49 Comments

1. whyaminotsurprised:

Right or wrong. Good or evil. Freedom or tyranny. These battles are constantly on-going and simply putting one’s head in the sand to avoid confrontation still means that at some point you will still get your ass handed to you.

The truth is the truth. The fact that ignorant people deny the truth in search of some utopian ideal does not mean truth does not exist. As history has shown, even when the pain of “utopian” endeavors grows beyond tolerance, even the ignorant have to recognize that a better way must exist. That way is freedom, liberty even if it means being responsible and daily life becomes a gamble.

The problem with liberals is that they are basically cowards. They try to take out the “n”th degree of risk from life by imposing controls over every aspect of life possible. What they don’t realize but soon will is that there is a point of diminishing returns where the cost of achieving utopia, their presumed life without risk, becomes exorbitantly expensive. They are little people who act big by trying to control others.

I would rather just change the name of the RNC to CNC, Conservative National Party. The word Republican has lost any meaning or sense of validity. But keep hammering away with the truth.

Apr 26, 2009 - 11:51 pm 2. Delia:

I’m the unflappable, unsinkable ‘Molly Brown’… I’ve grown a very thick skin over the years and that’s not ‘liberal’ blame but being flamed from other venues non-political that I swear you could say the most off-color thing to me and I would bat an eye-lash.

I’m never going to be a prudish ‘lady’… I’ve been a cyber geek for too long to own that one. lmao. What I do want is accountability, lowered taxes, riddance of the bullshit ‘global warming fiasco’, riddance of the ‘DMV meets health care on crackola’ bull…

I’m angry and scared all at once!

Well, I do take time to laugh…sometimes smiling my way through the tough times is all I have going for me.

Apr 27, 2009 - 12:29 am 3. Carl:

The byline, “Eric Florack has spent 25 years discussing politics…” says it well.

If, after 25 years (60) of discussing the problem, any problem still needs solved then there is a problem that is bigger than the problem.

You need an advanced degree in theoretical social improbabilities to even begin figuring out what’s being said in this article. That is not a throw-off on the author, rather an illustration in point that conservatism is way too deep for it’s own good. Anytime you have to explain yourself in politics you’ve lost 75% of the battle.

No one in their right mind would be willing to spend 25 years of dutiful allegiance to a cause and/or set of complex principles that produces little, or no visible effect or improvement in their everyday (simple) lives.

We hear the alarm bells and screams constantly. If he or she gets elected then we are doomed, lightning will strike us and we’ll all die. Anymore, conservative talk-shows sound more like the backside of the elephant circus tent than a medium of common sense, information and level headed thinking. But anyway, once the dreaded he or she monster is elected none of these terrible things happen, nor do our personal lives individually suffer noticeably.

People want reasonable results reasonably fast. Hammering away on the truth, the truth is the majority of people don’t care about what’s going to happen to their great, great grandkids because of some stupid current political mess. They want tangible stuff stuffed with beef that produces relief – or lack of being pestered silly – right now, today, not tomorrow, not next month, next year or 72 virgins into the future.

The message to conservatism and the RNC is, “Make me feel good.” Make me feel good about myself. Make me feel good about my country. Make me feel good about tomorrow. Prove to me that the money I gave to the RNC produced results – that it meant something worthwhile. Results that I can see. Results that taste good. Results that show improvements everywhere I look.

So far, after three score and coming up on ten fast, conservatism (and the RNC) have done little more than discuss politics as usual while the Democrats get elected – at my expense.

Apr 27, 2009 - 3:58 am 4. Eric Florack:

Anytime you have to explain yourself in politics you’ve lost 75% of the battle.

..and…

You need an advanced degree in theoretical social improbabilities to even begin figuring out what’s being said in this article.

I think you misidentify the cause of the need to explain, and that misidentification is possibly intentional. Are you really saying that conservative principles are so far beyond the understanding of modern-day liberals? If so, there’s a larger problem among liberals in the area of intelligence than I ever imagined… and believe me, I can imagine quite a bit.

The message to the RNC is, stop trying to be Liberal Lite.

People want reasonable results reasonably fast.

Perhaps you weren’t here for Ronald Reagan.

But anyway, once the dreaded he or she monster is elected none of these terrible things happen, nor do our personal lives individually suffer noticeably.

Check back with us afrer 3 years of Obama, OK?

Apr 27, 2009 - 4:30 am 5. Fred Beloit:

Carl, just say you are a progressive Obamacrat and don’t like Republicans. It’s OK. Feel good about yourself. Cry if you wish. I’m all right. Your alright. But do yourself a favor, don’t try to sell crazy here: “I’m a conservative…conservatives are failures because no body can understand what that means and anyway it has never worked.”

Apr 27, 2009 - 5:47 am 6. Cato:

Eric: I think what Carl may be saying (whether intentionally or not) is that after 75 years of “progressive education” conservative principles are beyond the understanding of not just modern liberals (who don’t want to understand them in any event) but of ordinary men and women whose primary interest in life is not politics, but simply living their lives. And, given the level of indoctrination in the universities and colleges, the most educated men and women often have the greatest difficulty. To the extent Carl is saying the average voter wants politicians to make them feel good, he’s also right. Most Americans, except the ideological, really don’t want to be involved in politics. What they want is leaders they can trust to make sure things don’t get screwed up. They don’t really want to be eternally vigilant, especially about the people who were supposed to be on their side. That’s where the ‘pubbies have failed.

Apr 27, 2009 - 5:55 am 7. LynnS:

Your article “keep it simple stupid” is impossible today because nothing is simple anymore and that is why the liberal agenda is winning out.

You don’t want in their bedroom, but they are forcing you to look. You don’t want in on a woman’s decision, but they are forcing you to decide. You don’t want to compromise your morals for science, but they are forcing you to, well… compromise your morals. You want your spiritual life to guide you through all decisions, but they are forcing you to leave God at the doorway. You don’t want to have to ponder over the “meaning of the word ‘is’, but they are redefining words everyday, taking away any time for discussion.

We are losing all our sign posts that assured us, as a group, with a common goal, that there was a direction we were heading, life, liberty and the defense there of, and being able to accomplish that goal without compromising basic morals, laws, and principles.

It struck me quite vividly when President Bush showed the night satellite photo of the difference between North and South Korea, and upon thinking about it, realized that to many, North Korea represented an ideal.

Of course we all know that the ones who tend to think we should live in darkness, rarely live that life themselves, and if they do it is always under the comforting thought that if things don’t work out, they can go back into normal society because someone always seems to keep it going at some level for them while they reel about in fanciful states of pretend.

It’s the lefties time to shine, I’m afraid, and the loonies now feel safe to come out of the woodwork both far left and far right. As much as the leftists pretend to hate the far right, in reality they are kindred brothers and sisters, who enjoy throwing the middle off balance, to where we are spending all our time trying to steady the country and avoid anarchy or collapse.

Unless Obama and his administration becomes a rogue, the democrats will want to get re-elected in a few short years so if he feeds the left too much, they will reign him in just as they did clinton. He will move more to the middle, but in the meantime the country will have swung a little more to the left at each election cycle and it will become harder to adjust the course.

I feel personally that the judicial and legislative branches of the government are cruising along at a very fast clip, and the direction this country is moving seems to be out of our hands. I also think that the majority of the main stream media has decided what our fate should be, and will expend all their time and energy to see that we ’see’ things in the same way they do.

There are certain principles that can’t be compromised and that seems to be the quandary of the republican party. Also I believe the republicans who road the coat tails of President Bush until he became ‘unpopular’ and suddenly it was forbidden to mention his name or defend his policies that ‘they’ supported, was a sign of their lack of character. I also believe that they took advantage of a war time President and forced him to push through spending bills that help take this country into near bankruptcy. That is unforgivable in my book. And finally I hate the fact that obama without any serious reflection decided that his place as President of the United was to apologize for the United States to countries that would pass out sweets and sing songs of joy at our demise.

It is as if we raised a narcissistic spoiled child and have let him loose upon the world and are surprised at his scorn for us. I think the republicans played a part in his election because we gave up.

Apr 27, 2009 - 6:18 am 8. Bilgeman:

Mr. Florack:
“The GOP’s platform needs to be based on the principles of limited government laid out above. Republicans as a party shouldn’t be, as they have been, focused on the idea that we need to change in order to be relevant. We need to show that our principles are already relevant and should never have been relinquished.”

Precisely.

Reading Buckley’s mission statement offers a fascinating glimpse into the character of the Leftists and Liberals of 1955.

Essentially, THEY haven’t changed at all.

Why should the GOP?

If you tally up the the general elections since 1956, the tide is still running in the GOP’s favor, 8-6.

For all the yammering about “Transformational Presidencies”, (and among Dems, EVERY victory is “transformational”…with them,it must ALWAYS be “A New Era”), I would MUCH rather have the GOP’s problems than the Democrats’.

Apr 27, 2009 - 6:25 am 9. Carl:

Listen to Cato: people – he is right on target.

Incidentally I like the terminology “Obamacrat” used by RINOs that – out of frustration – cannot think of anything else to do but call people obscene names. Look in the mirror dude.

I consider all liberals a total loss – - a mathematical given – a huge growing gooey blob of too much feel-sorry wax that needs to be confronted with something besides 25 years of deep, dark conservative figuring when no two of them in a row can either agree on one thing, nor come up with a united front that the “rest of the voting” population can understand without a damn law degree and accept as something they can explain to their kids that demonstrably works today – without scaring the living hell out of them in the process!

I’ll be here 3 years from now no problem – see you then.. if you survive.

Apr 27, 2009 - 7:38 am 10. G Alston:

Eric Florack — McCain was defeated because conservatives and libertarians — who would usually be supportive of real conservatives — sat on their hands in November, having identified McCain not as a conservative but as part of the problem.

There were some 104 million votes, and you claim that McCain lost because the conservatives sat at home. Somwhow I doubt that a) this is true and b) you have this magical insight into the mind of everyone who didn’t go to the polls.

The growth of government (the dominant social feature of this century) must be fought relentlessly.

Conservatism isn’t about smaller government and never has been as long as you have been alive. (e.g. Ike spent a lot on the military road system you now know as the interstates.)

The government also exists to do that which private industry cannot do. There are many who would argue that NASA shouldn’t exist. However because of NASA the government *could* solve US energy needs by causing the construction of spaceborne solar. Private industry doesn’t have the scale to solve this. The government could also solve much of the US energy needs by causing a couple of hundred nuclear plants to be built. Private industry doesn’t have the funds or scaling for that in a hurry either. Where the GOP has succeeded is growing government ever so slightly in service to the people via investment.

Republicans as a party shouldn’t be, as they have been, focused on the idea that we need to change in order to be relevant.

All this chatter about the GOP abandoning conservative roots is a steaming load of wishful thinking. You and those like you will be fervent believers in the truth of this until the next election. Because the left is insane and will invariably go off the deep end, the GOP may triumph in the next election due to this alone, and you and yours will interpret this just as incorrectly as you have the recent election.

Apr 27, 2009 - 7:40 am 11. not so fast:

1. whyaminotsurprised . . . “The problem with liberals is that they are basically cowards.”

Well, if you can’t make a real argument, I guess this is the default approach – broad unfounded generalizations. I have a liberal friend who offered a similar assessment of conservatives . . . “The problem with conservatives is that they are basically perverts.”

Sound fair or right?

Apr 27, 2009 - 7:58 am 12. Eric Florack:

@cato:

That’s where the ‘pubbies have failed.

That’s as may be, Cato. Personally, I see this as a training issue. As you point out, our kids have been indoctrinated for so long now that changing a lot of their minds will be a tough row. It’s taken us generations to get to that point, however, and I’m afraid it’s going to be at least that long getting back, save the possibility of a revolution. There are libertarians today (note the small L) who think that’s the only way out of this box. because there are some who don’t want to wait for freedom to re-appear. Of the two, I’ll take the generational approach.

The most effective way to institute change is to change minds, as opposed to forcing change from above. That however, always takes time.

@ LynnS:

but in the meantime the country will have swung a little more to the left at each election cycle and it will become harder to adjust the course.

Well, that’s always been the problem. All that moving to the left has done for the Republican party is move us as a country farther away from the principles our founders gave so much for, and farther out of the mainstream of America, thereby. That movement left has to stop at some point, if we’re going to save this great experiment called America.

I think the republicans played a part in his election because we gave up.

I’m not sure I read it that way. Rather, I see McCain’s loss, for example, and the tea parties, as the conservatives of the party taking over what they should never have given up in the first place… the position of the 800lb gorilla in the party. And I suggest that the GOP leadership had better start reading it that way, and soon, or we’re not going to be able to establish any kind of a bulwark against the headlong rush to the left we’ve been seeing since Reagan left the stage.

@Bilgeman:
Just so. By extension, then, it’s the Republicans who have changed, have started leaning more and more left over the years. That needs to change. We need to re-establish our birthright as a party.

Apr 27, 2009 - 8:01 am 13. Eric Florack:

@G Alston:
Let me put a frame around this for you, in one simple direct line:

I dare to suggest to you that GWB was at best a centrist… as was his father before him. And no, that’s not a compliment.

Apr 27, 2009 - 8:03 am 14. Ardsgaine:

There’s a very simple reason why the Republican party has unhooked itself from its grassroots, and the reason can be found in the review of Atlas Shrugged that Buckley printed in his paper 52 yrs ago. Compassionate conservatism arose directly out of Buckley’s rejection of Rand’s rational egoism, and his desire to marry the ethics of Christian self-sacrifice with the politics of capitalism.

If nothing else, the Tea Parties are a wake for compassionate conservatism. The people attending them know that what they are demanding is an end to the sacrifice of their interests, and to their martyrdom in the name of state. That is why they chose John Galt as their symbol–not William F. Buckley.

Apr 27, 2009 - 8:22 am 15. Ardsgaine:

G Alston,

I won’t argue about whether or not McCain is a conservative, but he certainly isn’t an advocate of freedom.

Apr 27, 2009 - 8:32 am 16. Bill:

Here’s some new principals I think are going to have to be followed for the next election.
1. Term Limits. Campaign on it and stick to it. (I’d like to see five years. Max)
2. Enact the Fair Tax. Campaign on that and stick to it.
3. Totally control and enforce the borders. Campaign on that and stick to it.
4. Secure our country internally by kicking out all illegals of any kind.
5. Stop throwing trillions of our dollars into sink-hole/corrupt foreign governments.
6. Dismantle the Dept. of Education and return education to the local level.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Feel free to add to my list. I want most all of the current politicians the people of this country have elected to be gone. We need new people elected for a short Term. No more life-time benefits. No more freebies. You’ll work for the People and when your time is finished you’ll go home.

Apr 27, 2009 - 9:00 am 17. njcommuter:

I posted this a while ago on another article on PJM; it seems appropriate to repeat it:

Principle
Policies
Message

which provide the substance for the organization and the coalition-building. And yes, conservatism and Republicanism must be about coalitions, but they must be built around principles. Before deciding what part of your ship to jettison, you need to know where the structural integrity and buoyancy lie. If we go cutting away everyone who does not agree exactly with us on every point, we’re going to be a very small faction, and we will serve no one and nothing, and least of all our principles.

The link between Principle and Message is very, very important. The Left, in its varying factions and shades, owns both the media and the schools, from Pre-K to Post-grad. Our message must be rooted in what people can see around them; it must be able to reawaken the common sense that decades of safety, prosperity, idyllicism and envy have drugged into atrophy.

Apr 27, 2009 - 9:13 am 18. Meryl:

The best “answers” available will not matter if we cannot remove from office ALL of those who do not think that (1) enforcing existing laws and (2) treating the Constitution of the United States as a relevant document.

Among the people in Congress now who give lip service to both of those ideas are those who do not think that existing immigrant laws should be enforced and those who did not care to see Congress enforce the regulations relevant in oversight re Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

I really am not interested in the leadership of the Republican party easing back in to the conversation. They haven’t shown themselves willing to do what they said would do prior to this time. Why should we believe that their new promises (even based on principles) should be trusted?

I’m not despairing, but I’m angry. At this point, the leadership of the Republican is just like the old boyfriend who thinks he can get another hug now because he just heard that my mother died.

Apr 27, 2009 - 9:19 am 19. Meryl:

first paragaph: you insert the words at the end!….”are activities worth pursuing.”

Apr 27, 2009 - 9:21 am 20. G Alston:

#15 — I won’t argue about whether or not McCain is a conservative, but he certainly isn’t an advocate of freedom.

Let’s see here. The leftists want to impoverish the USA by abolishing the nuclear industry, prevent domestic drilling, ransom the nation for green boondoggles (e.g. wind energy), and that’s just getting started on energy issues. This much was known before the election.

Whether or not McCain is a conservative in the ideal Pajama mould (of what appears to be increasingly Randian proportion) is quite immaterial to his being a superior alternative to the Obama and/or Clinton crowd.

I’d like to hear how McCain is against freedom.

Apr 27, 2009 - 9:35 am 21. Cato:

Eric, it may take a generational approach, but it will only be possible if we can regain control of the education of our children – not only at the elementary and secondary level, but at the university level as well. And, as long as the elite colleges and universities – thoroughly in the hands of the leftists – serve as the gatekeeper into the social, economic and political elite (more and more like the French grand ecoles every year), we will not be successful at that either.

None of this is new. Burnham and Buckley were writing about this in the ’50s and ’60s – Suicide of the West has the liberal mind down pat. Because conservatives don’t usually want to be teachers and professors, we abdicated the academy, and now the left controls us and (intelligently from their perspective) won’t let any conservatives back in.

If we try to wait the generations we’d have to, I don’t there’ll be any liberty left – we’ll have become an essentially fascist (corporate socialism) state, complete with relatively soft tyranny, which won’t seem so soft to its victims.

Ardsgaine – I’m a pretty much a libertarian, more a classical liberal, but I agreed with Whittaker Chambers’ review of Atlas Shrugged in which he excoriated Rand as an ideologue. Her amazing perceptiveness in diagnosis does not mean that she was a great philosopher or a great novelist.

Apr 27, 2009 - 9:44 am 22. Eric Florack:

@G Alston:

Whether or not McCain is a conservative in the ideal Pajama mould (of what appears to be increasingly Randian proportion) is quite immaterial to his being a superior alternative to the Obama and/or Clinton crowd.

And I am on record from that election backing him… reluctantly, on that basis. Then again, and as I pointed out at the time. Bush was immensly better than was Gore. But all Bush meant, and in his turn, McCain, was that we ere still moving inexorably to the left, just doing so a bit slower than Gore would have us do.

Hardly an idea situation.

I’d like to hear how McCain is against freedom.

Consider that there is the active mode, and the passive mode. An active fighter for freedom would stand up and be counted at every turn of any movement against freedom. A more passive approach would be someone who goes along to get along, who compromises on those freedoms… (Can we say McCain Finegold is a fair enough example of such?)

@ Cato:

If we try to wait the generations we’d have to, I don’t there’ll be any liberty left -

Likley so, absent any other stimulae. History speaks to that, however, in the form of Jimmy Carter. If past be prolouge, (And I think it can’t be otherwise, in this case) Obama will be a failure of proportions that will make Carter look like a bloody genius. That warrant was signed and served when Obama dumped the debtload on us…. and it shows no signs of stopping.

The Exodus to the right will occur in any event, in reaction to that failure, assuming we have someone of quality to take over the reins in 2010. The trick at that point will be in making sure we don’t sway from our principles in 2018, as we did after Reagan starting with Bush 41.

Apr 27, 2009 - 10:17 am 23. G Alston:

Eric Florack #22 — Consider that there is the active mode, and the passive mode. An active fighter for freedom would stand up and be counted at every turn of any movement against freedom.

The requirements of realpolitik when confronted with attack on say half a dozen simultaneous fronts suggests picking either the most important front to battle or the most important front that can be effectively won.

The right has stubbornly wasted a great deal of capital on “social conservative” issues (e.g. gay marriage, school vouchers, etc.) while still losing on the important stuff. This says that the underlying problem is merely understanding what battles are important and can be won rather than some sort of capitulation re freedom.

I’d gladly toss ***all*** social conservative issues to be able to win the energy and defense issues, even at the expense of having partisan hacks deride my decisions as anti-freedom. Social conservative ideals are recoverable later (if desired) whereas wrong decisions on energy and defense result in immediate and future irrevocable repercussions.

In short, knowing what real world battles to fight is more important than theoretical ideological purity. The crapping on McCain by the Pajamas crowd is testament to the sad fact that all too many simply don’t get it.

Apr 27, 2009 - 11:17 am 24. Cato:

Eric, I think you are far too optimistic with respect to the amount of damage Obama and his wrecking crew can do to the republic and the Constitution in the next two to four years. If Obama is successful in nationalizing the financial industry, the auto industry and the health care system, it will be game over. No amount of discontent with what has happened will be able to turn back the clock. Thatcher didn’t even try to under national health care in Britain. People here will not actively oppose Obama because they will be afraid of retaliation (probably correctly) from the tax authorities and the political correctness brigades that will be the emerging Obama Youth Corps (Cultural Revolution anyone?) and, even if there is a loud opposition of people with the spine to risk it, they will be afraid to vote to end the system because of fear of the disruption and pain it will cause in the short run.

I have serious doubts whether what the Obama administration is doing is any more legal and constitutional than the NRA was. (Incidentally, the NRA was supported by big business as a way of stifling competition – it was the little guy it hurt). However, there does not seem to be anyone challenging it in court now, and, give him 2 years and he’ll get at least 1-2 USSC appointments and we’re off to the races….

No. If Obama is not stopped NOW, before this stuff is up and running, it will take the complete collapse of the US to get rid of the socialists – and, unfortunately, as power abhors a vacuum, some other authoritarian power will have bestridden the world before we can get it together again.

I am more than pessimistic if we don’t find a way to stop Obama NOW, but, unfortunately, the Republicans are worthless as a unified opposition (and I’ve been a ‘pubbie since Eisenhower was president), and I don’t have a clue how he could be stopped short of the unthinkable.

Apr 27, 2009 - 11:37 am 25. locke:

Apart from a good portion of Supreme Court decisions, Conservatives do not have access to levers of power, however little we believe in them in the first place.
The plan of action lies well in the TeaParty movement,
but no leader has shaped its separate messages. I would
love for a leader to begin an “inoculation” movement.
It would give states the right to turn down mandates
from the central government that interfere with the
will of its own people. The governor of Texas made a
strong statement, but did not buttress it later with
a series of speeches, or even a lengthy statement. In the next eight years, some states will fair better than others
in economic matters. It is likely that nearly all these
successful states will be low-tax, high-opportunity ones.
Obama will have to fleece these states to pay for his
high-tax, high-regulation ones. Texas is well positioned
to take a stand against mega-government and its excessive
intrusiveness into state matters. It should declare itself
the protector of our ancestral rights and customs, and call Obama out at high noon, and simply say “No More!”

Apr 27, 2009 - 11:40 am 26. Meryl:

24.Cato
“Eric, I think you are far too optimistic with respect to the amount of damage Obama and his wrecking crew can do to the republic and the Constitution in the next two to four years. If Obama is successful in nationalizing the financial industry, the auto industry and the health care system, it will be game over. No amount of discontent with what has happened will be able to turn back the clock.”

Yup. That’s my fear. Last summer when I was already freaking about this unAmerican’s dude capacity to damage our country (just based what he was actually saying), I had relatives light in to me with anger and frustration, saying, “As long as we have our Congress and free elections and judges, NOBODY can do that much damage as President.”

Oh. Ok. That makes me feel better now.

Not.

Apr 27, 2009 - 11:48 am 27. Cato:

If I were young, I would do everything in my power to go off the grid and be able to sustain myself and my family independently in a remote area. Oh, sure, take advantage of the the internet as long as its around and not controlled, telecommute, but every day, in every way, prepare for a period of years in which the social order has collapsed in much of the country. Become a survivalist. I’d want to be able to have stockpiled what I couldn’t make or grow, and learn the skills to use earlier generations of technology that I could maintain and repair with available materials and a good machine shop.

I’m that optimistic.

Apr 27, 2009 - 12:18 pm 28. Войска ПВО:

G Alston writes:

“..Because the left is insane and will invariably go off the deep end, the GOP may triumph in the next election due to this alone, and you and yours will interpret this just as incorrectly as you have the recent election.”

Perhaps the pendulum will swing back — and in rather dramatic fashion. As a matter of course, I take in a number of radio programs out here on the Left Coast and the inability of the left to discern the public’s true temperament regarding the Tea Parties is truly astounding. (A dead-bang tip-off is there constant reference to the seemingly derogatory “tea bag” or “tea bagging” terms.) They think that the recent election was a mandate for the socialist and green agendas that they orgasm over.

On the other side of the ledger, there is a massive vacuum being built up that just invites someone who can responsibly espouse and articulate the fact that he will lead based on the conservative principles enumerated here. One only hopes that Mike Steele and the Republicans can figure this out in time.

These two forces — plus Obama’s incredible out-of-touch narcissism — might conspire to deliver shocking results in 2012 — if not in 2010.

But, go ahead, trolls, continue to chant your “the right is dead” mantra and lull yourself to sleep.

Apr 27, 2009 - 12:44 pm 29. backatcha:

Here’s some values for ya . . . Did anybody see Ann Coulter’s whimpering eulogy of her dead mother. I swear, this broad is a millionaire, lionized on TV and in articles about her, reveling in her status as a celebrity and stalked by paparazzis. This self-obsessed woman seems genuinely unaware that parents die all the time and that she acts like it happened only to her. I’ve never seen someone enjoying her mother’s death so much. How do we know her mother didn’t despise her? Now that her shelf life is dwindling, Ann better hurry up and appear in Playboy.

Apr 27, 2009 - 12:54 pm 30. ChipD:

As a longtime admirer of WFB and National Review, I spent most of the 1970’s arguing those same principles. I am glad to see Erik post them.
However, I believe there is more wrong with the GOP and contemporary conservative movement than simply being out of tune with the NR mission.

As others have pointed out, the twin pillars of conservative thought, strong defense and limi9ted government, were uneasy bedfellows even in the 1960’s and have grown more incompatible since then.

In order to limit government you have to limit its scope- few realize just how massive the scope of the Defense Department, Intelligence agencies, police and investigative agencies have become.
Even if every other arm of the government were lopped off, we would still have a Leviathan beast to feed and maintain- not to mention, in order to fight a decades-long “war on Terror’ we have given the government massive new tools to intrude into the lives and privacy of Americans, and swept away the most cherished liberties in the bargain.

How can this be reconciled with “limited government”?

The social conservatives have made the banning of abortion a litmus test for any serious candidate in the GOP- in order to really do this, the government would have to enact massive sweeping powers into the most personal aspects of American’s private lives.

How can this be reconciled with “limited government”?

These tensions have always existed- but have grown more sharp and intolerable with each other over the passing years. This isn’t something that can be fixed with better marketing or image.

Apr 27, 2009 - 2:25 pm 31. Meryl:

29.backatcha

Wow. Was it really worth it to your little mind to reference something that is now days-old news, irrelevant to this thread and obviously, terms of the original publication of it, a completely personal issue which Ms. Coulter had every right to write about?

I’m sorry that your life is obviously so…….
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Apr 27, 2009 - 5:24 pm 32. Joshua:

ChipD at #30 beat me to the punch. It’s one thing to talk about reducing the size and scope of government; a whole different thing to be able to do it once you’re actually back in power.

The sad truth is, almost no one alive today, liberal or conservative, really knows what it’s like to actually have limited federal government. That ship set sail when FDR took office, if not sooner. Big government is all we’ve ever known firsthand, so it’s no mystery why even the putatively conservative major party embraces it – because it is conservative, at least in the literal sense of “conserving the status quo as completely as possible for as long as possible”. This limited-government stuff? It’s actually not conservative. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Apr 27, 2009 - 9:07 pm 33. backatcha:

Meryl . . . Google “Coulter Jersey Girls” and you’ll understand

Apr 27, 2009 - 9:20 pm 34. whyaminotsurprised:

#11 Not so fast – you are right. I did make a “broad” generalization. I should have said “Far Left Liberals”. As to unfounded, they are still little people who want to tell everyone else how to live. As for your friend thinking “… all conservatives are perverts…”, well, he/she would have to define pervert. What is perverted to many on the right is normal to those on the left. Who knows what a lib would consider perverted.

Apr 28, 2009 - 3:59 am 35. Eric Florack:

@G Alston:

The right has stubbornly wasted a great deal of capital on “social conservative” issues (e.g. gay marriage, school vouchers, etc.) while still losing on the important stuff.

That they are unimportant to YOU particularly, is one thing, but I think you overstep when you suggest it’s not important to conservatism per se’. Seems to me you’re putting the cart out there without a horse, if you’re going to try and seperate the swo.

I’d gladly toss ***all*** social conservative issues to be able to win the energy and defense issues, even at the expense of having partisan hacks deride my decisions as anti-freedom. Social conservative ideals are recoverable later (if desired) whereas wrong decisions on energy and defense result in immediate and future irrevocable repercussions.

Again, the cart and the horse. What you apparently fail to understand is that all these issues are part of a way of a way of thiking, not only about the political. I dare to suggest to you that ideally, politics is a reflection of our way of thinking… our culture. Conservatism without cultural conservatism being at the center, is exactly what gave birth to ‘compassionate conservatism’ which was in fact neither. A shell, with no substance. Hollow. Such an attempt will not succeed in defeating anything but itself.

@backatcha:

Is that what passes for liberal thought, these days?

@Cato:

Cato
“Eric, I think you are far too optimistic with respect to the amount of damage Obama and his wrecking crew can do to the republic and the Constitution in the next two to four years. If Obama is successful in nationalizing the financial industry, the auto industry and the health care system, it will be game over. No amount of discontent with what has happened will be able to turn back the clock.”

Obama may well be good at camapaigns, but given what we’ve seen of his ability so far, I have my doubts she’s going to be able to do anything quite so radical as these. What he originally asked for in the spending wasn’t even a remote cousin of what he got out of the congress of his own party. He’s allowing to be diverted by every windmill he comes across. You tell me; other than racking up more spending than all other Presidents combined, ever, what has he accomplished? Nada, nothing, zip, zippo, Goose egg. Zero. Look at the torture thing alone,with the Congress and the WH and you’ll see the Democrats are a group of people who can’t agree on lunch, much less getting any kind of serious legislation through. And they’re supposed to nationalize healthcare, the auto-industry, solve the Islamo-facist problem (Which is about to flare up again on them) nationalize the banks, and get re-elected, all inside two years? Let’s just say I consider that to be too aggressive an agenda.

Apr 28, 2009 - 5:26 am 36. Eric Florack:

Obviously, I dropped a tag. Sorry.

Apr 28, 2009 - 5:34 am 37. not so fast:

34. whyaminotsurprised:
As for your friend thinking “… all conservatives are perverts…”, well, he/she would have to define pervert. What is perverted to many on the right is normal to those on the left. Who knows what a lib would consider perverted.

Actually, she did offer a definition of perverted that I didn’t think was necessarily relevant, given the unfortunate dip into stereotyping. But since you asked, it went something like this . . . a family values senator from Louisiana sneaking down to the French Quarter to get diapered by a Bourbon Street hooker.

Apr 28, 2009 - 8:55 am 38. myth buster:

The Republicans can’t win without socially conservative positions because social conservatives don’t care what your position on energy, defense and spending are if you endorse legalized abortion, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage, or euthanasia. Those are non-negotiables, and they are prerequisites to getting the social conservative vote. We will embrace the entire conservative platform, but not without our positions being included.

Apr 28, 2009 - 2:59 pm 39. G Alston:

Eric Florack #35 — That they are unimportant to YOU particularly, is one thing, but I think you overstep when you suggest it’s not important to conservatism per se’.

You misread. Let me make it simpler for you. It’s easier to recover from a vote that doesn’t go your way re gay marriage than it is to recover from a gutted military or trillion $$ dumped into an environmental boondoggle that doesn’t work and loses jobs. The former is unimportant in that nobody gets hurt, and important stuff is where everybody and their grandkids can get hurt.

The social conservative agenda has already cost future generations trillion$ because it distracted from keeping the insane left out of office, and the Pelosi brigade is just getting ramped up on the real and permanent damage thing.

So yeah, Fred and Steve being married or not is just as unimportant to me as the rest of the social conservative agenda compared to the real damage the left will do. The social agenda is and should be unimportant to everyone who can think given what the stakes are and have been.

I reckon *you* to be the one with horse and cart issues. Depends on how one frames things I suppose.

Apr 28, 2009 - 3:17 pm 40. Eric Florack:

G Alston, let me ask you; which is of greater import…

* The machine
* The reason the machine exists?

Apr 28, 2009 - 3:22 pm 41. G Alston:

#40 Eric Florack

Well then, as long as we’re chucking the skivvies and metaphordipping…

Ask any engineer: is the glass half empty or half full? “Neither. It’s the wrong glass.”

Apr 28, 2009 - 11:50 pm 42. G Alston:

#40 Eric Florack

By the way you may find this useful –

http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm

Social conservatism issues are statism. On the other hand you couch your arguments as if they are the opposite. I find that interesting: it’s ironic, and aparently you can’t see this.

Social conservatives have far more in common with the leftists they despise than they would admit to; it’s an argument re who gets to control things rather than the freedom argument it’s usually cast as (by social conservatives, of course!)

What you have been advocating is statism although a different brand than the leftists.

Apr 29, 2009 - 12:09 am 43. Eric Florack:

Social conservatism issues are statism. On the other hand you couch your arguments as if they are the opposite.

Not at all. What you’re missing is far deeper than I think I can get into, realisticly in a comment section. But perhaps this very old writing will help you understand where I’m coming from on this:

http://bitsblog.florack.us/?p=494

Apr 29, 2009 - 10:39 am 44. G Alston:

#43 — But perhaps this very old writing will help you understand where I’m coming from on this:

Aristotle writes that government derives legitimacy via consent of the governed. Social conservatism is a minority position (and becoming moreso with each passing day), thus for your viewpoint to prevail you have to override the wishes of the governed, hence their consent, hence it’s still a statist position. What your piece does is merely assume that your position is inline with that of the governed. It’s not.

Apr 29, 2009 - 11:10 am 45. Eric Florack:

Consent of the governed does not of itself imply agreement on every point with those given the power of government, unless we’re dealing with a dirct democracy. Last I knew, we were and are and will be dealing with a Republic… if we can keep it.

Apr 29, 2009 - 11:35 am 46. JMH:

If given a choice between a government that promotes morality but is ambivalent about freedom, and a government that promotes freedom but is ambivalent about morality, which would you choose?

If you pick morality, you lose both. Because a government ambivalent about freedom will always become tyrannical, and a tyrannical government will soon find itself unable to tolerate morality. That level of power is corrupting, and eventually the “morality” the government preserves will not be one you recognize. Does this situation sound familiar? It should.

If you choose a government that preserves your freedom, then you will find yourself responsible for preserving your own morality. That is difficult, but it is something people have been known to accomplish from time to time, and we have several non-governmental institutions that were created to help.

Choose freedom. It is the moral choice.

Apr 29, 2009 - 2:07 pm 47. Eric Florack:

If given a choice between a government that promotes morality but is ambivalent about freedom, and a government that promotes freedom but is ambivalent about morality, which would you choose?

A false choice since in the western lexicon, at least, the issue of individual freedom is regarded as a moral one.

And I’ll add something you’re apparently missing; THere’s a major difference between reinforcing the culture and it’s morality, and legislating it.

Apr 29, 2009 - 4:40 pm 48. Reaganite Republican Resistance:

Regarding the GOP’s recent setbacks at the polls, Bobby Jindal said:

“People need to look at the history of Ronald Reagan when he lost his first attempt at the Presidency (in 1976). He didn’t go back and say, ‘Let’s water down the conservatism. Let’s dilute what we’re saying. He made it even stronger…. he made it EVEN sharper. There’s a lesson there for potential candidates”

“We need to be principled in our conservatism. We need to be unabashed, unafraid. We won’t always be popular with editorial writers and a lot of the members of the national media… and that’s OK.

At the end of the day, it’s more important that we stick to our principles.”

Apr 30, 2009 - 8:43 am 49. acj:

I hope that the GOP reads this and weeps. The past eight years has had quotes that engage in conformity such as “You are either with us or you are the enemy.” And aggreement is form of patriotism.
Our Civil liberties were tamper into a ragged unclear scare tactic, Bush had wire tapping, and the Republican’s never took no for an answer.
Debt has escalated under Bush, and they were writing checks without balances.
Then they told the United Nations to go screw themselves and went on the offensive with Iraq with false claims. The new world order was “The Project For The New American Century” with Wolfowitz, Cheney, Jeb Bush, and Rumsfeld. This started another arms race. These aren’t your average republican farmers, truck drivers, or auction go’ers-these are the elite government insider right wing conservatives that rule in the billion dollar corporate club. Give me a friggen break!
The GOP is ruined for years.

Apr 30, 2009 - 2:40 pm