Pajamas Media

25 Comments

1. goy:

Maybe 30 years of software development has jaded me, but the “2.0″ versioning trope is starting to get old. I mean – Web 2.0, Enlightenment 2.0, Windows 2.0, Telco 2.0, Jake 2.0, .NET 2.0, Spouse 2.0, …

And if we must continue to overuse this aging metaphor, wouldn’t we be on at least version 6.2.1.1 at this point? With a failed 7.0 Beta test having just crashed and burned two weeks ago, sending us back to the keyboard scratching our heads?

Given the Recent Unpleasantness®, and the things we’re sure to see over the next few years, perhaps we might be better off searching for a Conservatism Unleashed.

Thinking out of the box. Conservatism’s not-too-strong suit.

I have a question for the panel, if we’re permitted to submit them early (since I’ll be otherwise engaged later today). In particular, Dr. Helen may be familiar with this area.

Last year, research was published by Jon Haidt, Assoc. Professor of Psychology at U.Va. that demonstrated a very interesting phenomenon, exhibited in all cultures tested (i.e., not just the U.S.).

In brief, Haidt and his colleagues have recognized five “intuitive ethics“, identified as those most commonly valued in functional societies. Those individuals tested who self-identify as “liberal” (or leftist) tend to value only two of these; self-identified conservatives tend to value all five comprehensively. Haidt explains this observation in detail at a recent TED conference here (listen with an open mind at least through 3:30, because there’s more going on here than it may at first appear – Haidt is using a language his audience can appreciate).

Having read Haidt’s work and banged it against my own life experience (as well as a cursory understanding of Kohlberg’s Moral Stages and Erikson’s Developmental Stages) I have begun to see this difference as one between moral adolescence (leftism/socialism) and moral maturity (conservatism/classical liberalism). That is, the morally adolescent view has internalized only two of the intuitive ethics, in the context of a narcissistic psyche, while the morally mature view values all five ethics equally in a holistic and comprehensive way due to life experience that has tempered that individual’s narcissism. Extreme stereotypes here might be Clinton and Obama – both abandoned by their fathers (lacking in conditional love) and raised by their mothers (showered with unconditional love) – who unsurprisingly present as raging narcissists who espouse leftist ideals. Compare this to Reagan and you may see where this is going. If nothing else, it goes a long way toward explaining why most conservatives view the antics of the left as a long, tiresome series of adolescent outbursts.

My question is as follows. Assuming this general association is correct, which I believe could be at least partially verified using data that Haidt and his colleagues have already collected, what would this tell us about how best to communicate conservative values to those who don’t (yet) possess a morally comprehensive viewpoint? Is there a “Rosetta Stone” or other mechanism that would facilitate communication of conservative values in a language that moral adolescents can understand? And if so, how could we best use this to educate the electorate?

Nov 19, 2008 - 6:21 am 2. Patty:

Will you all PLEASE stop with Mike Huckabee already. He wasn’t liked in the primary and now we can’t get his face off the television and radio.

Nov 19, 2008 - 9:18 am 3. Thinking Person:

Sorry Patty. I for one think Huckabee is a bit o’fresh air in this dreary GOP landscape. I find he fits into the morally mature category so poetically described by #1 goy. To goy….I only wish there were a Rosetta Stone that one could use when talking to the younger voters. I’m afraid they were sold on personality this time around. Maybe the only thing needed to change this is time. When those Obamanauts grow up a bit, get jobs and have to pay taxes and worry about getting their 401ks to grow, maybe they’ll be able to decipher the GOP language then? Just a thought.

Nov 19, 2008 - 10:09 am 4. Dave:

Huckabee is a weasel of the first order.

I”ll NEVER Forget him tossing off the question over his shoulder about Mormons, “Don’t they believe Jesus and the devil are brothers?”

I didn’t think much of it ’til I found out he was a keynote speaker a few years back at a baptist convention held IN SALT LAKE CITY, whose topic was how to bring the cultist Mormons back into God’s good graces… It was a thorough seminar with lots of experts, and he was one of them.

Huckabee knows a LOT about Mormons. FOr him to pretend in that casual manner that he did not, knowing the reporter he asked probably didn’t know that he was an expert on mormons, was weasel behavior of the first order. He’s a manipulative jerk pretending to be mr. Nice Guy, and I am revolted by that.

Nov 19, 2008 - 10:38 am 5. Thinking Person:

Sorry Dave. We’ll have to agree to disagree on Huckabee. I’m not one to vote religion though so maybe that explains it.

Nov 19, 2008 - 2:39 pm 6. Someone75:

Mike Huckabee is refreshingly honest and sincere. I’m always impressed and moved when he makes a speech. I don’t agree with all his positions, but I have a good feeling about him.

However, I acknowledge that he is far too open and honest to make it in the political world. His manner of answering questions directly without a lot of qualifiers is not something our current political climate knows how to deal with.

Personally, I’d love to see him run again, even though he probably wouldn’t have a chance. He would, however, be a republican I would vote for.

Nov 19, 2008 - 6:56 pm 7. goy:

T.P. – just so we’re clear, I was not referring to “younger voters”.

To be sure, they’re disproportionately represented among those who’ve never had to support themselves or a family – let alone an extended family – but moral adolescents abound in all age groups, IMHO.

At least based on Haidt’s research, the further to the left one’s ideology, the less likely one has internalized all of the ethical values necessary to build and preserve a healthy, stable, peaceful, prosperous society. Others may reasonably disagree, but I see that as moral adolescence. And it’s increasing in America, not decreasing.

Nov 20, 2008 - 5:24 am 8. Peter Verkooijen:

First, the “2.0″ thing is played out, it has become a joke. It looks dumb and out of touch.

Second, I’d never identify myself as a conservative. Sadly, to most people under 40 conservative is a bad word. You have to be a bit of a masochist to call yourself conservative.

Republican and conservative are not synonymous. There’s no reason for Republicans to hitch their fate to the damaged brand “conservatism”.

The US needs a party that will defend the values the nation was founded on, the Constitution, small government, seperation of powers, rule of law, democracy, capitalism, freedom, individualism, self-reliance. That is (classic) liberalism.

Republicans need to reclaim “liberalism” from the Dem socialists. For now that means exposing the Dems and naming names. And then defend freedom, self-reliance, individualism etc. against government intrusions by the Dems.

Nov 20, 2008 - 7:03 am 9. S. Vanagunas:

If one looked around the world say in the year 1301, Western civ would have looked poorer and shabbier than the other big civilizations such as, for example, Arab Islam, India,or China. Aristocratic religious and secular establishments ran the show everywhere and monopolized land, at the time the only way both to become wealthy and just to make a decent living. Commoners everywhere, 98% of the people, were reduced to do the heavy lifting and mylady’s bidding. Five hundred years later,however, the pecking was reversed and the West continued to shock and awe the laggards for the next two centuries, until they got the sense to adopt some Western ways.
The West forged ahead for a number of reasons but two stand out–European commoners led the rennaissance of Roman capitalism and it, in turn, spawned scientific knowledge. When the best minds of the Middle Age argued how many angels could occupy the head of a pin, sea spray covered the common grunts who worried about things such as what is edible and marketable, how to better move a ship, how to make and sell a better mousetrap and so on. Money is risked not on the basis of philosophical nuances or divine revelation, but on serious probabilities of real world outcomes. In a nutshell, relegated to muck around in a disreputable occupation which was then trade (medieval Church looked on money making as a sin, patricians scorned it as something below their station in life), the enterprising commoners became more rational, knowledgeable and wealthier than the aristocracy which was mired in archaic custom and tradition. Think about it: Monks in their secluded scriptoria monopolized copying for a thousand years. But why did it take an ordinary German goldsmith in invent movable types?

The rising bourgeoisie uncovered many truths the greatest of which is that before there can be liberty there must be private property. You do away with the latter, so goes liberty.

This history should form the bedrock of the Republican Party ideals. This is not rocket science, even the semi-literate Mexicans, Salvadorans, Guatamalans and others who cross the Sonora desert to enter our country clearly understand this. Their plodding feet drum out their aspiration: Give us economic opportunity and there I will my liberty and within it my very self!

Nov 20, 2008 - 8:40 am 10. ron ray:

The path is pretty clear. Pair Sarah Palin with a true american not afraid to speak her mind — Ms. Bachman comes to mind — and we’ll get this commie out of the white house in four years.

Roll back the bailouts, break the unions and wall street, and restore the good graces of capitalism.

Nov 20, 2008 - 9:35 am 11. Someone75:

Ron Ray:

Ms Bachman? Really? You’d put two highly partisan, highly uninformed candidates together and hope for the best? They’d turn us into a theocracy with mandatory flag pins. You know what other country requires citizens to wear pins expressing their loyalty? North Korea.

Bachman is McCarthy 2.0 – I’m shocked she even won reelection. Speaks to the intelligence of the average voter, doesn’t it?

Nov 20, 2008 - 10:31 am 12. myth buster:

Huckabee is almost as charismatic as Obama, but the difference is Huckabee actually has substance to go along with it.

Nov 20, 2008 - 10:48 am 13. Jim Baker:

Huckabee is Obama in an empty Republican suit. This guy trashed Romney to help the liberal, John McCain, get nominated. As a result, now we have The One. Not saying Romney would have beaten Obama, but at least he could have drawn a contrast between himself and the social Democrat.

Nov 20, 2008 - 11:55 am 14. Carl Gordon:

Intersting. And with just enough “elitist” pseudo-intellectual rhetoric to satisfy all the rats scampering o’er the rails of your sinking ship in attempts to disassociate from your fellow losers. And of course the mis-directed animosity simply because you can’t stand both the finality of defeat and the repudiation of your hollow and defective “principles”. Could it be that you believe that the ‘reason’ and ‘logic’ of bourgeois capitalist society that has led people into war, has obviously failed like everything else, and with that failure, an explosive epiphany of reactive angst and ire has been directed at the very values foisted upon the unsuspecting and ignorant, in turn, cause you to depict all that is absurd and ultimately flawed, rejecting any even mere pretense of morals or ethical value. Or, as some would stipulate, an expressed rejection of that ideology in the form of attacks of the Left that appears to reject logic and embrace chaos and irrationality.

With these days consisting of mind-deadeningly 24-7 news cycles and instant microwavable breakfast tarts with 11 different flavors of pink cheese flavored shit, it’s certainly refreshing to behold something comically fall apart under the weight of it’s own horseshit, the term “conservative” ultimately historically referred to as the sickest, most paralyzing and most destructive thing that has ever originated from the brain of man. An insane spectacle of collective homicide, but with nice marketing potential. A perfect anathema to Thomas Kincade and his kaleidoscopic abortions. I would like to say in the future, when historians refer to your silly gibberish, a phenomenon bursting forth in the midst of the Bush economic and moral crisis, a monster, yet ironically a savior, which would lay waste to everything in its path. A systematic painter of destruction and demoralization…In the end nothing but a loving act of sacrilege.

Nov 20, 2008 - 12:26 pm 15. Hate pompous liberals:

Peter: It is the GOP that is the damaged “brand”, not conservative. If we are to believe the polls, more people identify with the term conservative than they do the term liberal. It is certain that the majority of Americans hold beliefs that are conservative; many are just not aware of it and this is due mostly to the MSM and the educational system.

In any event, the Marxists have thoroughly corrupted the term as it serves as a euphemism for Socialism and/or Democratic Socialism, at least that is so here in the USA. This has been the case since FDR. This just supports my point about the inherent nature of the American people for the Democrat party cannot still come out and call themselves Democratic Socialists as do their European brethren.. There is not a “classical liberal” in the democrat party, at least not one that matters, so there is nothing to “reclaim” other than a word.

If by “classic liberalism” you mean 19th century liberalism, that is exactly what American conservative is, with some exceptions. 19th century liberalism was not particularly about small government, or was it opposed to welfare states, or even colonialism, protectionism or national chauvinism — witness Bismark’s support form the Liberal parties when he was Chancellor, or the British Whigs. It is perhaps a false comparison to the current day, for classical liberals were chiefly opposed to the old economic and political order of the aristocracy, and certain economic practices, i.e., serfdom, mercantilism, etc. Conservatism in the 19th Century sense has little to do with modern American conservatism

I think that you are a little misinformed on what conservatism is. In any event, it is a matter of explaining this to the American people, not a matter of fiddling with words.

Conservatism is a well defined and thought out set of principles and hardly a “brand”, and frankly, your take on it is a bit su0perficial. Certainly we are not going to change our nomenclature because of your social timidity.
If your social circles are so childish and superficial to think otherwise, then perhaps you should attempt to educate them — either or find new friends. There are plenty of people under 40 that are proud to be called conservatives, and they have the courage of their convictions and know what they are talking about. Go check out our aremed services and see how unpopular it is there to be a conservative.

Carl: You are yet another mature liberal projecting his vileness onto descent and good Americans– particularly about that pseudo-intellectual slander. Is this your first election or something? Finality? Sounds like it. Grow up.

Not only do you not understand what Conseratives stand for, You have not the faintest idea of what the Democrats are about. This will the 6th Democrat administration that I have lived through and each one of them has been an unmitigated disaster. We are still hobbles by decisions JFK and LBJ made. This one promises to be more damaging thaan FDR’s administration. Crooks, con-men, commies or clowns and nothing else.

In addition, you also have no real principles, Carl, you are just a very young man that is regurgitating what he has been told without thought or scruple. This is because you have little capacity for either. That is why you vote Democrat. You have not the faintest idea what is at stake here. When you do grow up and figure it out, remember that you where part of the problem not the solution. You deserve what you got.

Nov 20, 2008 - 2:15 pm 16. Carl Gordon:

HPL

My, such misdirected animosity! I’ve managed to prosper through, what, five or so Repug administrations, although every time my finances have taken a hit. I guess it’s better where youlive on Bizzaro world. You’re wrong about my age, but hey, thanks for the complement!

Sounds like you have either a fractured personality (statistically not very likely) or cognitive dissonance issues. Have you ever seen a shrink for that?

You know, hostility is generally considered a form of angry internal rejection or childish denial in psychology. In everyday speech it is more commonly used as a synonym for anger and aggression.

In psychological terms, hostility is the willful refusal to accept usually overwhelming evidence that one’s perceptions or beliefs of the world are wrong and hopelessly delusional. Instead of the normal response of reconsidering, the hostile person attempts to force or coerce the world to fit their view, even if this is a forlorn pathetic hope, and however further harmful the cost to one’s self esteem or damaging social impressions one makes on other people. Just keep reciting your mantra, “It’s the Liberals! It’s the Democrats!” Earplugs are available at your local RNC.

Whilst testing theories against reality is a necessary part of life, and persistence in the face of failure is often a necessary part of invention or discovery, in the case of hostility there is the distinction that the evidence is not considered and a stubborn decision is made to try again despite the same outcome. Or instead the evidence is suppressed or denied, and deleted from awareness – the unfavorable evidence which might suggest a prior belief is flawed (or in laymen’s terms, is full of shit) and is instead ignored and willfully avoided. Psychologically, it can be said that reality is being held to ransom, and in this sense hostility is a pointless form of psychological extortion – an attempt to repeatedly try and force reality to produce the desired feedback, in order that your deluded preconceptions become validated.

In this sense, hostility is a response which forms part of discounting of unwanted cognitive dissonance, or to put it another way, in simple terms, it can be the filtering of information that factually conflicts with what one already believes, in an effort to ignore that information and reinforce one’s stupid beliefs. In detailed terms, it is the perception of incompatibility between two cognitions, where “cognition” is defined as any element of knowledge, including attitude, emotion, belief, or behavior. The theory of cognitive dissonance states that contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compels the mind to acquire or invent (some would say, pullout of one’s ass) new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, so as to reduce the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions. Experiments have attempted to quantify this hypothetical drive. Some of these have examined how beliefs often change to match behavior when beliefs and behavior are in conflict.

For instance:

A person who clings to the same simple-minded world-view, even when the world view has essentially shown it doesn’t work.

A person who refuses to do something (even if for their own benefit) because to do it would be accepting that something else they felt strongly about was wrong (or would benefit from moderation or compromise), that they could not face, and thus diminishing self worth even more.

A person who psychologically inside is being driven by a need to prove to their parents they were right, or successful, or deserved love, even knowing the matter will never be resolved as they wish, or that it will not make a difference, or that it is a pointless trail, or that their parents are dead or incapable of response.

Now who do we know in popular culture that would serve as an example? Hint: It rhymes with tush.

Nov 20, 2008 - 2:35 pm 17. Pajamas Media » The Quest for Conservatism 2.0:

[...] Pajamas Media » The Quest for Conservatism 2.0 This history should form the bedrock of the Republican Party ideals. This is not rocket science, even the semi-literate Mexicans, Salvadorans, Guatamalans and others who cross the Sonora desert to enter our country clearly understand … [...]

Nov 20, 2008 - 3:03 pm 18. Pajamas Media » The Quest for Conservatism 2.0:

[...] Pajamas Media » The Quest for Conservatism 2.0 This just supports my point about the inherent nature of the American people for the Democrat party cannot still come out and call themselves Democratic Socialists as do their European brethren.. There is not a “classical liberal” in … [...]

Nov 20, 2008 - 3:17 pm 19. Carl Gordon:

Things have taken a decidedly weird bent as I struggle against conceits and falsehoods foisted by the uninformed, and on top of that, and I can’t get anybody interested in thoroughbred racing at Hollywood Park. Faced with a divorce of reality and ideas courtesy of FOX, Rush, Hannity, etc., I attempt to unify the two not only to make a convenient target, but to further understanding of the incomprehensible, I often use a variety of Hegel’s concepts in conjunction with a nearby convenient Louisville Slugger upside the cranium of obstinate dittoheads. I’ll let you know how successful I was after I post bail.

Nov 20, 2008 - 4:05 pm 20. Mike Casey:

I still cannot for the life of me figure out why Conservatives are running around like scared children trying to re-invent the wheel. If someone who has an honest understanding of the history of Conservatism can explain to me why the core principles need to be changed I would be willing to listen. The problem is not many can because there is a lack of historical knowledge as to what the essence of Conservatism really is. Maybe we don’t need to change it, maybe we need to study it.

Nov 20, 2008 - 7:34 pm 21. Dlanor:

We need a new party — The “Oogedy Boogedy” Party, viz:

OOGEDY-BOOGEDY CONSERVATISM:

Our lives are not only about what is, but also about what should be. For that, Kathleen Parker’s “Oogedy-Boogedy” piece seemed to have been written as if non-social-conservatives are uneducable. But, for teaching proper values, it hardly ever matters (at least, to Conservatives) what your religion, political inclination, national origin, gender, or skin color may be.

A. AMERICAN MESSAGE: Rather, among social conservatives, there is a common, civilizing, “American Message,” to whit:
1) Communicating and experiencing meaningfulness necessitates a frame of reference, with coordinate definitions (modeling);
2) Definitions necessitate reference to BOUNDARIES;
3) Shaking boundaries loose in order to mix everything into a mush is often preceded by violent explosion, in respect of which little by way of meaningfulness crawls out;
4) Preserving boundaries in an unstable world implicates faith in a common direction or leader;
5) While the world’s peoples remain in disarray about their common direction, they may at least respect a de facto common leader (U.S.A., which, to large extent, had such responsibility foisted upon it);
6) Leadership that is meaningful to one’s sense of autonomous-self is guiding, not totalitarian;
7) Boundaries (physical, political, financial, cultural, and moral) of the U.S., as a non-dictatorial leader, should be respected and not, without careful reason, subjected to violent change; and
The preserving of identifiable parameters of America, as America, remains essential to worldwide confidence, faith, assurance, and meaningfulness.

B. EMBODIMENT OF MESSAGE: In seeking to embody such a Big Idea, America:
1) Nourishes respect for ideals of individual freedom, dignity, self reliance, initiative, creativity, self expression, and autonomy (i.e., pursuit of happiness);
2) Seeks continuously to re-normalize or regulate markets, such as markets of influence, of trade, of goods, and of ideas, in order to reduce the disproportionate trappings of monopolists, abusers, seditionists, enemies, psychopaths, and pirates;
3) Seeks to provide a practical social safety net, to preserve marketplaces of workers — in respect of health, education, and population replenishment;
4) Resists faux messiahs’ Orwellian calls for forced economic equality (as opposed to economic opportunity);
5) Avails means for reducing Orwellian and monopolistic abuses of speech by governments, politicians, media, organized religion, private monopolies, and international pirates;
6) Seeks ways to minimize disproportionate leveraging of legislative influence;
7) Resists Big Government intrusion and dictation into people’s autonomy;
Stands against false prophecies of world peace based on surrender of initiative of individuals and nations to international controllers of world government; and
9) Mutually respects all spiritual models which themselves return respect for the seeking of moral guidance and the promotion of charitable works.

C. ORIGIN, RACE, GENDER, RELIGION: The American Idea about Conservatism neither favors nor disfavors anyone purely on account of national origin, race, gender, or religion, but instead cares about whether loyalty to the idea of conserving America as it engages with the world is returned in kind.
America should care when people try to undermine Essential Components of the American Idea by the monopolizing, precluding, or prescribing of:
1) The erasing and replacing of America, by Orwellian turning of America’s best values against itself (masked tolerance of the intolerable);
2) The politically correct collaring of free expression of ideas (masked totalitarianism);
3) The path for destroying those family values that are foundational to Western Civilization (anarchic hedonism);
4) The destruction of faith in any higher Source of meaningfulness (“oogedy-boogedy” psychopathic despair of the godless against empathy).

D. WILDERNESS: Neither Democrats nor Blueblood Republicans (and certainly not Libertarians or Libertines) are doing much at all to defend the Essential Components of the American Idea. So, Social Conservatives may need to go into the wilderness awhile, to summon inner strength, to reawaken and rejuvenate their message in respect of the American Idea. As they emerge, soon, they will need to remain much more wary of Social Liberals in Conservative Clothing.

E. SPECIFICS: The “Red Assed Moderate” wing of Social Conservatives wants:
1) Strong national defense of America;
2) Strong enforcement of borders and immigration policies;
3) Tax and service incentives, to coax environmentally responsible investment in American-based education and enterprise;
4) Some sort of decent, universal health care;
5) Creative destruction (i.e., progressive taxation on consumption?) of the disparities in income, wealth, and power that so disproportionately favor pirates of international finance and that so poisonously undermine market-based forces;
6) Respect for essential, civilizing, family values; and
7) Engaged cooperation with other nations, while defending the integrity of the American Idea.

F. BOTTOM LINE: Kathleen Parker overstepped when she implied non-conservatives cannot or should not be exposed or educated to the worth of such values.

Nov 22, 2008 - 11:11 am 22. G Alston:

Carl Gordon — “I’ve managed to prosper through, what, five or so Repug administrations, although every time my finances have taken a hit.”

You must have an interesting choice in career. Same administration counts, completely opposite experience for me.

Oh, and your pop-psychology babble is strictly freshman 101 stuff. Been there, heard that, got the shirt. I’m surprised you weren’t blathering about heirarchies and so on. Of course, psychology isn’t exactly science so much as opinionated and credentialed voodoo anyway. I reckon you must be a soft “science” professor, or worse, an armchair hobbyist type. Heavens. Carry on.

Nov 22, 2008 - 11:22 pm 23. Someone75:

Hate pompous liberals:

Have you actually stopped to look at what your party stands for these days? It’s a lot different that what you think. The conservativism you talk about is the conservativism that I can support. It’s not what is being practiced today.

But man, I just HATE pompous conservatives, of which there are plenty.

Nov 23, 2008 - 12:17 am 24. seeingright:

I read ALL of these comments. I must say everyone is taking this “Conservative” argument really serious. Please let me put my 2 cents in. This will light even more fires.

First off, Carl, you are a jerk. All the intellectual babble in the world doesn’t make you smarter than a 5th grader.

The “American Conservative” represents the standard when it comes to defining free enterprise, low-taxes, small government, morality, ethics, growth, production, security, and whatever other positive label you can apply. Liberalism is about taking the easy way out and trying to appease every special interest group or voter known to man. Moderates in any shape or form are like dogs in heat trying to get laid by a Liberal.

The person that really raised the issue about what do we do to get our platform across to the uneducated or adolescents was a very good question. Well, it’s tough. You are going up against 60 year old educators (hippies from my day and age) that still think the Vietnam war was the evil to end all evils. These retards have grown into Media Mongols, and CEOs, and Politicians with clout and money. They love the idea of teaching the young how to follow the leader. Do what I tell you but not what I do. These people are the scourge and slugs of society. It is all about power, money, and control with these jerks.

Being a Conservative is the hard road. It takes energy, work, commitment, strength to be a Conservative. In order to change public thinking or awareness we have to figure out the best ways to educate, illustrate, write, expose, and advertise the benefits of being a Conservative as opposed to being a Liberal. On top of that we need to RECRUIT Conservatives to run for Public Office. There is your answer.

The coming recession and the turmoil the Obama administration is going to put us all through will help. We may be so sick of this guy in just a few short years we could see another Reagan landslide. Now Reagan, there was a REAL Conservative President.

So, you never want to lose the “American Conservative” label. It never goes out of style and it doesn’t need redefining. Reagan did one thing that people should never forget. He told the liberals “My train is moving on. If you want to get on board then fine, if not, we don’t need you.” This majority in this Country (so the polls say) are still conservative in their thinking. They just had no reason in the last election to vote or move from liberal to conservative because guess what — McCain was NOT a Conservative.

Keep the faith. The Conservative train will travel again.

Cheers,
Bob

Nov 24, 2008 - 3:29 am 25. G Farmer:

We have to stop voting religion and start developing policies that include all people as equal instead of marginalizing and excliding those that don’t fit the compartmentalized idealogies of the religious right. Until the words ‘religious right’ no longer mean ‘conservative’, count a lot of people out of the ‘conservative movement’.

Dec 20, 2008 - 2:02 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: