Skip to main content
Home2012 Articles2011 Articles2010 Articles2009 Articles2008 Articles2007 Articles
 
 2009 Articles 
Sunday, August 02 2009

Despite all its flaws - and there are many - conservatives would be wise to recognize that the Republican Party remains the most effective vehicle to advance their values.  That is not to say that conservatives should abandon more principled third party candidates in blind allegiance to the Republicans regardless of the positions they espouse.  When the Democrats offer an anti-human rights socialist, and Republicans counter with a moderately anti-human rights quasi-socialist, conservatives should oppose both.  But it would be the height of foolishness for conservatives to give up their attempts to saddle the Republican horse and ride it to power.  And further, it would be the very definition of stupidity for the Republican Party to resist conservative leadership.

 

I was amused by a recent email exchange I had with a self-professing "moderate Republican" (meaning left-leaning, of course).  It was his earnest opinion that conservatives had ruined the Republican brand over the last few decades and would lead the Party to its grave if more moderate voices didn't emerge.  I acknowledged how right he was...how Reagan and Gingrich had been abject failures, but Ford, Bush, Dole, and McCain had certainly brought glory to the cause.  I never heard back from him.

 

Remarkably, even as polls are showing that by a 2 to 1 margin Americans are identifying themselves conservative as opposed to liberal, even as the masses once enamored with Obamania are now rejecting his Marxist ideals and rebelling against his socialist designs, even as Tea Parties are sprouting up across the country full of formerly disengaged citizens who are now rallying to recover their dwindling freedoms, pundits and talking heads are bemoaning the death of the Republican Party brought on by conservatism.

 

Pollster John Zogby recently wrote an op-ed for Campaign and Election Politics magazine that declared the Republicans were on the verge of going extinct.  "Let's face it, it could be teetering on the brink," Zogby professed, seemingly unaware of virtually every cultural indicator occurring around him.  And what was his solution to their ills?  Becoming like liberals, of course!  Proclaiming that Republicans were "swimming against the tide of demography," Zogby suggested that Republicans needed to appeal to African-Americans, young people, and the creative class by going left. 

 

Now, far be it from me to question the wisdom of a man who on Election Day 2004 predicted a John Kerry landslide.  Insight and pinpoint accuracy like that demands we quiet ourselves and take heed.  But here's a radical idea: instead of insulting these groups by assuming that they all think like liberals, why not appeal to them by explaining how conservative principles would best bring them happiness?

 

First, demonstrating to African-Americans that the Democrats have been the Party of slavery, segregation, and now socialism, would be a good start.  The tactics have changed, but the left's objective has remained consistent: hold blacks down in a state of dependence, thereby perpetuating white liberal power.  Meanwhile, Republicans - the same Party that opposed slavery, fought segregation, secured the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments - now believes in empowering African-Americans with the only resource they need to excel...freedom.  No government program, no social welfare, no affirmative action.  Just personal responsibility and a level playing field.

 

Secondly, young people are by their very nature more idealistic and as a result typically more liberal.  Remember that quote attributed to Winston Churchill that "if you're not a liberal by age 20, you have no heart; if you're not a conservative by age 30, you have no brain."  What drives their idealism is a yearning for liberation and autonomy, and a nearly unquenchable desire to change the world.

 

So rather than feed the misconception that conservatism is old, boring stuffiness, Republicans should point out that one of the major differences between right and left is the fierce support conservatives offer for personal liberty.  It is liberalism that has brought seat belts, motorcycle helmets, bicycle helmets, smoking bans, gun purchase restrictions, mandatory vaccines, car emissions inspections, campaign contribution restrictions, prayer limitations, trash separation laws, gas tax, telephone tax, income tax, FICA withholding, and countless other infringements on personal freedom.

 

Conservatives believe that individuals should be bound by obedience to the principles of natural law, but then set free to pursue their own happiness.  Tip to Republicans: that will sell with young people.

 

It will also sell with the "creative class."  Is there anything more demoralizing to would-be entrepreneurs than the promise of being punished for your success?  And yet, with their soak-the-rich, redistribution of wealth policies, that's exactly what the liberal Democrats advocate.  Couple that with the energy tax, capital gains tax, luxury tax, and others supported by the left, and those seeking the freedom to create, innovate, and live the American Dream will find a conservative tent quite hospitable.

 

This is the direction the Republicans should go if they truly desire to reemerge as a majority party...despite the proposals of John Zogby who, as a self-described liberal, undoubtedly has the best interest of his political adversaries in mind.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 02:48 pm   |  Permalink   |  10 Comments  |  Email
Comments:
It is fascinating that when one confronts the truths found in the actual conservative and liberal ideologies, one finds that the resultant public policies clearly show one leading toward liberty and one leading away from liberty. By necessity, liberal ideology requires many more collectivist style laws and policies in order to implement its utopian ideals. People must be managed, not governed, by a central authority in order for its centralist themes to work.
Posted by ChucksChants on 08/02/2009 16:25:52
Now that conservatives have an opportunity to get this message out thanks to the new media (talk radio and the internet), people need to realize that we must take back the education of our children. The left has controlled education for years. Parents must continue to seek alternatives. Private academies and homeschooling are options that need to be supported in order to win the hearts and minds of our children. Why would you want to subject impressionable minds to liberal ideology that is destroying the fabric of our nation?
Posted by vcamatt on 08/04/2009 08:27:50
Don't mistake the war of words with the more important war of platforms, positions, and values. Anyone can call themselves a conservative, but if they push for public healthcare and other such things, what is that label worth? Nothing. "Conservative" is like Nike, just a brand-name. You can re-brand any shoe but in the end it's still the shoe that matters. I never thought I'd hear John McCain called a quasi-socialist but I guess that shows just how far this war of words has thrust some people from reality. Right-wing rhetoric grows more hysterical by the day. Eventually people will tune it out just like any other blaring sensationalist infomercial.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 08/04/2009 13:10:45
I'm not sure I completely follow what you're saying, NGav. I thought I was agreeing with you when you seemed to be saying that values, positions, and platforms have to mean something. I and others have long lamented those who wear the conservative label while advancing non-conservative positions. The term RINO originated as a result of those lamentations. But then, later in your post you suggested that calling RINOs quasi-socialists was hysterical. Does that mean we should pretend that they are conservative because they claim to be? That seems to contradict what I thought your original point was.
Posted by peterheck on 08/04/2009 18:05:35
Yeah, if you want to obfuscate matters here or anywhere, simply post quotes from HR 3200, particularly anything prior to or following the "plain language" clause.
Posted by ChucksChants on 08/05/2009 06:59:47
I would argue that the "conservative" tag has hurt the Republican party but not conservative principles. For example, President Bush was regularly called a neo-conservative along with a considerable number of other Republicans, but their adherence to conservative principles was spotty at best. To be called "conservative" and to be conservative were to completely different things. The plurality of Americans are conservative but they want a real conservative, not a moderate/liberal in conservative clothing.
Posted by Asburystrider on 08/06/2009 12:20:09
N Gavelis writes, "Eventually people will tune it out just like any other blaring sensationalist infomercial." Did someone just say something? Oh, just another blaring sensationalist infomercial.
Posted by ChucksChants on 08/13/2009 21:48:22
It's too bad that we don't have any Independent candidates who can run on hardcore Conservative principles. Most of US are worn out with the 2 party system. I think the term conservatism automatically has a bit of a negative connotation. To me true conservatism is a universal, pro freedom,common sense ideology that should no longer be defined as a political party. A lot of people have a visceral reaction to the very mention of the word conservatism. But to me something very fresh and exciting would be an Independent candidate who did not define themselves as a conservative but rather ran on uncompromising common sense principles.
Posted by Eric Nelson on 08/15/2009 02:03:07
The person you're describing, Eric, is Sarah Palin. She's a conservative, but not an ideologue. She has no particular party identification, though her values are more consistent with the Republican party. I'm a bit more of an ideologue than Palin, but that's probably because I'm a bit more philosophically minded. Where I would probably break with you is the suggestion that more candidates need to run as independents. This will do nothing but ultimately hurt conservative ideals because the independent and Republican candidate would only take votes from each other. See Al Franken. Coleman was hardly a conservative, but an independent candidate (and a flexible application of election law) sealed his doom.
Posted by Asburystrider on 08/18/2009 15:36:54
That having been said, I've considered running as an independent in my area. There are several factors in this consideration. 1. The Republican party in my area is more of a "good ole boys" network than it is principled. 2. My area is highly representative Republican so an Independent has as much a chance as a Democrat. 3. I'm considering running for local office, not national. I think all things considered it paints a different picture and avoids the pitfalls I mentioned above.
Posted by Asburystrider on 08/18/2009 15:40:30

Post comment
Name
 *
Email Address

Message
(max 750 characters)
*
* Required Fields
Note: All comments are subject to approval. Your comment will not appear until it has been approved.

    common sense makes a comeback
    site designed by Keith Parker   --  sign up for Peter Heck Mailing List here