely pure, we will fail at that too.

  • Tamblin

    politics is about binary issues where you can only have two positions (with some fuzzy quantum combination of discrete states making up the moderate “position”).

    Moderates can absolutely believe in political solutions that are between the “extremes” of the two parties.

  • aceintx

    PS: I do not expect this post to get much in the way of readers. I do not expect any comments or recommends. If there are any comments, I expect them to be by those who take offense to this post. If it offends anyone I apologize in advance.

    You got my recommendation and a hearty AMEN!! As we say in church…”preach on brother!”

  • rbdwiggins

    and I’d never advocate that we commit political suicide (As opposed to the reality of following the “moderate” position, its unconscionable assault on social conservatives and its propensity to abandon or compromise conservative/constitutional principles for what was wrongly perceived as political advantage.).

    If you’ll look a little closer, I think you’ll find that I concentrated entirely on principles. :)

    Our electoral success requires a set of well-defined conservative principles that are true to the original intent of our Founders and the Declaration of Independence, defends the US Constitution and from which the Republican Party will never deviate nor compromise.

    In short: We can not “out-Democrat” the Democrats. Our electoral success requires that we adhere to conservative principles, defend the US Constitution and educate the electorate.

  • Jack_Savage

    As we all should know by now.

    I agree with all of your statements regarding our future electoral success.

  • rbdwiggins

    Because conservatism is, quite simply, a renumeration of the rights, privileges, responsibilities and limitations set forth in the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

    Which of those documents do you find to be extreme?

  • nogyro35

    I am not an expert of the 2 party system of politics and governance so I’m in no way saying I advocate this.

    But with the power grab by the “moderates” in our party and with the indifference the Democrats show toward the “more conservative” elements of its party, you would think the situation is ripe for the creation of a third party.

    A party of the middle.

    I suppose it’ll never happen and we’ll be fighting the country club types in the Republican Party for a while to come.

  • mbecker908

    The “moderates” in the House and Senate don’t have a single issue they won’t compromise on to the point that they’ve taken the Democratic POV.

    For specifics I would point to spending in general, the role of the federal government across the board, national security, military spending and readiness for just a few. I could basically list all of the Democratic Party talking points. We have Republicans, “moderates”, ready to sign on at a moment’s notice. Not only can they be bought, they can be bought cheap.

  • dld1717

    I do think what where made out to be (and I don’t think they really were) Conservative folks lost

    How did Sali lose in Idaho?

    How did Musgrove ln CO?

    We lost open seat in MD which went for Bush with 60% 4 years ago because the Republican nom was deemed too conservative

    I do not think its the fact party is too Conservative its fact we have let our image be identified by entertainment and media.

  • rbdwiggins
  • wt259

    your last sentence is right. But a lot of letting entertainment and the MSM define our image as “right wing, extreme and/or arch-conservative” is the fault of faux republicans who let them define conservatives. They won’t take a stand and identify with people in their own party, they’d rather lean across the aisle, to the left.

  • mbecker908

    Actually, the problem is that the “ruling class” gets infected with Beltwayitis the second they hit DC. They no longer represent the people who elected them, they represent the interests of the Beltway.

  • mbecker908

    The top of our ticket is the most gregarious example of this and the reason Gov. Palin is so hated by insiders is that she isn’t one of the Beltway Zombies.

  • rbdwiggins

    for President Reagan’s quote, but I’m old enough to remember it and recognize its applicability regarding the current state of our electoral systems, both state and federal.

    The full quote…

    ?Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.? – Ronald Reagan

    Snip…

    Apparently, Gov. Palin’s message of self-reliance and American exceptionalism struck a positive chord across a large swath of the electorate (Including 64% of Republicans who want her to run for the nomination in 2012.) and is perceived as a serious threat to “The Bureaucracy.”

  • E_Pluribus_Unum

    You’ve been making a little presence but not much lately.

    Do we really believe what we believe, or are we just playing “politics”?

    That’s a worthy question for the Republican Establishment that gave us BCFR, NCLB, the Medicare Prescription giveaway, and Ted Stevens.

  • Tamblin

    Conserativism has grown to encompass a number of issues and positions that are not expressly stated by the declaration of independence, constitution, or bill of rights.

  • rbdwiggins

    Conservatism does not get to be redefined by those who oppose its principles.

    Life and personal liberty are endowed by our Creator.

    A constitutional republic requires a moral and ethical people, personal and fiscal responsibility and respect for the rule of law.

    Limited federal government, a strong Commander-in-Chief and a restrained federal judiciary are enumerated in the US Constitution, and certain individual rights are further identified and protected by the Bill of Rights and subsequent Constitutional Amendments.

  • Wubbies_World

    My new job as a consultant has been soaking up a lot of my time, but I was also staying on the periphery here at Red State during this election cycle.

    Sara Palin turned my lack of enthusiasm around, and both my wife and I went to vote for her. My wife vowed to not bother to vote, but Sara changed that too.

    I did a few blog posts on the S. Dakota Senate race and Johnson’s refusal to debate. I even made the front page of the local paper while doing some face time with the House Rep. candidate going against Herseth-Sandlin. Needless to say, I stayed mostly to local stuff. I now live in the capital with my new job and it is making my involvement easier.

    I am glad to be back at Red State and it is time to reengage. You will see a lot more of me again. It is good to hear from you too.

  • aceintx

    the counter arguement to us is always that we want to purge the non purest…that’s not true for me…it’s the back stabbing scum that actively work to undermine our every effort…It’s John McCain and Lindsey Graham, it was Chuck Hagel and Lincoln Chaffee.

    If you disagree with us on some points that’s fine…but stop sandbagging, attacking and backstabbing us at every turn!

  • aceintx

    Either it is growing or it is shrinking…there is no middle unless it is staying the same…

    the problem is that Moderates favor growing the government…just slower than Democrats do…you never see them advocating for shinking it a little more slowly…it must grow…but not so fast..

    Ditto gun Control…Abortion and any other issue you want to name…self professed moderates are always left of center when they make their compromises

  • aceintx

    Chris Shays was Conservative? Libby Dole? Gordon Smith? hell…Norm Colemen is in danger of losing to Al Friggin Frankin in this recount because he couldn’t get enough votes to stop his seat from being stolen from him!

    Oh…and John McCain was really a Conservative right?

  • aceintx

    on spending…either we are cutting spending…we are spending more…ore we are spending what we did in the last budget…If we advocate less spending and compromise so that spending goes up we achieve none of our goals and lose ground…if we compromise in such a way that spending stays the same we are holding the line and are neither making progress or losing ground…If we compromise in such a way that spending goes down…we make progress even if we didn’t get what we wanted in the first place…

    The problem is…Moderate always compromise so spending goes up and we lose ground…yet they call it progress because we got the other side to spend less than they wanted to yet they got to increase their spending…

    I know I’m talking in circles but the moderates in our party are losers because they never advocate progress for our side…they always advance the ball for the oposing team even when we are on the offensive side of the ball!

  • Tamblin

    So there’s no possible middle except the middle you then identify (maintin size of government)? Besides which it is not like conservatives believe in “shrinking the govenrment” as an absolute. They want the government smaller than it is but at some point they would say “this is good, stop here.” The difference, in this respect between conservatives and liberals is the ultimate size of government not the change year over year. Liberals want the government size x, conservatives want it size z. There’s no reason moderates can’t want size y.

    And how can you use the term “left of center” when you evidently don’t believe in a center?

  • aceintx

    the true middle would be to freeze everything in place and not shrink it or grow it…

    and you make a good point about today’s conservatives much to my chagrin since so many Conservatives have accepted the moderate definition of progress as being that the Democrats get less than what they want while we get nothing of what we want! Somehow we’re told that’s progress!

    It’s time for that to end!