« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Only modern GOP conservatives can keep America modern

Before disabusing readers of Drive-By Media-driven notions that moderate Democrats and extremist Republicans actually exist [portions of this column originally appeared as, generally, "Moderate Democrats and Extremist Republicans don't exist" at Modern Conservative, as well as Examiner.com and Many Faces of Barack.] in the modern world, let this Gamecock’s announcement of his Modern Conservative dawn (debut) also crow of what modernized this former liberal Democrat into a proud Reaganite.

DeVine Law will conclude with suggestions of how social conservatives and libertarians must strongly ally themselves to prevent the de-modernization of these United States.

Pre-modern conservatives lost elections

From the 1950s debut of William F. Buckley‘s National Review magazine and Whittaker Chambers‘ publication of his “Witness” autobiography; through the Barry Goldwater and Gerald Ford defeats in the 60s and 70s, the only Republican bright spots were Richard Nixon‘s electoral victories, which were basically devoid of any conservative policy triumphs.

The most conservative events before the 1981 Dawn of the Modern Conservative Era, were President John F. Kennedy‘s recovery-inducing supply-side income tax rate cuts and blockade of Russian missile-laden Cuba.

Fortunately, America was able to survive and prosper in the pre-modern era due to many shared conservative values among the members of both, then moderate, parties. That circumstance basically ended when Lee Harvey Oswald‘s magic bullets found their mark in 1963.

The left took over the world’s oldest political party while the still-moderate Grand Old Party eventually secured tennis court passes from Speaker Tip O’Neil, but were unable to prevent the betrayal of the Hmong, South Vietnamese and the kicking of the black man out the house so Uncle Sam could be daddy.

Then came Reagan, Newt and Rush

reagan

Modern conservatism has incorporated all, and I mean all, that was good about classic liberalism, whether it be President Ronald Reagan‘s acceptance of the “safety net for the truly needy”; Martin Luther King’s content of character mantle; or the liberty to retain most of the fruits of one’s labor so as to maximize happiness pursuits.

Unapologetic and unabashed conservatism wins every time it’s tried. I know, for, as a county chairman, delegate, and activist in the Democratic Party during the 80s and 90s, I waved good-bye to national security, pro-life democrats wracked by the failed policies of the filibuster-proof Democratic Party majority James Earl Carter years, as they joined the Gipper and saved America and the World from inflation-caused economic disaster and the Red menace.

But it wouldn’t be until my 2001 move from trial lawyer to corporate work/column writing and from Spartanburg to Atlanta that my conservative epiphany would be made manifest.

After 5000 years, conservatives have reached some conclusions

Unshackled by the parochial concerns in my hometown, and educated for 12 years by Rush Limbaugh’s EIB network, this former JFK Democrat proclaimed himself a Modern Conservative before September 11, 2001. After all, I had:

  • Always called the Soviet empire, evil;
  • Experienced the fruits of supply-side throughout the Reagan recovery, including the Newt-induced continuation during the Clinton years; and was
  • Repulsed by the Borking of Judges Robert and Clarence.

I eschewed the failed policies of Democrats from 1964-2000, including those of President Bill Clinton before the 1994 Rush/Gingrich revolution; was repelled by merely bombing Afghanistan night watchmen after the 1998 African embassy bombings while seducing near-minor interns; and favored George W. Bush’s tax cuts to McCain’s crooked-talk and Gore’s multiple personalities.

One of my favorite quotes of William F. Buckley from his Firing Line PBS talk show, was that one of the main differences between liberals and conservatives is that “after 5000 years of human history, conservatives have reached some conclusions.”

After 38 years, DeVine Law reached those same conclusions.

Then came the ObamaDem assault on all things exceptional about America

I, like Charles Krauthammer in the latest National Review cover story (dead-tree magazine only), don’t mind self-identifying as a “neo-con”, given my support for a robust and aggressive foreign policy that liberates Grenadas and makes Iraqs into Connecticuts after removing evil regimes that threaten American security. I see national security conservative as a synonymous label.

I usually self-identify as a social conservative, though, due to the ubiquity of false stereotypes in the media and even within the conservative movement, and because this country was founded upon Judeo-Christian values that are under assault, and have been since the 60s.

But in truth, conservatism is most aptly defined economically by a preference for as small a government as we can stand, for whenever we hand over responsibilities to the government, we necessarily give up a portion of our Liberty.

Conservatives and Americans of all stripes that still share a love of Liberty and a belief in American exceptionalism, now face an unprecedented threat to our liberty that requires that we all ally ourselves electorally behind a force that can not just arrest the advance of ObamaDem socialism (much as Reagan with Boll weevils and Newt with a triangulator), but that can REVERSE it.

For that one must coalesce in ONE PARTY in a filibuster-proof Senate, strong majority House of Representatives and the White House. It begins in Election 2010.

The loss of Liberty will not be reversed by a third party nor by a coalition of Republicans and Blue Dawg Democrats

You dreamers of a new third-party GOP rising from Whig ashes, wake up. Ain’t gonna happen.

Dreamers that Blue Dawgs in the Senate (There is only 1-8 real blue dawgs in the joke of a House, so we skip it.) will continue to protect us from high energy taxes via Cap and Trade and a Public Option, wake up.

For ObamaDems and Bernankes that are destroying the U.S. dollar with trillions in non-stimuli (that passed the blue dawg House and Senate btw) as we speak, don’t you know the lessons of Louisiana (Landriue) Purchase II, will not be lost on Nelsons, Bayhs and Lincolns. Start the bidding at $300M.

And abortions will be banned to give some dems cover. But don’t worry, you can count on one hand, the number of abortions that won’t happen because of that. Its a non-issue the dems will use to get socialism writ large as we all thank God that “only” 49,000,000 more abortions will be had in the next 26 years as since 1973′s Roe v. Wade, rather than the 49,000,004 that would be had if government paid for them. Not even enough lives saved to put 5 basketball players on the court, but I digress.

But what of Independent Democrat Senator Joe ‘don’t need no stinkin’ public option’ Lieberman? The ObamaDems will find nomenclature and devices to satisfy Joe. I hope he proves me wrong, and I certainly admire his career-long hawkish national security defense stances and his moral voice against Bill Clinton, but somehow I think a provision protecting the insurance industry (See stronger mandate threats of imprisonment if you don’t get the Colonial Life rider?) will be inserted that will re-write what “public” and “options” mean in Merriam-Webster.

Bottom line: We face permanent deconstruction of America if WE THE PEOPLE don’t reverse, and I mean REVERSE (not just stop further advances) the policies put in place by ObamaDems before the 2010 election.

The GOP is the ONLY vehicle to save America short of a Revolution

And given the action against the Navy Seals and the KSM trial, I think the ObamaDems are perfectly capable of instigating a revolution. In fact, one could argue that Obama already fired on Fort Sumter equivalents.

I said all the above, in part, to say this to my social conservative friends

In some cases, in order to win super, filibuster-proof majorities in Congress, we will have to support economic conservatives that are libertarian on social issues. Do the math.

But not to worry, most social policy is made at the state and local level or the courts, and as of now, we have a 5-4 majority on most social issues. Yes, on abortion, we need another vote, but let’s cross that bridge in 2012 by retaining the pro-life plank, pro-traditional marriage plank, federalism advocacy; and nominate only a pro-life presidential nominee.

But conservatives can re-take the GOP only with libertarian help, and an appeal to federalism is the ticket to satisfy both sides. I don’t think this media and Frum-Brooks supposed schism is actually very real, and don’t think social conservatives will have to compromise on this matter very often. But let us embrace the John Stossel’s of the world who share our abhorrence of the far left meddlers that would take away all of our liberty unless we reverse this slouching towards Gomorrah, NOW!

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

COMMENTS

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    The Dem Party is a vile animal, a bat, even a vampire that needs a stake driven thru its collective heart in the noonday sun. – Mike DeVine

    Rush re DDT, black families, abortion, etc – Lib policies kill.

  • penguin2

    in terms of voting as Independents vs Libertarian vote. If they could see their way to voting with the GOP, perhaps some inroads can be made. Having read both of your diaries on this, and in thinking through my social conservative views, I don’t know how much threading the needle here is needed.

    I do want to point out, which I detailed in your Stossel diary, it is more than just abortion at stake in the social conservative’s world. Having said that, knowing what a staunch social conservative you are, I will follow this closely. It would certainly be great if there can be an alliance. One of the most important things though, it is not the social conservatives that can continue to give way, it is because we have that the Left made the inroads they did.

  • pilgrim

    The alliance would be about sharing a common purpose of shrinking the federal government as much as we can to restore the blessings of liberty that our nation was founded on.
    The only thing I am wary of are folks who call themselves libertarian, and they are actually libertine. If they start spouting off about the fundamental rights to free sex and free pot, then they are not libertarians. They are libertines.

  • AKSteveB

    The major issue for (small l) libertarians is freedom. Which party allows more freedom? The liberals want to steal your money, not allow you your guns, create hate speech laws that limit your freedom of speech, force you to put your children in mediocre schools and want to downsize our lifestyle for reasons of environmental dogma. The conservatives want to *allow* the states the right to limit abortion if THEY want to and want to *allow* religion in the public square if communities wish it.

    This isn’t even close.

  • zroxx

    I think all it would really take for (R)s to recapture some (substabtial) part of the “libertarian” vote would be to put forth candidates who commit to eschew and rollback specific policies and specific legislation that are antithetical to conservative and libertarian principles, and lay out an acceptable manner in which they will judge future policies – in other words, articulate an approach to governance and their legislative/policy priorities that is consistent with conservative and libertarian principles.

    Let’s take an example – will the next (R) candidates for congress and/or the presidency please tell us that they believe centralizing authority with and increasing funding for (and therefore taxes, debt, or both) a Federal Dept of Education is antithetical to conservative and libertarian principles, and then explain how they will work to roll back utopian garbage like NCLB and reduce the authority of and funding for a Federal DOE?

    A (R) candidate could get considerable traction with people who think the sole priorities of government should be maximizing liberty, justice, and security in the context of fiscally disciplined stewardship of taxpayer funds if they will take a specific and well articulated stand against programs and legislation which work to reduce liberty, waste money, and centralize authority further away from citizens.

    Someone who has a history of fighting against earmarks and pork spending would be a bonus. A guy like Jeff Flake comes to mind.

  • aesthete

    to reuniting those two natural allies. Whatever you might think of Bush’s presidency (my opinion is quite low), it has to be said that a discussion of the Constitution has all but been lost, save on some hot-button issues (abortion, gun rights, etc.). Republicans certainly haven’t been treating it with respect, so I think that any restoration of that relationship will necessarily entail a return to federalist values.

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    …where conservatives and libertarians are finding common ground in pushing back against the overexpansion of criminal laws by the Federal government and tactics such as asset forfeiture.

    On further reflection, I recall, it was a commentary on SCOTUS cases that are set for arguments.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    in the 90s to show they were tough on crime.

    The government is the criminal!

  • Richard Mullins

    yeah, the lauding of Clinton and Republican congress durning his Admin is always soured with this.