« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Are Moderates Missing the Point?

By: Josh LeGuern (Diary)  |  April 30th, 2009 at 01:31 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Yes….

Do they realize that there are people on this very blog actively supportive of Rudy Guiliani for Governor of New York? Do they get that there are many California conservatives who are enthusiastic about Meg Whitman? Did they forget that the favorite candidate of many conservatives in 2008 was Mitt Romney, the moderate Republican governor of Massachusettes? Even the scourge of many conservatives, John McCain, is getting more support because of his surprisingly conservative leadership in the senate (my jaw dropped when I read his quotes criticizing Obama’s cap-and-trade plan.)

And here is where moderates like David Frum, Meghan McCain and yes, Arlen Specter miss the point– conservatives are not anti-moderate– we realize we’re not going to win with a completely ideologically pure message everywhere. The thing we want is moderate conservatives not liberal Republicans. Moderate conservatives, first of all, respect the conservative movement. They’re looking to build bridges with us rather than burn them. They’re not looking to publicly denounce conservatives every second day, their criticisms are more conversational than they are confrontational. They also know when to agree to disagree. We know that as well. We’re not going to get a piece of brave pro-life legislation with Rudy or Meg at the helm of two of the bluest of blue states, but we’re confident in their ability to effectively run a limited government. We know they understand sound economic theory and don’t subscribe to the idea that higher taxes and more government services equal a better economy. We know they’re strong on national defense.

The thing that kills me is that from the sounds of it people like Meghan McCain and David Frum have some conservative ideas (Meghan for example is much more vocally pro-life than her father.) and if they found themselves could easily be categorized in the 80% range, but they’re too busy criticizing and denouncing conservatives.

They’re right about one thing: we do need to build coalitions, but we’re not going to build coalitions by turning our backs on principle.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    I see this behavior also with evangelical Christians who so desperately want approval from the intelligensia or who mistakenly want to “friendship” evangelize with their secular and liberal acquaintances that they spend more time declaiming how their not like their coarse, embarrassing brethren in the “religious right” than they are trying to just live out their priorities.

    Similarly, these folks perceive conservatives to be beneath the class they like to hang out with, and thus want to try to gain acceptance by echoing the class prejudice against their coarse, embarrassing conservative brethren whose insistence on social values hurts the sensibilities of their liberal buddies.

    This desire for respectibility was one of the most serious poisons that Paul had to fight in the early church. And it’s poisoning the conservative movement today.

    • Mike gamecock DeVine
  • Diogenes314

    When a leftist uses the word ‘moderate’, he basicly means anyone outside of the GOP (and American) mainstream. They refer to those on the left of the GOP as ‘moderates’ to imply that the center/left is the extreme, when in fact it is they who are the extremists. And some of us (and by us, I mean you) go along with it. The same with refering to themselves as “Liberal” when they are actually the antithesis. Just because they have managed to shift the paradigm doesn’t mean we can’t shift it back.

    A better term would be Mugwump. But since the American voter is historically illiterate as well as clueless, call those who prefer power over principle just that-unprincipled. Of course this doesn’t apply to the Rudys and Mitts who agree with 90%+ of the GOP as a whole and disagree on principle with specific issues.

    But the bottom line as far as I’m concerned is that whether they are conservative, liberal, actual moderates or mugwumps, I can live with them to one degree or another-as long as they are loyal. I care less about McClown and company’s particular belief’s then their propensity to stab the party they supposedly belong to in the back.

    • Aaron Gardner

      it’s hip again and has a more recent history….plus people like Clinton can have it hung around their necks. The tie to statism is easy to make as well.

      But I do think it would be fun to make mugwump a regular word in the American lexicon again.

      • Diogenes314

        It would imply they actually stood for something. Let’s just bring back Rockerfeller Republicans and leave it at that.

        • Aaron Gardner

          it just happens to be statism…but they do indeed stand for it…regardless of what they may say

          • Diogenes314

            Those who only really stand for getting and staying elected. The GOP version of Bill Clinton. Collins, Snowe, Chaffee and the like are basicly leftists whith a few mainstream issues.

            And again, I would even accept their inclusion (after the primary, and not in a leadership role of course)-if they had basic loyaly.

          • Aaron Gardner

            They know that the only way for them to hold on to their little portion of power is to centralize all power at the federal level…thus the progressive statist equivalence.

          • Diogenes314

            But if Snowe or Collins decided to switch parties, they would get re-elected easily. Spectre is toast. As McClown would be if he switched (and hopefully will be after the upcoming primary).

          • Aaron Gardner

            But I don’t think that changes what they are…only displays that they know their electoral limitations…beyond that I doubt they see any practical limitation to their progressive statist desires.

            And oh wouldn’t it be so pretty if McCain went down…makes me feel all hopey changey….;^)