During the past 6 years conservative and Republican have been used as interchangeable words. No more. The Republicans have abused the fact that conservatives have no one else to vote for as an excuse to abandon conservatism. They can no longer hide behind the specter of “8 years of Bill Clinton.” If Republicans wants our votes, they need to prove they’ll govern as conservatives, not as big government spendaholics.
Conservatives, for their part, can no longer take for granted the conservative credentials of someone just because there is an “(R)” after their name. If candidates and elected officeholders don’t deliver, then they need to be thrown out of office. If conservative voters will tolerate Republicans who support conservative policies 5% of the time, that is exactly what they’ll get.
The last election cycle shows that in at least some areas, Democrats can be pushed into being more conservative. The campaigns of Casey Jr., Ellsworth, Webb, and others, show that Democrats that are closer to the center are more likely to win. This shows, that if we keep the pressure up, we can move the political center of gravity to the right. Few people truly believe in a government-run life anymore.
We need to stop being a supporter of a party (or the opponent of a party) and start being the champions of ideas. We must demand that those who wish to have our vote are also champions of ideas. Those who can do nothing but spout attack ads must continue to be rejected. It’s not enough to be against Hillary, they must be “for something.”
Where possible, voters should seize the political initiative and put conservative referenda questions on the ballot. Even with a pathetic showing of the GOP this last season, conservatism won with referenda. This is where the future is, pushing policies around politicians. Where this is not possible, voters need to push for binding referenda.
Today marks the rebirth of the conservative movement. For too long it has been little more than Republican boosterism and this has fallen flat. It’s time to re-enter the battle of ideas where we have always had the upper-hand.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
Waaay too simplistic, JB. There's more than one kind of conservative, and they don't all want the same thing. The problem with the GOP is that they've been putting social conservatives in office not realizing that social conservatives are not necessarily also fiscally conservative.
Also, making Democrats RUN as if they are more conservative doesn't actually MAKE them more conservative. Wait until they get into office and see what they do rather than believing what they say in their campaigns.
And finally, the fact is that as a group, even with all their failings, the GOP still totally outshines the Democrats when it coems to attempting to cut spending. Check out this report from CCAGW. It shows dramatically how terrible the voting records of the democrats are when compared to those of even lukewarm Republicans.
Dave
2 - John Bambenek
Social conservative and fiscal conservative are meaningless terms and I don't except them as intellectual governing philosophies.
The GOP, regardless, has abandoned both.
I'm using conservative in the principled complete philosophical sense. Limited government, personal responsibility, governing at the lowest level, free market, etc.
They'll throw a bone every now and then, but the conservatism of the Contract with America is gone (as an example).
Sure, the Democrats are worse, but even running as conservatives shows what the electorate wants.
3 - Sisyphus
"Also, making Democrats RUN as if they are more conservative doesn't actually MAKE them more conservative."
While true, perhaps you have it backwards. We see some true conservatives running as Democrats -- not so much Democrats running as phoney conservatives. There is a difference. If what you say is true, it is also true that running as a Democrat will not make true conservative candidates become more liberal once in office.
See the excellent article by George Will published two weeks ago, "Forgetting conservatism"
4 - Jerry
John,
The truth is "simplistic", it always is. It gets complicated when we try to dissect it and read too much into it according to our biases.
You have clearly and concisely described the political state of affairs. Dave is overthinking the matter.
5 - Clavos
John,
Social conservative and fiscal conservative are meaningless terms and I don't except them as intellectual governing philosophies.
You may consider them "meaningless terms", but the fact is there are literally millions of us in the electorate who are socially liberal and fiscally consevative, and any party ignores us at its peril.
6 - Dave Nalle
Bang on, Clavos.
But based on JB's comment earlier it sounds likw what he describes as 'conservative' is just what we consider fiscally/legislatively conservative while completely ignoring social issues. That's a pretty acceptable broad position to support IMO.
Dave
7 - Jerry
It is apparently perilous as well to ignore the social conservatives. Huh?
8 - handyguy
For at least the last 70 years, we've had a center-right party [the R's] and a center-left party [the D's]. They continually gravitate back in that centrist direction because that's where the electorate pulls them, rejecting what voters perceive as extremism. The exact location of the "center" where centrism is defined may shift from time to time.
But despite Goldwater and Reagan, McGovern and Dean [or pick your own examples], the parties have never been as far apart as true believers on the right and left wish, or as close together as cynics and outsiders sometimes pretend. Remember George Wallace calling Nixon and Humphrey Tweedledum and Tweedledee? "Not a dime's worth of difference" was the phrase, I believe.
9 - handyguy
And as for John's rejection of the distinction between social conservatives and fiscal conservatives....brings to mind Barry Goldwater's comments:
"I don't have any respect for the Religious Right...Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass."
10 - Dave Nalle
Can't beat Goldwater for good common sense. And it'll take a few of us to do the job, since Falwell is such a giant ass.
dave
11 - handyguy
Yes, John McCain lost some of my respect when he made kissyface with Falwell a while back. He was more right on in 2000.
12 - Clavos
Can't beat Goldwater for good common sense. And it'll take a few of us to do the job, since Falwell is such a giant ass.
Where do I get in line?
13 - Baronius
So, fiscal conservatives like Dave and Clavos are filing for divorce from the cultural conservatives. Come on guys, you know we can work this out. Don't be mad, baby.
OK, fine, you want to walk out? Don't think you're getting the house or any alimony. Wait, I think I can push that analogy further... nah, it's not worth it.
I don't believe that the fiscal conservatives and cultural conservatives have betrayed each other. Both are feeling betrayed by the Republican party. Dave often complains that the religious right lets itself get bought off with a few wedge issues, but the officeholders don't take them seriously. Tell me, Dave, do you feel like the GOP has kept its promises to your half of the conservative movement?
This is the remarkable thing: every Republican feels betrayed. The fiscal/social split is nothing compared to the distance between the 'average' Republican and Hastert. We all know that FCon/SCon can get elected. While we fight over FCon/SMod versus SCon/FMod, we've got a party led by FMod/SMods at best.
14 - handyguy
Here's a view from someone to the left of you, which may not interest you at all, but that's ok:
I believe the Bush administration and most of the exiting Republican Congress are very conservative indeed, by historical standards and by current standards.
The spending splurges and deficit spending of 2002-2006 are so extreme because there have been two very expensive wars going on in Afghanistan and Iraq. Were it not for that, all the earmarks and pork feasts would get much less attention, and indeed cause much less damage.
The President and Congress succeeded in pushing through big tax cuts even as they authorized gigantic military expenditures. This makes the tax cutting look to me stubbornly ideological and not unlike Reagan's tax cuts and military spending increases in the 1980s. Maybe you have other explanations.
It's true that in two election campaigns in a row now, I have watched this president deliver anti-same-sex marriage speeches with a pruny expression on his face that said, this is distasteful but Karl made me do it. But he did do it. I won't forgive him for making the speeches [especially the one in 2004 regarding a constitutional amendment], and possibly some social conservatives won't forgive him because they doubt his sincerity.
But in such matters as stem cell research; the Terri Schiavo case; pronouncements about the scientific validity of global warming [and even evolution]; the politics of condom distribution and abstinence promotion in third-world AIDS relief; the promotion of private investment accounts to 'save' Social Security; the "subcontracting of environmental, energy, labor and healthcare policymaking to corporate interests" [quoting Hendrik Hertzberg]...in all these the current government has taken a very strong rightist stance. And this is before we get to a foreign policy and antiterrorist stance that puts 'national security' ahead of the constitutional liberties the security is allegedly protecting. In most of those areas I would imagine you are in agreement with the Administration and the Republicans in Congress.
Even the much reviled [by conservatives] Medicare prescription drug program was written by a Republican congressman right before he left to become the drug industry's chief lobbyist, includes price protections for the industry, and is being defended in astonishingly ridiculous free-market gobbledygook press releases by Secretary Michael Leavitt.
So I think they are still on your side, John. It's just that voters pulled back toward the center, as they tend to do. Go ahead and promote candidates still further to the right for nomination next time. You may lose even more seats. Voters are in the mood for pragmatism. And pushing ballot initiatives as some sort of conservative magic bullet is a very dangerous game. Dangerous for the country, not just for the left or right.
15 - Dave Nalle
Tell me, Dave, do you feel like the GOP has kept its promises to your half of the conservative movement?
Hell no, but it's offset to some degree by the fact that I know that the bible thumping bastards didn't get what they wanted either.
Dave
16 - troll
just because a policy benefits business does not make it 'fiscally conservative'...corporate welfare and protectionism - hallmarks of this administration - are not conservative values
17 - Dave Nalle
True, troll. But given the choice between pro-business and anti-business policies even the most conservative will reluctantly support the party which is pro business, because that's better for the economy and the nation as a whole.
Dave
18 - troll
so the deconstructed conservative is nothing more than a pompous pragmatist - ?
19 - Clavos
So, troll,
so the deconstructed conservative is nothing more than a pompous pragmatist - ?
Could your affinity for alliteration possibly have run away with your penchant for perspipacity when you penned the above?
Why would a conservative's propensity for pragmatism presume pomposity?
20 - troll
pompous as in prone to overblown rhetoric concerning and lip service to (for examples) restricted government and an unrestricted 'free market' which are pro Business policies while not necessarily pro businesses
pompous also as in WF Buckley's personality
21 - Lumpy
Don't u think we can excuse buckley and others like him of some pomposity when underneath it they make so much more sense than the alternative of meaningless, formulaic populism?
22 - troll
Lumpy - do you mean the populist 'conservatisms' of Buchanan and La Rouche - ?
23 - Clavos
I see WFB more as supercilious than pompous.
Gore is pompous.
But at least WFB has a sense of humor.
24 - Dave Nalle
Nah, Gore is arrogant. Buckley is bombastic.
Dave
25 - Clavos
Gore IS arrogant, but he's also pompous.
Good word, bombastic. And it fits Buckley like a glove.
Point to Nalle...