I think a lot of the adjective people you list may be better called fellow travellers. They don’t hold all our views, and aren’t in real danger of becoming one of us, but they’re sympathetic to us, and hold *some* of our views.

a party, Republicans do.

I also think this goes to the heated debate in yesterdays civil war post. We conservatives (n) need to fight harder for the soul of the body, and the leadership positions.

And it IS the Republican Party.

The problem is that not enough conservatives are willing, apparently, to actually join the Party at the grass roots level as precinct committeemen.

Again, the numbers in Maricopa County, AZ are instructive.

On Election Day, 2008, 694,000 people in Maricopa County were registered as Republicans.

About 6,320 precinct committeemen slots existed for representing those registered voters WITHIN the Party.

But, fewer than 1,900 of those slots were filled.

So, either, among the approximately 692,000 registered Republicans who were not precinct committeemen:

(a) there are not about 4,400 conservatives or

(b) there are 4,400 conservatives, but they are too busy blogging, complaining, or otherwise engaged in very important activities that really make a difference politically to bother becoming precinct committeemen.

I surmise there are far more than 4,400 conservatives among those registered Republicans. Because I have met many, many, many at Tea Parties and protests against socialized medicine outside my Debtocrat congresscritter’s office.

I try to recruit them to become precinct committeemen. Many had never even heard the words “precinct” and “committeemen” used together in a sentence.

Now, they are one.

Now, they DO have a Party. And they’re in it. And they have a chance to really make a difference in the leadership of the Party and as to which candidates succeed in all-important primary elections.

Thank you.

ColdWarrior

People reading the title to this post may be saying HUH? but I think it is a fair question when you look at how one votes instead of only looking at how one speaks.
After the bailout vote in the fall of 2008 I wrote this diary…
http://www.redstate.com/pilgrim/2008/10/05/lucy-you-got-some-splainin-to-do-ricky-ri/

The diary lists the Reps (both Ds and Rs) who voted nay the first time the bailout bill was introduced, and voted aye after the Senate sweetened the pot with pork. John Shadegg is on the list. My Congressman, Mike Conaway is also on the list.

I believe that one way to advance your thought is to have a core set of principals that define “convervative” and have them sign on to all of those principles so that they have committed in writing. Another idea that may have merit is to have a centralized databank of their voting records to rank them on key defining issues, which would expose their true values for all to see.

by highlighting the difference between conservative the noun and conservative the adjective. There is no 100% conservative, the noun, because we all have very human failings. Not me, not you, or anyone else including DeMint and Hensarling.

However, there’s a huge difference between being mostly conservative with a few faults and being mostly “moderate” (to be kind) with a few conservative instincts.

Like has been said, somebody will find fault with every conservative and if we keep looking for the perfect conservative, we’ll continue to give way to the establishment that really isn’t much better than having the liberals in charge, except by virtue of a slower death of freedom.

who is regularly accused of being either a RINO or someone with conservative “instincts”, I think you did muddy the water more than a little with this one. While touting Christianity and social conservative values is all well and good, that does not define a conservative - at least not the way I was raised to see it.

Unless I missed a memo somewhere along the way, being a conservative above anything else means that one is opposed to big government, for personal freedoms, and generally against governmental interference in trade and commerce. Social conservative values were generally a late-comer to this particular game, dating back to somewhere around the Reagan era (the whole “lets leave AIDS out of the discussion since it’s only affecting gays and drug users” situation, for example.)

I’m regularly accused of being a RINO or not quite a conservative because my attitude about morality based legislation and governmental interference doesn’t match with the Religious Right. Silly woman that I am, I believe that passing laws against abortion, to protect marriage from gays, and any other such nonsense encourages bureaucracy - encouraging bureaucracy is encouraging big government, and I’m opposed to that above any of the social issues. And if your faith is so fragile that you need to protect it by getting the government to pass laws in agreement with it, I think you’re the one who really needs to do some soul-searching about faith. Leave evangelism out of the government, please! And please stop saying that it’s what our founders intended. As children of the Enlightenment, it is far more likely that they had ambivalent feelings about religion (possibly leaning toward agnosticism), than fervent beliefs in a Christian church.

I’m also accused of not being a good conservative when I say silly things like we need to re-visit our tax structure and encourage charitable giving much more than we already do. Charities are meant to provide services to the public, donations are written off because the charities are supposedly taking some of the burden off the government in the realm of social services, and getting more charities to do more of the work currently handled by the social programs in government is supposed to be a good thing, right?

And for all the talk, I still haven’t seen a single conservative (noun, not adjective) stand up and say that health care reform needs to be about sensibly fixing the problems in both the private sector and the current governmental programs - not whether or not we need to have a public option (or co-op, or medicare buy-in, etc.) or ban abortions. Not holding my breath on that one either.

Another thing that galls me is that there aren’t any conservatives out there pointing out that both Iraq and Afghanistan are unfinished business for us. We made the messes, and we need to clean them up, period. True, it would mean admitting that George H.W. Bush didn’t finish the job the first time around, and that Ronald Reagan didn’t step up and insist that we rebuild Afghanistan after we helped get rid of the Soviets, but hey, wouldn’t it be refreshing if we were honest about shortcomings of the past?

Above anything else, think before you get yourselves all mired in the social conservative game. Keep your eyes on the prize, and don’t make it a general practice to alienate those of us who consider themselves Goldwater Conservatives. Don’t immediately pass judgment and assume that we aren’t for your socially conservative agenda because we’re “sinners.” What you’re reading as “against” morality might actually be “for” personal freedoms and responsibilities. Or it might simply be a matter of not wanting to see the government involved in yet another part of our everyday lives. Either way, tread lightly when it comes to passing around definitions and titles. I doubt I’m the only “true conservative” out there who’s been disgusted with the neo-conservative movement toward religiosity. There are those of us who see more of what we consider being a conservative is all about in the Libertarian Party these days.

But hey, if you want to start a witch hunt to find the true conservatives in the GOP, and alienate those with conservative instincts, by all means have at it. Just remember that it will have consequences…

The point was that candidates should be made to explain WHY they hold their positions. It is insufficient to check the box on a survey to appease conservatives to get their votes.

Here are two answers to the question “Why do you support gun rights?”

1) “This is gun country. It is our way of life. Lots of people hunt in our forests. It is important to our economy. The government should leave us alone. We’re good, normal people.”

2) “The Second Amendment is clear. Gun control violates the natural right of an individual to self-defense. Government cannot be anywhere and everywhere to defend us. And as conservatives we do not seek an omnipotent government disarming the citizenry in the name of law and order. Government should focus on prosecuting and incarcerating criminals. Law-abiding citizens must remain free to defend their lives and families.”

Both answers can produce a conservative vote, but answer 2 demonstrates a clear understand of the conservative principle. Candidate 2 is more likely to stick with conservative principle under pressure. For example, if there is a school shooting at a local college campus, he would be less likely to buckle to gun control pressure by drawing on the underlying principle:

“We must work to better secure our schools to prevent another tragedy like this from happening, but we cannot infringe on the rights of the students and faculty to defend themselves.”

It is unclear whether Candidate 1 has anything to draw on other than his emotional response to a horrible situation. He is more likely to be tempted into a “reasonable” compromise which clearly violates conservative principle.

I would like to get this administration to understand the difference between an active voice and a passive voice verb.
One is taking responsibility and denotes leadership.
The other is either pointing the finger or acting as if situations arise out of thin air.
Please note how many times the President speaks using passive voice verbs.
Things “happen”. Situations “arose”. Mistakes “happen”.
Unless he wants to take credit for something.

Interesting concept, but I’m not sure you can really treat “I am a Christian” and “I am a Conservative” the same way.

I’ll readily concede that I’m ill-equiped to discuss religion, but I think the test for “I am a Christian” would be pretty clear. And as you point out, there is an adjective below that noun. You can be a Christian who is Catholic or Lutheran or any number of denominations.

I’m not sure you can do the same with “I am a Conservative”. ERH above makes this point quite well. Not to speak for her, but she appears to considers herself “a Conservative”. At the same time she outlines many views that would cause others to say she is not. But who gets to decide.

In the end, politics covers so many issues that it is impossible to try to set out set of beliefs that must be followed and build a group sufficiently large to get anywhere.

First of all there are two and only two political parties. If conservatives abandon the Republican party then they have no place to go. There is no such thing as a “moderate” dimocrat. That is a fiction. What you have are liberal dimocrats representing conservative districts and States.

When we start doing litmus tests, purity tests, and torturing logic to define conservatism, conservatives and beliefs then all we will be able to do is show that we can defeat many people and elect no one.

No one will ever fear you or respect you until you prove you can elect people. Defeating candidates is the easy part. We proved that in New York 23. All it got us was a very liberal dimocrat in a district that we will never take back.

Start trying to find ways to elect people. Remember the two great victories in Virginia and New Jersy neither candidate said they were conservative. They danced and parried away from that label.

Find some universal conservative beliefs, fiscal, national defense, foreign policy and hit the liberals hard. When you take back the house and the Senate then move to straighten out the Republican party but to do it this way is a sure fire way to be in the minority party for the next century.

illuminated the practical point best. Asked if he really believed all of the crap Bill Clinton was slinging, he first identified Clinton as a “very talented politician” and then said “If he’s fer it, I’m fer it. If he’s agin it, I’m agin it.” At some point the nuances don’t mean anything if someone else is in power. And the professional politician who runs as a (fill in the blank) because it will get them elected - and get them the perks and benefits of power, whatever they are - smiles knowingly. For all of our discussions about principle, it is the unprincipled who benefit from our inability to define ourselves broadly enough to stick together when it really counts. Pick people to run who believe what they say, not those who believe they’d like to be rich and powerful and will say whatever they need to say to get elected. We did that as Republicans to improve our numbers in Congress and look where it got us. We need to be the party of “We mean what we say” even if we can’t all agree on whether we “are” or “am.”

Conservatives fight for freedom. Republicans fight for Republicanism

Some of you know I’m a convert…which shouldn’t surprise anyone since “there is no greater Zealot than a convert”, (I don’t know who to attribute that statement to but I heard it several years ago and I think it fits me to a tee).

Reagan’s statement that he left the Democrats because the Democrats left him…no truer statement was ever made in my case…One day the light bulb came on and I realized the Democrats and their entire philosophy was directly opposed to everything I believed in. So…what to do?

Thank GOD there was an alternative back then. It was the party of Reagan…it was a clear and distinct contrast to the Democrats…I became a Republican because the Republican Party stood for clear and concise principles and I became a Republican because it was a distinct and separate force with a clear and distinct message from the Democrats…

But the years have passed…I am still a Republican…but now it’s just because Republicans are the anti Democrat….they just aren’t the Democrat…I don’t know what the message is anymore…Somewhere along the lines we stopped being a contrast to the Democrats and became, “at least we’re better than the Democrats.

I know what Conservatism is…and it’s clear and distinctly separate from what the Democrats are and every single thing they stand for…but when you say “Republicans fight for Republicanism” I defy anyone here to define just what the hell it is to be Republican any more…

There should be a party wide challenge for people to stand up and tell us with conviction and without just making the motions just what it means to be a Republican and how the Republican PArty of 2006, 2008 and today is different than the Democrats…not justy in theory…but in fact!

what am I getting at?

Can we honestly say we’re the party of fiscal responsibility and smaller government with a straight face the way Republicans are joining the party and porking up the Omnibus bill they way they are doing now? and how exactly does the Republicanism as it is currently being practiced distinguish us from the Democrats…

I know what I think…let’s see what everyone else here thinks?

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

I understand what you are saying Erick, and agree. conservatives the noun, will vote and speak fron an inner principle system that will always come down on the side of all 3 legs of the proverbial stool. It is an instinct and intuitative reflex/response, and lives deep within the conservatives being. They are conservatives first which happen to congregate in the old Republican party, which was more closely aligned with what conservatives hold sacred, rather than what the new Republican party seems to have become. On the other hand, we have seen Senators, Representatives, and commenters here claiming to be conservatives, however, they will break with some or even all conservative principles, in order to save the party, or for the sake of the party. For some, the bar is never in the same place, it moves up or down, depending what one’s personal conscience or moral compass drives them.

Some are firmly attached to fiscal conservatism, and, national defence, while they start shying away from the Social conservative positions. You can take any three legs, and, see great value in one or two, and still consider yourself a conservative. That is the rub, and, why the argument of what a conservative is has caused the internecine wars for more than 40 years.

Some believe that war is wrong every time because people are killed fighting wars. It is never excusable to kill another human being, not even if millions of other lives may be saved when they eliminate those that have no respect for human life. Some believe that abortion, in it’s early stages is OK because the fetus cannot survive outside of the mother, even though every life begins at conception. Some believe that it is right and just to use federal monies to feed the poor, the homeless, the illegals because it is the charitable thing to do, even though it is economically infeasible for the US to feed everyone in the country, and, even everyone in the world. It is moral equivelance. These people don’t only reside in the Liberal party, they also are what has divided the Republican party for years and years.

A man who has his faith as just an attribute or his conservatism as just an attribute, has many other attributes he can rely on and therefore will sometimes not fight when he needs to.

Someone who is a conservative as the very essence of who they are is willing to fight to the death to defend his very being…while someone who generally agrees with conservatism isn’t invested in that belief to the core of his soul loses nothing by compromising on what is his core in theory but which is not in fact.

For instance…I can see agree as Jesus said that “no greater love hath any man but that he lay down his life for his friends”. I can see the sense of that…and I can believe it…but it’s another thing entirely for me to demonstrate that principle in fact!

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

as conservatives. Why would they do it? Easy.

They would get in hot water if they abused us as Christians, so they code word us as conservatives, and the misuse of the name sticks.

The noun Christian has a definition. The noun conservative has a definition. They are not the same things.

has, I believe, a negative connotation at this point in our history.My OX AM Dictionary has it as clearly stating “One who sympathizes w/ the aims of the Communist PArty, but is not a member” Although I think I understand the intention of your statement, the first two defs of “Fellow” are what you may mean. And yes, we are all of the same class or kind, but the distinction with a difference, as Eric wrote, is an important one. Republicans are “going along to get along”, and are thusly complicit, in varying dgrees,in the destruction of our Republic. Conservatives, OTH, are much more likely, to stand on the principles of the ideology, indeed, it is what the distinct difference is, as Eric is saying.
We need to clean house.
Thanks, Eric. well said.
out

and in terms of identifying loyalty and allegiance.

But in practice, when you try to impose that distinction upon others, you are setting the ship up for hitting denominational fragmentation, just as you see in Protestantism, since there is no Magesterium to define the doctrines of conservatism and determine membership requirements.

Which means there’s going to be an ongoing tension between
1) the “purists” who very clearly define their core tenets of conservatism - and who end up spending an awful lot of time arguing over their differences and attacking other as not being “true” enough, while the enemy captures more territory, etc. and
2) the “squishies” who basically have given up on defining conservatism in a tangible, measurable content and end up essentially let anyone who call themselves “conservative” inside the family, giving everyone a nice feeling but totally muzzling any kind of transforming message that could change people’s hearts or the world and hopelessly obfuscating any meaning definition of “conservative”.

Which means that the best we can hope for is to find enough reasonable people to come up with a working consensus as to definition and practice and prevent a hijacking of the noun conservatism.

Which is pretty much the situation that evangelicals find themselves in today.

Good post. Words do mean things.

We have been pushing for a conservative convention for a long time…I know there are plenty groups already out there…but one that includes the views and input of grass roots Tea Partiers and other “mobsters”.

One of the purposes would be to craft a multi-point list of just what “conservatism” is so that people out in the hustings can then hold candidates’ feet to fire with a sign-it-and-abide-by-it-or else contract. With such a work list in tow we then favor a conservative caucus be formed in both federal houses as well as the states.

Then, when that word “conservative” is tossed around, or David Duke steps forward to say he is one, too, some keeper of the flame can step forward and say “Nope, he ain’t. It’s writ right here.”

Also, being old, I’ve had a lot of problem with the term “liberal” as it meant something altogether different in 1960, and I annually ask Mr Limbaugh to use a more apt term, perhaps “modern liberal” or ModLib. Or even Leftie, marxist, or today, as is being revealed more each day, fascist.

The same for “capitalism”, since Democrat Party politics is European in tilt and the European vision of “capitalism” (per Marx) is different than the American experience. America, and the small business class, single-handedly invalidated Marx, only he either never knew it, or was too invested in his own sainthood to assess it. I doubt he read deTouqueville and was dead before Dvorak wrote his New World Symphony.

Personally, I like “free markets”, but I’m sure there are others.

Even being “right wing” is a moniker hung on us by Marxists. They, not us, need that fixed point on the political horizon. (I’ve always found it stunning that simple-minded linear thinkers could so easily have taken over the internet as a venue of action, while too many conservatives use it as a personal chat room. We like action-based policy sites, which is one reason we read RedState.)

The problem, as you aptly allude, is no conversation, no debate, is very effective when every term requires us to stop and define at every turn. Maybe that’s why people with guns always do better in the short term…and why more people liked to watch John Wayne than Adlai Stevenson.
VB

Combining Presbyterian and Republican in the same posting is honest, courageous and likely to result in banging your head on the table in frustration. I was raised in a Presbyterian Church as well. I respect the church tremendously, but know that from day one of it’s existence it was subject to schism. (most events resulted in re-unification). The first building we worshiped in was forfeited to the national organization.
Republicans (small r) in the early stages of America were mostly Scots and Scots-Irish. The small r during these times often was turned into a big R; as in Redneck and Radical (Redneck originally referring to the red collar of the Presbyterian Minister).
Scots-Irish Presbyterians were deeply involved in the politics and war of this country from the beginning, but were not in leadership of it till 1828, with the election of Andrew Jackson. Jackson offered specific solutions to the major problems of the day. I believe the People felt trapped by limited parcels of land, an out of control bank system., and a stifling political system. I’m guessing, but it probably felt like the English system all over again. By kicking open the Southwest and crushing the national bank People felt they were made free again.
The next 80 years were dominated by Scots-Irish Presidents. The first 40 as Democrats, the next 40 as Republicans. From 1928 till 1968 looked to be all New Deal style politics, but was interrupted by the Kennedy assasination in 1963. Johnson, another Scots-Irishman took over and inaugerated this poverty-compassion labrynthe were stuck in.
We had a nice break under Reagan (S-I and Presbyterian), but the Dynamic remains the same. Presidents of both Parties (every one S-I) feed this monster. Anytime a political figure suggests reducing Government “charity’ they are shot down as mean-spirited, not compassionate, and racist. As anyone who is awake knows, financial slavery is being offered to all on an equal-oppurtunity basis.
I believe the answer to the Republican dilemna is packaged in a solution-oriented format. The successful package will have Family, Liberty and self-responsibility tied together, commercial freedom,, and community involvement at the base. If someone cares to scratch deep they will find a conservative heart at it’s core.
But to activate our ideas we need to gather political majorities. This neccesitates bringing in voters who may not accept our ideology but are attracted to the freedom space within the party. The Tea-Party and Townhall movement have done a great job opening the voters mind to reason, accountabilty, and protest of the existing order. If the Republicans can incorporate these into a platform with practical commen-sense solutions they will do very well. Focussing voters on their Interest, not their Ideology is the way to win. George Washington knew this as well as Ronald Reagan. And though George Washington originally wrote of the Scots-Irish as “Uncouth” he later came to appreciate their point of view., and they accepted him into the “Sons of St. Patrick Club” as the only non-Irish member.
OK now i’m to click post comment and bang my head a couple more times

and just today I got an email from a guy I consider to be a DIED IN THE WOOL Conservatives telling me that his PAC supports someone else I see as the same. The bottom line is Michael Williams will be a CONSERVATIVE Senator from the great state of TX and WE are NOT going to sit around and play footsie with KBH because the lady cannot TELL THE TRUTH about leaving the Senate to go for another job which makes her the WRONG candidate for both Governor and Senator.

Thank you Senator DeMint for showing the noun vs adjective in visual terms

Whoever has his enemy at his mercy &
does not destroy him is his own enemy

I think you made a good, understandable delineation between people who are committed Conservatives and those who have conservative tendencies.

Both can be good people, but their priorities can be different. True among Conservatives as well, but as a general rule what you wrote made excellent sense.

I find myself thinking that Newt Gingrich is conservative but not a Conservative, however.

Is the objective to win a debate or to elect a government that will operate on principles we agree with? By creating a brand that the left can use to lump everyone into an “enemy” category that is easy for the press to demonize, we set ourselves up to lose elections.

I would much prefer to state a collection of core principles and find people who will endorse (and vote consistently with) them, and downplay the branding language as much as possible.

The difference between being a majority and being a minority is found in the middle. People who are not fans of Rush can be convinced to vote for principles when they won’t vote for a brand.

This, of course, suggests that we can agree on a clear statement of principles. I haven’t seen that yet, so I will offer a starting slate:

1. Term limits - 12 years lifetime service in Congress.
2. Balanced budget - exception only in case of a formal declaration of national emergency.
3. Tax reform - repeal the 16th Amendment and institute principles of consumption tax.
4. Congressional integrity -
- no exepmtion from any laws
- no special retirement or other programs for members
- no votes on final passage until a bill is public for 7 days
- every member must sign an affidavit that he/she has read and understands the bill he/she is voting on
- every bill must have a statement of Constitutional authority

There are lots of other “conservative” issues, but these should be common to all, and should become inviolate. If these were adhered to, most of the nonsense we are seeing with health care, earmarks, global warming, etc., would disappear.

William F. Buckley who said during the 2000 election that Bush was Conservative but not a Conservative? I seem to recall that fairly well ’cause I have often repeated it, but I stand to be corrected.