Why This Man is my Candidate
By perico Posted in Archived — Comments (5) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Fred Thompson best represents the fundemental ideas of that the modern conservative movement is founded upon. Reagan was the great leader of the movement, but so many have distorted his legacy that it's next to impossible to come to a concensus opinion on his legacy. This writer tends to go back further than the Great Communicator. Thompson is no Ronald Reagan, but the root of their philosophy comes from the same source. There is no alternative, in this writer's view.
The 21st century is quickly becoming the era of the statistical result. This is the era of text message, cell phone, myspace. Statistics and fresh ideas are turning the future into today. The great problem that no one seems to be addressing is the one of philosophy and principle.
Are 21st century republicans defined by conservatism or moderation? Will the Republican Party be one of policy or philosophy? Once upon a time, the Republican Party nominated a candidate who was nicknamed “the ultimate problem solver.” This candidate was legendary in the business world; known as someone who bought failing companies and turned them around. By the age of forty, he was worth over 250 million dollars (by today’s standards). He was an economic genius. He was brought in to turn a failing agency and turned it into a successful enterprise. Who was this candidate? Herbert Hoover.
You see, conservatism isn’t grounded in creating new policy, new processes, or new solutions. Those are part of the equation, but do not define the GOP. Conservatism, the philosophy that Goldwater brought back to the party, is a philosophy that does not become outdated. Conservatism cannot be redefined or improved. It cannot be updated to meet the times one lives in. It is a set of values and principles that are applied to the problem, not an economic philosophy, or a social theory. Conservatism is limiting the functions of the federal government, not fixing it. It is a system of restraints against the natural tendency of government to expand in the direction of absolutism.
Goldwater said, “The turn will come when we entrust the conduct of our affairs to men who understand that their duty as public officials is to divest themselves of the power that they have been given.” It is the first principles, and it is the final principles that the Republican Party has strayed from. The aim of conservatism is not to streamline the government with policies or repair to make it more efficient, but to reduce it in size.
Most importantly, it is not the aim to implement new programs that define conservative principle, but to cancel old ones that overstep their reach.
Does the party define the philosophy, or does the philosophy define the party?
"Conservatism cannot be redefined or improved. It cannot be updated to meet the times one lives in."
I'd vote for any conservative over the most brilliant liberal (is that an oxymoron?), but I think it's a little ridiculous to imply that you can never come up with new ideas that improve conservatism or update it to meet the times. What kind of policies are you going to have on stem cell research, the internet, cloning, biotechnology, and dozens of other recent issues? Policies like Social Security privatization and school choice are new ideas based on conservative principles as well.
This idea also implies that competance is meaningless. Any conservative will do. I just don't find it believable that some guy off the street is going to be as good of a President as someone who has already proven that they are an excellent public executive. There is no reason why we can't have someone who is competant and ideologically sound.
Like I said, that's a part of it, but not the foundation of it.
It should limit the size of the government, not to fix broken programs. I also don't buy the executive is a requirement.
Why should one have a record as an executive? It's an overrated requirement. I'm not saying that anybody could be President, but look at the historical examples of businessmen who went on to become POTUS.
Businessmen Presidents
Warren Harding
Herbert Hoover
Jimmy Carter
George W. Bush
Serving members of Congress who were elected President:
James Garfield
Warren Harding
John F Kennedy
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
blog advertising is good for you
Human Events
Recent comments
I don't get it; why not hit him with this as well?
by Martin A. KnightYou have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. [n/t]
by Martin A. KnightI speak English ONLY. Period.
by SanDiego92108General, Forgive Us for Our Lack of Resolve
by Rod PatrickDone
by smagarSpecific Program for the Aged
by Rod PatrickSquandering People's Money
by Rod PatrickLIES OF THE DEVIL
by Rod PatrickMaybe not a Typical Politician
by MikeOYou haven't made your case, I'm afraid
by civil truthObama, c'est un poseur!
by streetwiseGore does claim the earth will be destroyed if
by streetwiseI appreciate it though
by Darin HNow that's a definition of genius. What an ear. n/t
by bantamwaitYes, but McCain's war, while genuinely heroic,
by bantamwaitA shorter way
by simpson316Good point, boychik!
by bantamwaitMass produced thin film
by moderichGotcha. Thanks.
by simpson316
blog advertising is good for you

get your job site
at simplyhired.com




haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).