No one I know is talking about “only accepting Republicans that score an “A” on the conservative fealty test”.

When given a choice between a Democrat and a moderate Republican in the general election, I think it’s a no-brainer to support the moderate Republican. BUT, when given a choice in the PRIMARY, between a moderate and a conservative - and even given your points above, you can tell who’s who - too many seem all too willing to trade principles for what they see as electability.

Also, “accepting them”, doesn’t mean that we don’t ever criticize them. As so many are fond of saying, “if they agree with us 80% of the time, they are our friends, not our enemies”. I can consider them friend, but you can be damn sure I’m going to criticize them about the 20%. I could agree with them 99% of the time, and I’d still criticize the 1%.

And allows for too many fractures and back-and-forth. As a libertarian, I would not be considered a conservative under a few parts of your test, even though I consider myself a conservative libertarian (or, as President Reagan said [paraphrased] “libertarianism is the bedrock upon which conservatism is founded”).

How about one very simple litmus test:

Do you believe that government should be larger or smaller?
or
Do you believe that government or the private sector is better at addressing issues or problems that arise in society?

Honestly, the question I always like to ask of candidates is:

What is the proper role of government in American society?

I believe the answer should simply be “to defend life, liberty, and property against force or fraud.” If you have that philosophy of the proper role of government, then it naturally follows that you will believe that government should be smaller and that the private sector is better at addressing issues.

I don’t think singling out a particular factor is either necessary or helpful.

The “advantage” of the Left that results in their unity consists largely in the fact that since politics, especially national politics, is everything to them, they’re willing to devote more of their resources to the expansion of government power and scope than a politically conservative person is willing to do, since conservatives are more concerned–and rightly so–with raising their kids, doing their jobs and fulfilling their duties to God and neighbor.

The totalizing, politicizing and ultimately homogenizing mindset of the Left will always tempt the Right to mimic their obsessions and adopt their methods, but in doing so, the Right finds that they become the Left because, again, the logic of the mindset compels a certain orientation (victim-savior) toward the government.

The disunity on the Right which political organizers like the staff of Redstate see is largely healthy because it is borne out of a diversity of life that respects the differences in region and interest, and honors the small sovereignties of families and local communities. There will always be more diversity and, therefore, more disunity on the Right because homogeneity is a function of Left groupthink inculcated through our educational system that seeks to create cosmopolitan, technocratic Managers whose sense of worth depends on playing God with as many poor victim people groups as possible.

This means that the work of conservative political organizers will always be more difficult than for liberal progressives who are socialized into becoming statist Managers for whom politics is the primary venue of life.

We ought to maintain a kind of unity in order to recover our government from the Left, but it should be a unity borne out of a passion for the individual, the local, the state, the regional not merely as political structures but as the places where we live and love and where politics is but one aspect of many in life. This implies a recognition of the proper limited role of government in general and the federal government in particular when it comes to national politics. This passion for the individual and for local communities and this recognition of limits is what separates us from the Left.

But, again, this will mean unity at a national level of politics will always be at some level unnatural and certainly harder to achieve than for Statist liberals. It can and ought to be achieved by focusing on the important things of life and recognizing the power of the Leviathan to undermine those things.

This is what the heroes of World War II did to win their battles, and we can do the same.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2

I have no idea how the left manages to hold its coalition together.

I suspect it’s because so many of them can be satisfied with symbolism over substance (see “closing” Gitmo). We on the libertarian-conservative right aren’t so easily swayed.

We also aren’t as wired to think collectively as they are.

I consider myself an very strict philosophical conservative in regards to the function of the government.

I am, essentially, opposed to *all* of the following:

1. Any Political Government Involvement in the Economy. (I do believe in a central currency, but not one that has any “objectives” other than stability, and usage as a medium of exchange).
2. Any Government Involvement in Religion.
3. Federal Government Involvement in Marriage.
4. Federal Government Involvement in Personal Wellness. This includes healthcare, euthanasia/suicide, abortion, as well as Alcohol, Tobacco, and a big one for me, Drugs.
5. Any Government Regulation of my Private Property. It’s my land, my castle, that’s my car, and those are my guns. I’ll do what I like with them.

That being said, I respect the rights of communities to do what they like with *their* private property. If you and 500 like you decide to buy up all the land in a given city, and take control of that city (or better yet, move out to the middle of nowhere and *build* yourself a city), your community has *every* right to not sell any of the land for the use of a mosque, church, synagogue, or whatever. Land sales would be subject to contract law, and that is that.

What do I think the government should do?

1. Maintain a proper military, and use it to defend the US homeland, protect US shipping from piracy, and defend US allies.

2. Maintain a central currency, and manage monetary policy in a non-political, non-partisan fashion.

3. Enforce contract law in the U.S. This includes Marriage contracts, whether they be between Me and My Wife, who signed them in a Church, or John Doe and his 12 Wives, who signed them on a commune in Utah.

*Yes* I understand that Polygamy is distasteful. But unless we protect the polygamist’s right to *contract* law, the next thing you know militant gays, or militant islamics, or someone, is going to come and try and meddle in *my* Marriage, and I *won’t* have that.

4. Enforce public safety. You, me, and John Doe should be allowed to have guns, but if You, Me, and John Doe are causing serious bodily harm to each other and innocent bystanders, the government should have sufficient police power to overwhelm the three of us. This should *not* run afoul of my “what the governments should not do”.

5. Maintain an independent judiciary to adjudicate contract disputes, and enforce laws regarding public safety.

*That’s It*

Does this make me an Objectivist? I don’t know. Reading the positions, it certainly sounds like I am a much maligned “Libertarian”.

But reading the constitution? It sounds like I’m a constitutionalist! And reviewing the works of Goldwater, and Reagan, or going further backing and looking at the original classical liberalism (who we would define as conservatives today), I think I’d fit squarely in the realm of Republicans.

Having said all this, 90% of Republicans would rather not have me in the Party. Certainly, I call myself a Republican, and I am a card carrying member of the party; but very, very few Republicans want to sit next to a pro-drug legalization republican, or a pro-immigration Republican (as long as immigrants are not permitted to Vote (until citizenship), or are put on the welfare rolls.

Old-school constitutionalism was rooted in notions of freedom and individualism; about the freedom to practice your own religion, whatever that may be, without interference or observance, and no matter who “weird” others thought you may be.

Old-school constitutionalism also contained a great deal of economic freedom, and given the immigrant nature of our founders, takes the notion of promotion immigration as positive thing, as long as our borders, our security, and our national sovereignty remain strong and intact.

Why don’t you want me in the party???

Part of the issue with calculations maybe in the fashion of the original poster is that the socio-economic political spectrum is not one dimensional, but *at least* two dimensional. There are libertarian leaning economists who believe the government should strictly regulate social behavior. Beyond that, there are libertarian leaning Republicans like myself, who believe in both economic and individual freedoms, but also believe in the notion that these freedoms should not be restricted to within our national borders, but that the government should try to export them as well (the libertarian domestic neo-conservative foreign policy position).

It’s not a -100 100 scale. At a minimum, its 2 dimensional, probably 3 dimensional, and quite possibly more than that. The key, I think, to growing the party, and not dumping on people like myself, is to identify the transformative philosophical and ideological concepts which appeal naturally to the human soul, make those the tennets of the party, and then allowing the converts to carry those banners to the corners of the world.

From the oppressed Chinese in Tienanmen Square, to the Tea-Party Tax Protesters in our Country, to the Drug Policies hippies who want to play at burning man, to the libertarian economists of “The Economist” and The Wall Street Journal, to the Christian Missionaries of the 2nd and 3rd world, there is a very, very powerful tune of freedom which resonates with most everyone, worldwide.

We often complain that the media is against, literature is against, and that the cultural world is against. Well, it’s true, and it’s because we’ve dropped our most powerful message. That of America the beautiful, land of freedom, city on a hill, a bright, shining example for the world. President Obama goes out and tells the world that “American Exceptionalism” is no different than that of patriotism in any other country, and our Republican politicians say *nothing*.

Stand behind the flag, rally our natural support groups utilizing those themes of freedom (The Military, Police and other Public Safety, Small Business, and other “freedom-loving” groups), and ensure that our policy position accurately and completely reflect that devotion to freedom, individualism, and exceptionalism.

Carry that banner, and we *will* win in the political arena, both domestically and abroad. It’s as simple as that.

Some would say some of these things should be left to the states to decide, whether they personally agree with them or not.

and while not helpful in evaluating a candidate, will let you know what you are. Go to a “progressive” gathering, then go to a conservative one. Even if you can’t quite articulate why, you will quickly understand where you fit in. A lot of the philosophical and academic arguments (and I love them) become a lot less significant in a split society like ours. At this point in time we either are “classic Americans” or not. If you are, you join us, we argue amongst ourselves about a lot of the issues defined in this article, and we don’t lose sight for a second that we’re fighting for the soul of a country, not just a political process.

I, my self, grow weary of faux litmus tests of purity.

While I loathe what Ive heard from General Powell (someone I grew up admiring and respecting), I equally wince at some of the things ive heard.

From a Blue stater, let me add that three things. First, I don’t think their is a single continuum. Americans and conserivatism is too rich for any such linear equation.

Second, a healthy and viable Republicans candidate is one who advances the conservative dialogue in their respective districts. In a representative democracy, our elected officials must represent the interests of their constituents. At times, they also should lead. We cannot expect Americans to elect leaders to do not represent their values. Values are formed in the culture war. We lost the media and the schools and such. Then we lost votes. Politicians can use the bully pulpit to counter that influence and influence values. But they are limited by the values of their constituents. Elected officials can vote and govern to the Left or Right of their constituents to some extent, but they must respect their representative duties if they ever expect to get re-elected. Force feeding Mainers the values of Georgians is a recipe for electoral disaster and frankly un-American.

Third, there is a difference between conservatives and Republicans as there is a difference between principle and policy. People confuse the latter just as much as they confuse the former.

Iraq was a matter of foreign policy. There was little inherent conservative principle involving a strategic foreign policy decision like Iraq. In fact, most matters of foreign policy are just that, policy matters.

For example, as conservatives and in principle we can agree that the entitlement state morally and financially bankrupt, as politicians and Republicans, we must learn how best to reform pension systems. There will be no vote on the “principle”. The vote will be on policy on pragmatism.

Separating principle from policy and culture war from politics is key to understanding what may be considered a tolerable moderate.

Can anyone really fault Thaddeus McCotter for being sympathetic to the auto industry? In principle, I think McCotter is a fundamental conservative. As a matter of individual policy and as a matter of his representative duties, of course he is going to be more tolerant of government assistance than a conservative not from the Detroit area.
.

I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it.

There is no continuum, issues either fall under the core tenets and therefore have a desired resolution, or the don’t fall under the core tenets and can be decided based on the merits and reason individually. The fewer the tenets, the bigger your tent, but you need enough to distinguish yourself as a unique entity and from the other party.

Speaking of a continuum and dozens of bullet issues focuses on where people under the tent disagree. Focusing on a few core tenets, with the understanding issues outside of the tenets are to be covered by governmental deliberation, is a way to make the party inclusive.

For example, the tenet that “local control and decisions are better than central control and decisions:” does a lot to push the social issues where they belong. “Private control and decisions are better than governmental control and decisions” pushes the economic and regulatory issues where they belong. Finally, “proactive and preventative measures are better than reactive and complacent measures” pushes the defensive issues into their proper places.

Very simple to communicate and understand. Also very easy to compare and contrast the opposition and demonstrate why you are the better governing party. I suppose the only “continuum” would be in the solutions selected at the local levels. One state may recognize gay marriages, another may not. One state may outlaw late term abortions, another may not. Not a big deal to the GOP because these solutions were chosen within the guiding tenet.

One of his core campaign statements was his guiding principle as a legislator:

Is this something that should be done by government, and if so at what level of government? (The Fred carried a pocket Constitution and discovered his place in the continuum from reading Conscience of a Conservative).

Living in Obama Bizarro World as we do, we yearn for any glimmer of a chance that we as a country will rediscover our federalist Constitution and governing principles.

It’s like zero-based budgeting. Picture the governments of all levels addressing their concerns this way. Each policy and/or spending item would be tossed OUT on its face until we retrieved the liberty we declared in the original 13 colonies. Instead, we have what we have. Sigh.

…which is the fallacy of defining conservatism on the basis of up/down on specific issues.

In other words, whether we give a person a pass on a specific issue when we disagree with should be tempered on the grounds on which they justify their position, with a greater willingness to overlook if their grounds are based in conservatism or their reason for deviation spelled out (and they don’t continually stray).

So what is the world view, then. I would say on key issue has to do with one’s view about human depravity - and with that a fundamental distrust of earthly utopias. Government is a necessary institution to protect us against depredations by others. However, since government is designed and operatied by humans at risk of depravity, government must be continually limited, restrained by laws and checks and balances so as to minimize its potential for magnifiying individual depredations and natural inclination to expand its boundaries to crush individual freedom and the human spirit.

Thus while government is not evil in itself and is a source of good within its proper boundaries, the consevative will oppose collectivists and utopians who believe in the ability of government to inculcate virtue through its power of coercion.*

Thus I would look more at the world view - and the pattern of positions - rather than each individual postion on specific issues.

*Libertarianism is an opposite error, based on an excessive trust in the inate goodness (or rationality) of individuals, which leads it to overreact against government. But given the far greater harm that results from collectivism (as we’ve seen in history from time immemorial), there is substantial common ground between libertarians and conservatives against the monster of collectivism that too often leads to a tyrannical or totalitarian state.

Ok, I survived Romney and I consider him a RINO, why? As former Governor of Massachusetts Romney he was well known as absent Romney. He always had some other special interest and little interest in the individual. His move to reduce taxes was offset by calling them fees and resulted in bigger government to collect all those fees. This issue was less about fiscal responsibility on taxes and more about the back stab of fees. Romney’s health care reform how ever well intended let socialist health care get a foot in the door. This was less about opening the door to socialism and more about not closing the door when he found he opened the wrong door. If we define success as getting legislation passed then Romney is as fiscally conservative as GW Bush. He was for abortion when he ran for governor and then said he was against abortion when he ran for President. How much can you trust someone that uses conservative values as a stepping stone?

Clearly when listing “issues” above there is yet another classification to consider and possibly more clearly defines where to draw the line. When your Email crashes from people telling you to vote no but you vote yes could be part of this classification. When you are on the minority side of voting within your party could be part of this classification. Every action has a reaction intended or not and excuses are totally unacceptable considering the consequences. But what to call this, betrayal, disappoint, lack of common sense, loyalty and unity, or what most accurately describes this defining moment of crossing the line? I think defining the “Conservative Continuum” is a smaller part on where to draw the line.

Those of us who write the diaries you bemoan have said….OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER almost to infinity is we define RINOs, Squishes, etc as the Specters and Jeffords, Bill Coen types who switch to the opposition party.

They are the Snowes and Collins who vote with the Democrats 60% and 70% of the time.

They are the Republican Main Street Partnership, The Republican Leadership Conference, Republicans for Choice, Log Cabin Republicans, the RIPON Society, Green GOP, Leadership Encouraging Excellence PAC, New America Foundation, Planned Parenthood Republicans for Choice, Republican Reformation/Republicans Who Care, Republican Youth Majority, Republicans for Environmental Protection and on and on which are organizations formed and financed with the sole purpose of undermining, sabotaging, and destroying the Republican Party Platform and openly work to drag the Party to the left and miss no opportunity to attack Conservatives and the Party as a whole in order to bolster moderate “cred” with the MSM and curry favor with the Democrat Party Leadership.

They are the Tuesday Group on Capital Hill who meets every Tuesday to strategize how to undermine the conservative agenda, advance the Democrat agenda on spending, taxation, abortion and nationalizing large segments of the American economy!

They are the Powells, McCains, Grahams, Ridges, Hagels, Lugars and on and on who slither out of their hidy holes every Sunday to make the rounds adding credibility to Democrat talking points and feed the MSM anti Republican propaganda templates.

It’s the Arnold Swatzenegers and Charlie Crists who have fought SoCons and worked to eliminate their influence in the party while claiming they were fiscal conservatives only to get in office and tax and spend their states into oblivion…So, not only have we eliminated the SoCon eg of the Stool but now we’re actively engaged in knocking out the one leg both SoCons and Libertarians agree on. The only question I have now is…”How long before the RINOS termites start eating away at the National Security leg so the Republican Party will eventually stand for NOTHING when they’re through?”

You’ve created a false dynamic with this Diary and set about refuting arguments from our side that we’ve never made…good job!

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in Washington—Fred Thompson

Senate Conservatives Fund House Conservatives Fund Michael Williams for Senate

Marco 2010 Toomey US Senate SarahPAC