« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

I Love Ideologues

From the diaries by Erick

(This post appears on Foxnews.com)

There is a scene in Mel Gibson’s “Braveheart” (what terrible timing to fondly recall a Mel Gibson movie) that summarizes the problem with politicians. Hearing of William Wallace’s rebellion in the Scottish Highlands, an inspired Robert the Bruce Jr. comes to tell his leper father (looking very much like Raiders’ owner Al Davis) the news. Thinking strategically, practically, politically, Robert the Bruce Sr. explains to his son:

You admire this man, this William Wallace. Uncompromising men are easy to admire. He has courage, so does a dog. But it is exactly the ability to compromise that makes a man noble!

I cannot revere compromise; I cannot revere pragmatism; I long for ideologues…and there are not enough in the American political system. An ideologue is a devoted proponent of a consistent set of ideas. He may be a libertarian, a communist, a socialist, or a capitalist. You may disagree with him, but you will know what you are disagreeing with.

An ideologue does not bend to what is popular, what will gain him power, or what is practical. He simply does what he thinks is right. Here – in my opinion – is the ideological purity of some of America’s political leaders.

THE MODEL IDEOLOGUE

Barry Goldwater (former Republican Senator from Arizona)

Barry Goldwater authored what should be the ideologue’s creed in his acceptance speech as the Republican nominee for president in 1963:

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act knowing he’d be called a racist. When social conservatives and economic conservatives were forever wed in the 1970s, Goldwater was the only one to yell “I do!” when the preacher asked if anyone opposed this marriage. Goldwater did and said these things despite how impractical they were, despite the risk to his political career. He did these things because he believed in personal freedom. He said these things because it was right.

Critics reading this right now are saying, and have always said, “yeah, but Goldwater lost a presidential campaign in the biggest landslide in history.” My response…so?

LEVEL 1 – THE AYN RAND ALL-STARS: UNCOMPROMISING IDEOLOGUES

William Wallace: Here are Scotland’s terms. Lower your flags, and march straight back to England, stopping at every home to beg forgiveness for 100 years of theft, rape, and murder. Do that and your men shall live. Do it not, and every one of you will die today.

English General: You are outmatched. You have no heavy cavalry. In two centuries no army has won without–.

William Wallace: I’m not finished. Before we let you leave, your commander must cross that field, present himself before this army, put his head between his legs, and kiss his own arse.

Ron Paul (Republican Congressman from Texas)

Ron Paul joins Barney Frank in an effort to bring American troops home from Afghanistan, Japan (?), Germany (!), and Korea (@##%!). Ron Paul joins Alan Grayson in sponsoring a bill to audit the Fed. Ron Paul wants to end the entitlement state, abolish the income tax, opposes the War on Drugs, is pro-life, is a fan of Hayek, von Mises, Friedman, and Rothbard, and is a huge defender of the Constitution. In short…Ron Paul is consistent. He is a consistent defender of individual liberty to the detriment of his electability. And yet, he keeps getting elected and winning supporters. (Hmmm….maybe this ideologue thing can work?)

Ron Paul is also called crazy. Then again…Pythagoras, Michelangelo, Thomas Jefferson, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan were also called crazy. Then again, again…Kim Jong Il is also called crazy. I’m just saying. Maybe all this crazy calling isn’t that insightful.

Bernie Sanders (Independent Senator from Vermont)

Although he runs as an independent and caucuses with the Democrats, Senator Sanders is a socialist/Social Democrat who openly pines for European social democracy. Bravo to him for saying what he truly believes as opposed to so many other Democrats.

Gary Johnson (former Republican Governor of New Mexico)

Perhaps no political position is more impractical and less popular than to say what so few others will admit: that the War on Drugs is an expensive bust. Johnson is an ideologically consistent conservative-libertarian and won two terms as governor in largely Democratic New Mexico. He is said to be considering a 2012 presidential run. (Hmmmm…maybe this ideologue stuff can work.)

Jim DeMint (Republican Senator from South Carolina)

The South Carolina senator is the Martin Luther of the Republican Party, driving a reformation of ideological purity. While the Republican establishment is busy picking people they think can win elections (Charlie Crist, Trey Grayson), DeMint finds and backs people who should win elections (Marco Rubio, Rand Paul).

LEVEL 2 – THE STUDENTS OF RAND PAUL: HIDE WHO YOU ARE JUST A LITTLE BIT

William Wallace: Fight and you may die. Run and you’ll live… at least awhile. And dying in your bed many years from now, would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that for one chance, just one chance, to come back here as young men and tell our enemies that they may take our lives but they will never takeour freedom!

Chris Christie (Republican Governor of New Jersey)

The Republican governor and YouTube sensation went into the Democratic swampland of New Jersey and impractically told the teachers unions to stick it, took the anti-populist tact of explaining ideological divides to reporters (this is must watch material if you haven’t seen it), and managed to sign into law a balanced state budget that cut government spending. (Hmmm…maybe this ideologue stuff can work.)

Barney Frank (Democratic Congressman from Massachusetts)

Congressman Barney Frank is out-of-the-closet in almost every way – which is a compliment. But moments like this make you wonder how often he’s hiding where he really wants to take this country.

Barack Obama (Democratic President of the United States aka POTUS)

The hardcore ideological left sees that he sacrificed the public option in the health care reform bill and has failed to move cap-and-trade forward as a sign that he’s a pragmatist. Still, President Obama has ushered in the biggest expansion of federal government since LBJ, hired faaaaaaaaaar fewer cabinet members with private sector experience than any president in 100 years, and wants to spread the wealth around.
I think Obama is an ideologue (a compliment in the context of this article), I think Obama is some form of socialist, and I think the debate is what kind of socialist?

Nancy Pelosi (Democratic Speaker of the House)

Pelosi has to be a little practical in order to strong arm something out of Congress. But do you have any doubt that DuPont Circle would be renamed Red Circle if she had complete authoritarian control. I think the nervous, interrupting herself, stream-of-consciousness press conference announcement would go something like this:

“Understand – and I don’t know how this could be misunderstood – ummm – that the Republicans again – and I like the color red – the Republicans again have shown to be the Party of No – I wish I could blink – ummm – it’s a warm color – ummm – the people want us to get something done – and, I, I, I, I, – besides, DuPont was French – so, in a time when the private sector – or, or, or, had a French name – my hair is in my face – which it was the Bush administration that renamed Freedom Fries – so everyone will go slower or maybe come to a stop knowing that there won’t be a green light – my hair is in my face – we, we, we, it’s not about Lenin – but we won’t be slaves to Wall Street – so they are again saying ‘no’ – but now they are against red – which I am most certainly not.”

Paul Ryan (Republican Congressman from Wisconsin)

Unlike so many other conservative politicians, Paul Ryan doesn’t duck from answering questions about the reality of our entitlement problem. Ryan doesn’t only provide answers to how we solve the Social Security/Medicare Ponzi scheme on TV shows; he puts forward actual, workable plans: Paul Ryan’s Roadmap. He does this despite the fear of losing the Old Fogey vote. He puts these solutions out there despite the fact that they are totally, impossibly, impractical during an age of Democratic-controlled government.

P.S. – Ryan has held these strong ideological positions in a moderate district in Wisconsin that has voted Democratic more than Republican over the last 50 years. (Hmmmm…maybe this ideologue stuff can work?)

LEVEL 3 – THE MONTY HALL LET’S MAKE A DEALERS: PRAGMATIC POLITICANS (two examples, but most of Washington can claim to be one of these compromisers)

Scottish soldier: The nobles will negotiate. They’ll do a deal. Then we’ll go home.

John Cornyn (Republican Senator from Texas)

As soon as the ideological fight of our time – Obamacare – was lost, Cornyn was asked if he would support a repeal effort. The Republican Texas senator said, “There is non-controversial stuff here like the preexisting conditions exclusion and those sorts of things. Now we are not interested in repealing that. And that is frankly a distraction.” The preexisting condition clause (!) – kind of the lynchpin of the whole deal.

Evan Bayh (Democratic Senator from Indiana)

The Illinois senator quit because too many people in Congress actually believed in something. Bayh is the posterboy for the modern-day fetish of whining over the lack of bipartisanship.

P.S. – Bayh is a second -stringer on the Blanche Devereaux Blow-Wave All-Stars.

P.P.S. – First teamers include Texas Governor Rick Perry, Blogo, John Edwards, and … Rachel Maddow.

LEVEL 4 – THE DANIEL WEBSTER POPULISTS: TELL ‘EM WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR

Longshanks: The trouble with Scotland is that it is full of Scots.

John McCain (Republican Senator from Arizona)

If there were a hit pop/populist song about controlling government spending the chorus would be about waste, fraud, earmarks and pork. John McCain ran an entire presidential campaign around those catch words. While waste and fraud are offensive and should be ended, anyone who sings this song instead of entitlement reform is the Britney Spears of politics. McCain’s latest populist hit, “Complete the Dang Fence” is one he should’ve been singing years ago. Don’t worry John, “you’re one of us.”

Sarah Palin (former Republican Governor of Alaska)

This will make me a pariah – which shows how good of a populist she is – but if Palin really stood for something, how could she stand with McCain? Honestly, if the majority of the Republican electorate wanted to bomb France because too many French men wear Velcro sneakers with little-to-no soles , wouldn’t Palin be on Facebook advocating for such action because men wearing feminized footwear marks a serious decline in civilization? (Then again…would she be wrong?)

LEVEL 5 – THE AL DAVIS “JUST WIN BABY” ALL-STARS

William Wallace: A lordship and titles. Gold. That I should become Judas?
Princess Isabella: Peace is made in such ways.
William Wallace: Slaves are made in such ways.

Arlen Specter (Democratic Senator from Pennsylvania)

It’s a shame Arlen Specter is leaving the political stage (pause a moment…wonder…is he really gone?). Arlen Specter is the caricature you had drawn at Six Flags that reveals the true asymmetrical flaws in your face. Arlen Specter is the exaggeration, the stereotype that hints at the truth. Arlen Specter reveals to you what most politicians really want … to just win baby.

When Arlen Specter graduated magna cum laude from the Al Davis “Just Win Baby” Academy for Politicians he took one lesson to heart, “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.” When Specter saw that all the cool people had voted for Obama and a newly Democratic Senate and House, he too became a Democrat (after running as a Republican for 44 years). Specter says that he didn’t move to the left, the Republican Party moved to his right. But how does that explain the szchizophrenic argument that Republican Arlen Specter has had with the Democrat Arlen Specter?

Republican Arlen Specter: opposes Dawn Johnson as an appointee to the Justice Department, voted against Elena Kagan as a nominee to the Solicitor General’s office, opposed the pro-union card check law.

Democrat Arlen Specter: votes for Dawn Johnson, appears to support Elena Kagan as a nominee to the Supreme Court, is open to the pro-union card check law.

It’s possible that Specter is more stupid than unprincipled. He voted in favor of John Roberts’ and Samuel Alito’s confirmation to the Supreme Court and also voted for Sonia Sotomayor’s and (probably) Elena Kagan’s confirmation to the Supreme Court. Roberts and Alito hold completely incompatible views with Sotomayor and Kagan on the role of the Supreme Court.

All of this unprincipled moderation, flip-flopping, and party-switching finally seems to have caught up with Specter as he lost to Joe Sestak in a Democratic primary in May. But are you 100% certain that we have seen the last of Specter? Is he really gone? Is Al Davis? Are they the same person?

Charlie Crist (Republican…er…Independent…er…Democrat Senate Candidate)

See Specter, Arlen … just add tan.

Will Cain is a conservative writer and commentator

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • tragiconda

    That was excellent and I totally agree.
    I have much more respect for a person that may be a complete but unwavering idiot than one who shifts with the slightest breeze.
    I think the apex of hypocrisy is represented by all the “good catholic” politicians that staunchly support abortion on demand only exceeded by the priests that grant them communion though that might be slightly off topic to this article.

    • rdelbov

      with a “moral anchor”. A core set of beliefs centered not looking at man but rather to God. A George Washington type who thanks God for his divine Providence. (no Providence is just a city in Rhode Island)

      I understand that you putting a Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul side by side based on political honesty– a faithfulness in their own beliefs. There is that quality to admire to a Bernie Sanders with his no compromise plan for socialism but his lack of moral base would also have America with abortion shops on every corner.

      I can recall when Reagan spoke of “an evil empire”–Reagan like the Puritans of old saw America as a shinning city on a hill. One city was in light and the other was in darkness in Reagan’s view–remember Godless communism.

      I personally don’t admire the Barney Franks-the Bernie Sanders-the Nancy Pelosi type people who have a very view of what the roots of America is and where America is going.

      I know you are not expressing a policy approval of these liberalsl but rather a call of sorts for political purity. I personally would prefer another type call that in my opinion cannot be resisted.

      My question would be that since 80% of candidates in 2010 fall short of purity what do we do? Do we ditch the Kirk or Castles or Boozman because any sort of 100% conservative perfection is not worth electing?

      I also say “What is Truth”? Do conservatives agree 100% on every issue? Erick disagreed with points of Ryan’s roadmap the other day? Does that make either one of them less then perfect?

      What do you or anyone else think?

      • From ME to You

        then go for half of the half you didn’t get, then…….

        The socialist didn’t get it all in one bite!

        Remember the instructions on how to boil a live frog!

    • offthepage

      Rather talk to the consistent idiots than the spineless. Thanks for the comment.

      Will Cain (author of the above)
      twitter @willcain

  • ralatredstate

    and their ilk only when I can see them burning in Hell.

    • Jack_Savage

      No “u”. People named “Saunders” are easily offended at this seemingly harmless slip-up, mainly because Bernie Sanders is a socialist on his most conservative day.

      • ralatredstate

        But neither is misspelling in pursuit of lame posts.

        • texasgalt

          doesn’t add up. What’s the purpose of lumping DeMint in with Johnson, Sanders and Ron Freaking Paul? Good grief, why not toss in Sheila Jackson Lee- pure ideologue and only a tad dumber than Paul.

          Perhaps Palin took a stand with McCain because she took a good look at JD? I’m just sayin . . . and having said that I’d have a good laugh if JD pulled off a miracle

          • AceInTX

            The OP lead off with the fact that you don’t have to agree with an ideologue…but you could count on an ideologue to be consistent…in that Demint is like Paul, or any of the others mentioned…they are all ideologues and consistent in their behavior and decision making…whether they are right or not is another thing entirely and is completely beside the point of the OP’s intent.

          • texasgalt

            I guess maybe it was the author’s intent that still doesn’t click with me.
            I bet we can both agree he got it right on Cornyn.

            >>but you could count on an ideologue to be consistent<<

            Didn’t somebody say something really smart about foolish consistency and hobgoblins? ;-)

          • Richard Mullins

            Really DeMint lumped with Coronal Sanders? That can be an insult. I wished that the Baker Institute at Rice University had a LibCon score chart for the U.S. House of Representative and US Senate. It would make things easier to tell the ideologue(I love ideologues when they are pointing in my direction).

          • offthepage

            Just because I respect their consistency or devotion to their ideas – doesn’t mean I agree with their ideas. I mean…I guess bin Laden is an ideologue – but it doesn’t mean I like what he has to say.
            Maybe later I can do a diary on Know Thy Enemy and list the most harmful ideologues in American politics. That will be the list where Kucinich, Sanders and Frank can shine.

            Will Cain (author of the above)
            twitter @willcain

          • mcclarinj

            Dumb relative to yourself of course. After all, you were smart enough NOT to read any of the books or articles Ron Paul has written.

            I just checked Paul’s latest Facebook fans number: 235,526. That’s staggeringly more than any other member of Congress and is more than many Hollywood celebrities. Amazing how many dumb people there are out there.

            The place to find really dumb people is college and university campuses. These idiots are so stupid they frequently fill an auditorium to overflowing to hear this skinny old guy with funny ideas say what they’ve already heard him say on YouTube videos.

            Did I say YouTube? OK, checking “Ron Paul” on YouTube I get 592,000 results. Stupid! What would anyone find interesting enough about dumb old Ron Paul to make that many videos of? Of course that number is not entirely accurate since a lot of videos, including strip tease videos, put “Ron Paul” in the description just to pull in more really dumb viewers to watch their video that’s NOT about Ron Paul because apparently it’s a pretty hot search term with the intellectually challenged.

            Oh well, takes all types to make a world!

          • texasgalt

            to the defense of their man. College boys just love them some Ron Paul.

            Congrats on your first post. You’re going to fit in here real well.

          • SteveLA

            texasgalt

            I’ve given some thought to the question of why people are attracted to Turn Turn Turn Spit Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul, don’t think I’ve ever answered that question in my own mind.

            As much as I dislike that fool, you have to give some consideration as to why so many people are attracted to him, what’s the reason? He is Pro-Life as far as I know, he’s a fiscal conservative yet he does bring home the pork to his district, he’s way wrong as a member of the “Blame America First” club, but at the same time he excites people on this side of the ditch….why? I’ve never taken the time to talk to a Paultard, so what am I missing.

          • texasgalt

            only a little bit crazier. He seems to draw in the conspiracy crowd, Fed haters and pot smokers. I actually got to meet the man several times. I would like to say we had a conversation but it is hard to get a word in edgewise with Paul.

          • Doc Holliday

            but it is also that he espouses many libertarian conservative principles. I think Paul is popular in spite of himself. He went up against a bunch of big government Socons and he stood out as the lone libertarian.

            The country is ready for sound libertarian conservative views; hence the rise of the Tea Party and Repub fortunes this year. The shame in all this is libertarian principles deserve someone better and less crazy than Paul. If anything, he tamped down the groundswell for libertarianism because he is such a kook.

          • cactusjack

            He’s been in his district a loooong time. Who were they supposed to look to for models of patriotism and propriety in Congress, Ron Paul v………..Barney Frank? Jim McDermott? Maxine Waters? Patsy Schroeder? “Cold Cash” Jefferson? Jim Wright? Wilbur Mills? He’s served long enough to see off the “best” (worst) of ‘em. The only other Congressman who tried to (poitically) indict the whole 450+ lot of them for conspiracy against the Constitution, was Jim Trafficant from Ohio and they put him in jail! This during a time of the house post office banking scandal when, 300 or more of them were guilty of a commercail fraud felony had they not been in Congress. Also it is just a very unusual & interesting part of the State, the “piney woods.” . Not far from Paul’s district is the famous “Fighting 2nd Congressional District” which produced Good Time Charlie Wilson for five terms. Rest his soul his career still defies pigeonholing or stereotyping.

          • Doc Holliday

            as president, no freaking way lol.

          • mbecker908

            that even remotely represents conservative values. He’s a pimple on our collective butt.

          • Doc Holliday

            but as one of hundreds, he does not worry me much. He is right about reducing the federal government, taxation, eminent domain, etc. And his crazy ideas of open borders, no foreign wars etc will go nowhere. I would rather have a quack who is sometimes right than a Demo who is always wrong. Either way, his people have had many chances to send him packing, we don’t get to decide on it.

          • Doc Holliday

            I just don’t worry about him anymore, he is irrelevant.

          • mbecker908
          • aesthete

            I’m not a fan (and as President, he’d be a disaster), but he’s fine in the House, where he can do little damage and is at least a reliable vote against government spending. (I can think of a couple of CongressCritters on the Republican side of the aisle I’d willingly replace with a Paul clone, at least.)

          • cactusjack

            just saw a reason why a Paul results every once in awhile, almost desperation on the part of voters for something different than what’s there. But I am worried about Paul, he has *not* said he is not running for President in 2012. He has enough Paulistas to pull 3-4% of the electorate, and pretty sure like Pero in 92 he’d pull more away from R side more than the D side. See, not even big Red State 34 EVs Texas is not without problems in the coming election.

            On a completely other issue you have now made me grown sentimental for the late Charles Nesbitt Wilson. May have to do a diary or post on the long lost species of the Hawk Democrat.

          • Doc Holliday

            I enjoyed the movie. He was no Mr. Smith, but seemed like a fun loving guy that actually cared about something. He would never win a Demonrat primary today, even in Texas.

          • SteveLA

            Consider though
            Smaller ears
            Less nasal twang
            Different hair cut
            Doesn’t say “Let me finish”
            Same Kook appeal

            Is RP RP RP taller than Ross?

            But it does say something that RP RP RP eschews the fixation on social issues of the “true conservative” base of the R party and does pretty well at attracting people to his cause.

            He is still a loon and his membership in the “Blame America First” club makes me detest him.

          • mbecker908

            Perot actually had a solid record of real-world accomplishment before he drove off the cliff.

            Ron Paul has never accomplish a thing. Unless you count fleecing his constituents out of his salary for 24 years.

            His writing are, by and large, the product of 19th century conspiracy theories that didn’t work then. The guy is a complete ignorant fool on the subjects of economics and foreign policy.

            And hey, one month, one post wonder, go troll somewhere else. You’ll get beaten bloody before you’re banned.

          • texasgalt

            having done anything of substance, Paul is a zero and Perot built two companies. Still, when it came to politics, Ross could be annoying.

          • mbecker908

            I have no use for Perot’s politics. Even if I did vote for him, much to my shame. At least he has some solid accomplishments to his name, unlike Mr. Paul.

          • Achance

            maybe going back to Bush’s time in Congress or with the CIA. Perot is smart enough to know that he wasn’t going to win and was probably going to elect a liberal Democrat, yet he hated GHWB enough to take the Presidency away from him.

          • Doc Holliday

            Perot did some good things in life. he tried to rescue his men in Iran, and he put a true American hero if there ever was one on his presidential ticket. But I also believe he was really just trying to ruin it for Bush.

          • Tbone

            I think it was a CIA thing.

      • indylawyer

        The best ideologues are the ones who know what is most important and when to abandon secondary goals for the larger objectives. Think Churchill’s opposition to the Nazis, Lincoln’s preservation of the union, Reagan’s opposition to communism. In order to achieve their goals, each of these men had to make many compromises on secondary issues – Reagan made few spending cuts, Churchill sacrificed Britain’s longterm empire, Lincoln for a time declined to outlaw slavery. Had those men had a dozen uncompromisable positions, they would have failed in their main objectives.

        And I love Barry Goldwater, but his landslide defeat enabled LBJ to radically expand the size and scope of government. He may have inspired new generations of conservative leaders, but on his goals of shrinking the role of government they have spent 45 years trying to slow down the snowballing of big government that started rolling with his defeat.

        • Tbone

          It is results that last.

        • texasgalt

          The trick is knowing when.

          • Richard Mullins

            That sort of not happening in th U.S House of Representatives/US Senate as well as State Legislatures. It something that needs to be done and at this present moment, I’m working on a list of worthy candidates for speaker of the Texas House of Representatives(armed with Rankings from Project Vote Smart and the LibCon score chart from the Baker institute at Rice University). I prefer hard-line conservative but want to have the ability to make things happens.

          • texasgalt

            ideologue because he gets things done without heavy compromise.

            While he is a statist thru and thru he isn’t good at much of anything. Bambi is running the rack on his agenda because of circumstances- big majorities in the Senate and House.

            So the ideologue that you may like and want . . . for example as speaker in TX is really going to be somewhat captive to the circumstances she inherits.

            As I said before, the trick is knowing on what and when to bend. Not knowing got former Speaker Craddick booted and replaced by a man that is loved primarily by the major Texas newspapers and barely tolerated by everybody else.

          • Richard Mullins

            I thought that the one as a senator was a good leftist but it seems that he was a wimp. Not good. After a look at the LibCon score for the Texas House of Represntatives, I would rather have Debbie Riddle(147 out of 150 with 150 being the most conservative and 1 being the most liberal[Randy Weber is 150 and thus the most conservative in votes]). I don’t see Strauss getting the speakership since 3 left of center Republicans aren’t comming back, but nether is one of the most Conservative members, Joe Crabb(didn’t run for another term in the Texas House and I wonder how Dan Huberty is going to vote). I think the one thing that could have done it to Craddick was a brash and apprasive approach to things. There is a way to handle things and there is a way to kill off what you want. I prefer to have my ideolougues to tilt to the right.

          • offthepage

            And it sure isn’t very Galt :)

            Can’t ideologues – through the sheer force of their righteousness – redefine what is possible? I hope so.

            Will Cain (author of the above)
            twitter @willcain

        • gemimail

          What you say about the 1964 election results enabling a horrendous expansion of government is true. On the other hand, this election destroyed the Democrat southern segregationist, labor union, and liberal alliance (talk about strange bedfellows). The South turned Republican at the cost of losing the black vote. This added a lot of formerly Democrat states and their electoral votes to the Republican tally. This allowed Republicans to finally have a good chance of winning presidential elections. (7 to 4 after 1964).

          It also eventually allowed Republicans to gain control of both houses for 12 years running (except for the Senate in 2001-2002). The only years the Republicans controlled both houses since 1929-1930 was in 1947-1948 and 1953-1954. That was a long time to be usually out in the political wilderness. One can make the case that the 1964 election turned out to be a good thing for the Republican Party, albeit at great cost.

          • indylawyer

            Yes, Goldwater’s run did turn out to be good for the Republican Party, but paradoxically it was terrible for conservatism, because the revived GOP still wasn’t strong enough to undo the damage the Democrats did with their 1965-67 majorities.

          • indylawyer

            And even Reagan couldn’t undo the damage done by LBJ. Except for foreign policy.

          • Doc Holliday

            Goldwater was bad for Republicans? Hell, he ended the liberal elite Republican stranglehold and set up the seismic change of politics in the South and West (not the left looney West of CA, OR, and WA).

          • JamesSmith130

            in the late 1960s and 1970s, it elected Reagan in a landslide. There was always a loony left in CA, but it was counterbalanced by conservatives in SoCal, especially Orange Co and San Diego. Then in the mid to late 1980s, a whole bunch of Latinos moved in, whites moved out, and the state became hopelessly Democrat. Reagan’s one big mistake, amnesty for illegals, was part of the cause for this transformation.

          • SteveLA

            I’d probably argue that the beginning of the end for Southern Dixecrats was Chicago ’68 when Northern Liberals who were for a whole host of civil rights issues took control of the party. The formation of the American Independent party where the old line Southern segregationists abandoned the D part was sort of the beginning of the end.

            Throw in the anger in the South over forced busing in the late 60′s/early 70′s and then consider Lee Attwaters Southern Strategy which resulted in many of the old Dixecrats being reborn as R’s under the banner of states rights. You end up with a large part of the South switching sides, well maybe not Yellow Dog Democrats.

            The final act was Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority in the lead up to the ’80 election. Probably call that the exclamation mark on conversion of the South to being a conservative strong hold.

          • Achance

            Tet and the sense that the war had taken a terrible turn, whether that was really true or not, MLK’s assassination, RFK’s assasination, rioting everywhere, LBJ choosing not to run, the charge from the Left with McCarthy and “Getting clean for Gene.” It was the first election in which I could vote and, true to my Southern heritage, I voted for Humphrey, but that year was the first crack in the Solid South. I voted for Carter in ’76 because old times there were not forgotten and have never voted for another Democrat for President and don’t plan to.

          • SteveLA

            That was my first election, too young to vote in ’68. I did not trust that Peanut farmer one little bit, and was proven to be right. Sanctimonious Incompetent nincompoop.

            I had moved away from the South by then, and switched to being an R based on taxes, over-reach of the feds into states business (buying into the concept of states rights) and the other traditional R values that existed long before the Moral Majority sell out, I agree with Goldwater on that topic.

          • JamesSmith130

            I thought most people with “Southern heritage” voted for George Wallace in 1968 (I’m from the North, but I’d probably voted for Wallace if I were of age then). Blacks who could vote and liberals voted for Humphrey. Most of Nixon’s vote came from the northern transplants in the metro areas. I guess in the outer South things may have been a little different and traditional Southern Dems were more likely to vote for Hubert, especially in places like Texas where LBJ had a hand in things.

          • SteveLA

            James

            The anger over civil rights, school desegregation and all the rest was pretty strong in the 60′s South. The 16th Street bombings were in ’63, so ’68 was not that far off. HHH was a Northern Liberal and made no bones about his support for the civil rights movement, something that did not play well in the South, hence the George Wallace run in ’68. Wallace carried five Southern states and won almost ten million popular vote by the way.

          • JamesSmith130

            of the North as well. I grew up in the Detroit area during the period of massive forced integration and busing. Wallace was really popular where I lived and for good reason, he was the only guy standing up against all this BS. Nixon did too eventually, but he was a johnny come lately.

            The only reason why Wallace didn’t win big in the Detroit area in 1968 was a huge union brainwashing drive that literally scared and threatened people to vote for Humphrey, which was quite effective. My parents voted for Wallace regardless though. We ended up having a lot of sympathy for the white people in the South and what they were going through. Although we weren’t racists, my parents told me that they didn’t really have a problem with the Civil Rights Act per se, there were a lot of good people we knew who were.

          • Achance

            Mine is the sort that if you can’t rattle off what CS regiments your lineal ancestors were in and at least claim an RS or two, you’re newly arrived and perhaps a bit declasse. Wallace was way to strident and redneck. The Klan and standing on courthouse steps were for the merchant class and people who didn’t have anything.

            Which is not to say that we had much, either. We were land poor and could tell good stories about who had done what and how long they’d been doing it; that counted for something in those days.

    • Superheater

      “The South Carolina senator is the Martin Luther of the Republican Party, driving a reformation of ideological purity.”

      Luther isn’t a hero of purity, he was a prophet of disorder and contradiction.

      His ecclesiological inventions have given us a fractured Christianity, with 30,000 and counting denominations all claiming to be adherents of sola scriptura; but varying wildly in doctrine and practice where the yardstick of authenticity is sola viscera.

      He broke vows he willingly took, and far from freeing the people from religious compulsion, his followers fused the state and religion, especially in the Nordic countries, where despite his contention that marriage was a state affair, not a matter for the Church, you didn’t marry without the local Lutheran pastor’s consent. He claimed to be aghast at sin, but then claimed it was endemic. And if you happened to be a follower of Zwingli, well that was one way to surrender one’s salvation.

      Then again, his idea that the state should be the custodian of marriage has worked just fine, hasn’t it?

      You owe the Senator an apology. As bad as the above analogy was, putting him in the same category as Sanders and Pelosi could induce regurgitation.

      • Tbone

        LOL

        • Superheater

          But Scandanavia will be serving more Halal than lutefisk in the future.

      • http://Blackberrybear.etsy.com knitwit

        John Calvin would have been a better choice?

        • Superheater

          John Calvin would have been a better choice?

          No, one asserts actions doesn’t matter because the game is rigged (Calvin), the other because the game doesn’t matter (Luther).

          In either case, both were products of cults of personality. Luther thought his theology was immutable, but nearly five centuries later, his followers are only nominally Lutheran. I suspect that he would not have had much debate about “gay marriage” or a female pastorate.

  • m_quick

    …but it shouldn’t be. You’re right on just about every count (except Bayh being from Illinois).

    It’s a good way of thinking about politicians, as just points on a spectrum of ideological purity. I would put Romney down there with McCain.

    • http://Blackberrybear.etsy.com knitwit

      Same quadrant of the universe, there.

    • http://www.OverbrookResearch.com TheYeomanFarmer

      Otherwise, dead on…

    • offthepage

      and thanks for the head’s up on the corrections.

      Will Cain (author of the above)
      twitter @willcain

  • indccc

    and that’s why I can’t understand an endorsement of Ron Johnson. He is no William Wallace!

    • dwarfmama

      As much as I admire the courage of Level 1, the most effective at implementing their ideological principles seem to be the Level 2 folks. Maybe there’s an advantage to having enough ideology that people know where you stand, but not so much that you can’t adapt to whatever realities present themselves.

      • offthepage

        I think I’m with you. I want to debate with Level 1. I want to hang out with Level 1. I respect Level 1. I want to be Level 1.
        But Level 2 people can be very effective (more effective?). In that spirit, most of my hope these days lies with Chris Christie.

        Will Cain (author of the above)
        twitter @willcain

    • neomom

      Ron Johnson is a small business owner, knows how all the taxes/regs affect his ability to make a payroll.. and he is 85% better than Russ Feingold.

  • azrobert

    the Founders loathed compromisers. They thought bi-partisan was a dirty word. You need to stand up for your principles.

    • Ausonius

      I wrote a comment here some months ago quoting the same line from “Braveheart” and have read it elsewhere since.

      Something in that movie is obviously resonating today: if some of the more brutal scenes could be cut, it should be shown and sown in all of our schools. Standing up to tyranny sometimes means complete sacrifice.

      And speaking of uncompromising men: “Give me liberty or give me death!”

      Not much wiggle room in the middle there! :)

  • http://www.facebook.com/vidaestrada Veronica

    we just finished watched Braveheart late last night (3a!) — cut into 2 nights — and we discussed as a family how it reverberates to now.

    Very motivating pieces – both of them.

    • cactusjack

      things like, one of the things his enemies assumed of him, was that he was uneducated, unsophisticated, a simpleton. He was from the part of the UK that was their equivalent of “flyover from lesser civilized parts of the kingdom – their equivalent of “flyover country” back then. Cf. to effete liberal snobbism today. As I recall, the scene where William speaks three languages with the princess (flitting back and forth between King’s English, French and Latin) was included both as a shocker to the English and an education for the audience, that William had been formally educated , knew his stuff and took second to no one in the King’s army in that department. His passion for freedom potentiated the education.

      • http://www.facebook.com/vidaestrada Veronica
    • offthepage

      Veronica and Cactus

      Will Cain (author of the above)
      twitter @willcain

  • throwback59

    Obama, Frank, Pelosi et al; no mealy-mouthed marxists they.

  • rdelbov

    reformation is that God is in control. What Luther-Knox-Calvin and others started was not disorder but rather part of God’s plan. Think Romans 8:28.

    I have to think whether calling Jim DeMint a “Luther” is a correct analogy. Maybe. I hesitate as well putting Jim DeMint in the same catagory as Ron Paul. I do not let to attack follow republicans but Jim DeMint is a true builder. He wants to be build a GOP with a vision. Ron Paul has one vision for the GOP and that is Ron Paul. Jim DeMint wants to fill the church choir. Ron Paul is more like blind Samson with his hands on the pillars pulling the temple down.

    • offthepage

      I agree is a builder. He’s one of the best things going in the Rep Party right now.

      Will Cain (author of the above)
      twitter @willcain

  • izoneguy

    The Fundamental Transformation of America

    When Obama wrote a book and said he was mentored as a youth by Frank, (Frank Marshall Davis) an avowed Communist,

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When it was discovered that his grandparents, were strong socialists, sent Obama’s mother to a socialist school, introduced Frank Marshall Davis to young Obama,

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When people found out that he was enrolled as a Muslim child in school and his father and step father were both Muslims,

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When he wrote in another book he authored he will stand with them (Muslims) should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When he admittedly, in his book, he chose Marxist friends and professors in college.

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When he traveled to Pakistan , after college on an unknown national passport.

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When he sought the endorsement of the Marxist party in 1996 as he ran for the Illinois Senate.

    Many people said it doesn’t matter.

    When he sat in a Chicago Church for twenty years and listened to a preacher spew hatred for America and preach black liberation theology,

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When an independent Washington organization, that tracks senate voting records, gave him the distinctive title as the “most liberal senator”,

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When the Palestinians in Gaza , set up a fund raising telethon to raise money for Obama’s 2008 election campaign,

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When his voting record supported gun control,

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When he refused to disclose who donated money to his election campaign, as other candidates had done,

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When he received endorsements from people like Louis Farrakhan, Mummar Kadaffi and Hugo Chavez,

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When it was pointed out that he was a total, newcomer and had absolutely no experience at anything except community organizing,

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When he chose friends and acquaintances such as Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn who were revolutionary radicals,

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When his voting record in the Illinois senate and in the U.S. Senate came into question,

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When he refused to wear a flag, lapel pin and did so only after a public outcry,

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When people started treating him as a Messiah and children in schools were taught to sing his praises,

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When he stood with his hands over his groin area for the playing of the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance,

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When he surrounded himself in the White house with advisors who were pro gun control, pro abortion, pro homosexual marriage and wanting to curtail freedom of speech to silence the opposition

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When he aired his views on abortion, homosexuality and a host of other issues,

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When he said he favors sex education in Kindergarten, including homosexual indoctrination,

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When his background was either scrubbed or hidden and nothing could be found about him,

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When he had an association in Chicago with Tony Rezco, a man of questionable character, who is now in prison and had helped Obama to a sweet deal on the purchase of his home,

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When it became known that George Soros, a multi-billionaire Marxist, spent a ton of money to get him elected,

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When he started appointing czars that were radicals, revolutionaries, and even avowed Marxist/Communist’s,

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When he stood before the nation and told us that his intentions were to “fundamentally transform this nation” into something else,

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When it became known that he had trained ACORN workers in Chicago and served as an attorney for ACORN,

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When he appointed cabinet members and several advisors who were tax cheats and socialist’s,

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When he appointed a science czar, John Holdren, who believes in forced abortions, mass sterilizations and seizing babies from teen mothers,

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When he appointed Cass Sunstein as regulatory czar and he believes in “Explicit Consent”, harvesting human organs without family consent, and to allow animals to be represented in court, while banning all hunting,

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When he appointed Kevin Jennings, a homosexual, and organizer of a group called gay, lesbian, straight, Education network, as safe school czar and it became known that he had a history of bad advice to teenagers,

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When he appointed Mark Lloyd as diversity czar and he believed in curtailing free speech, taking from one and giving to another to spread the wealth and admires Hugo Chavez,

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When Valerie Jarrett was selected as Obama’s senior White House advisor and she is an avowed Socialist,

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When Anita Dunn, White House Communications director said Mao Tse Tung was her favorite philosopher and the person she turned to most for inspiration,

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When he appointed Carol Browner as global warming czar, and she is a well known socialist working on Cap and trade as the nations largest tax,

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When he appointed Van Jones, an ex-con and avowed Communist as green energy czar, who since had to resign when this was made known,

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When he recess appointed Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board, whose prolific writings, suggest a radical view of labor law that flies in the face of established precedent and case law

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When he recess appointed Donald Berwick as head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) who has repeatedly made claims and statements that raise numerous questions about his suitability for this critical position,

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When as president of the United States, he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia,

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When he traveled around the world criticizing America and never once talking of her greatness,

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When his actions concerning the middle-east seemed to support the Palestinians over Israel, our long time friend,

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When he upset the Europeans by removing plans for a missile defense system against the Russians,

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When he started spending us into a debt that was so big we could not pay it off,

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When he took a huge spending bill under the guise of stimulus and used it to pay off organizations, unions and individuals that got him elected,

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When he signed into law ObamaCare, which took over 1/6 of the nation’s economy,

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When he took away student loans from the banks and put it through the government by adding it into the 2700 page ObamaCare bill,

    Many people said it didn’t matter.

    When he set into motion a plan to take over the control of all energy in the United States through Cap and Trade,

    Many people say it doesn’t matter.

    When he finally completed his transformation of America into a Socialist State,

    People finally woke up…….. but it was too late.

    Any one of these things, in and of themselves may not really matter. But…. when you add them up one by one you get a phenomenal score that points to the fact that Obama is determined to make over America into a Marxist/Socialist society. All of the items in the preceding paragraphs have been put into place. All can be documented very easily. The last paragraph alone is not yet cast in stone. You and I will write that paragraph. Will it read as above or will it be a more happy ending for most of America ?

    Personally, I like happy endings.

    If you are an Obama Supporter, please do not be angry with me because I think your president is a socialist. There are too many facts supporting this. If you seek the truth you will be richer for it. Don’t just belittle the opposition. Search for the truth.
    Hint: You won’t find the truth on the LameStream news or in the New York Times. Newspapers are a dying breed. They are currently seeking a bailout from the government. Do you really think they are about to print the truth? Obama praises all the television news networks except Fox who he has waged war against. There must be a reason. He does not call them down on any specifics, just a general battle against them. If they lie, he should call them out on it but he doesn’t. Find the truth, it will set you free.

    Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Constitutionalist, Libertarians and what have you, we all need to pull together. We all must pull together or watch the demise of a society that we all love and cherish. If you are a religious person, pray for our nation.

    Never before in the history of America have we been confronted with problems so huge that the very existence of our country is in jeopardy.

    Our biggest enemy is not China, Russia, N. Korea, or Iran ;
    no, our biggest enemy is a contingent of politicians in Washington D.C.

    (From an e-mail I received from a friend)

    • redware
      • Vegas_Rick

        I’ve ever read. It deserves to be a diary with wiiiiiiide distribution.

        • David123
    • From ME to You
      5 Lobsters  320x98
      • izoneguy

        This was from an e-mail I received.

        I did some minor editing and updating but
        says the things that need to be said.

  • tngal

    And I’m not talking Nazgul.

    I could argue no abortions ever. Or I could bend, compromise and go with no abortions except in cases of rape or incest. Or I could watch compromise and morals fall by the wayside and let the nine pass judgement. While they may claim to let the constitution be the basis for their decisions, it becomes clearer year after year how personal beliefs shape those decisions.

  • redneck_hippie
  • romeg

    There is a place for compromise. Without it how much longer would the Founders have debated before adopting the Constitution?

    The single most important compromise, the much misunderstood three-fifths compromise was a poison pill that virtually guaranteed a second revolution that cost an additional 600000 American lives. But was even that price too high? Could they have eventually adopted the Constitution without that compromise? We can never know the answer.

    But without men such as Wallace, Churchill, Martin Luther, Patrick Henry, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan where would we be today? So Individual Ideology is the ideal. But a republican government is, necessarily, built on at least some degree of compromise.

  • rdelbov

    Barnie Frank-Sanders-Pelosi they compromised on Obamacare—those three stooges want single payer–For the greater acheivement of their cause they will accept any advancement. That’s why some call these folks “Fabian Socialists” as they incrementally advance their cause–they will accept any compromise as long as it moves them forward. Unlike Ron Paul they are not about lonely “no” votes they are about 218 or 51. They accept any movement forward–they are all about winning.

    I will revisit Barry Goldwater for a second. I do not blame Barry for “the Great Society” bills of LBJ. The democrats and American who voted for them did that. Did some liberal/moderate GOP types go along with it–you bet–shame on them.

    Let me say that any conservative program put forth by Nixon-Reagan-Bush41-Bush43 did not fail because of RINO republicans. Did Reagan or Bush41 or Bush 43 lose any legislative batttles because of liberal/moderate republicans. No rather they offered up Mush-in some cases(not much mush from Reagan) and for the most part got it passed. Does anyone remember Bush41 or Bush43 failing to cut spending? did they try?

    I hope that whoever we elect in 2012 will know that the USA is facing a crisis of major proportions–we need A Chris Christie who will cut our government spending down to size and unleash the free enterprise system,

  • offthepage

    I agree: #1 –
    Fabian socialism, incrementalism – I think – inherently lend themselves to liberal ideology. In fact, it’s part of their ideology. That is: that the government should do whatever perceived good it can whenever it can. (Sanders and Kucinich are more hardcore ideologues than Frank and Pelosi – but even they gave-in to incrementalism on Obamacare.)

    I agree #2 –
    Goldwater can’t be blamed for other people’s idiocy. It’s not his fault that LBJ was a flawed/mistaken socialist/crook. And it’s not his fault that too many Americans cast a shameful vote for LBJ. Goldwater just stood for what he thought was right.

    I agree: #3 –
    And I also agree that Chris Christie seems to be the best model or best hope of an ideologue who can get something (the right thing) done with as little compromise as possible.

    Will Cain (author of the above)
    twitter@willcain

  • Doc Holliday

    we need somebody, and so far we don’t.

  • offthepage

    for the correction – I meant Indiana.

    Will Cain (author of the above)
    twitter @willcain