About Me

Name: Conservative USA
Email: contactcusa@aol.com
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

The Real Division

Since the electoral defeat on Election Day, many commentators have argued that a division is taking place within the conservative movement and the Republican coalition. This division, they argue, is taking place among the three components of the coalition Ronald Reagan put together: fiscal conservatives/libertarians, social/cultural conservatives and national-security/defense conservatives. According to this view, these three elements are fighting against each other to take control of the Republican Party. 


They are right on the notion of a division taking place within the GOP and the conservative movement. However, the nature of the division taking place is not the one they argue is going on. The real division is the one between the center-right, solutions-oriented pragmatists and the far-right, ideological purists.

 
The first group, the center right, is formed by pragmatic and solutions-oriented conservatives who want to put the tactics of divisive politics aside and begin a new era of bipartisanship, while, at the same time, keeping the basic principles of conservatism. They are pushing for a two-way approach to rebuild the GOP and conservatism. First, they want to go back to the traditional conservative and Republican principles of fiscal restraint, limited government, free enterprise, strong defense, personal liberty and tolerance. They believe the GOP and the current leaders of the conservative movement have abandoned the real principles that have always defined conservatism and Republicanism. Second, they want to reform the party and adapt its message to the current era. They want to start talking about the issues that people really care about: the economy, the environment, renewable energy, health care reform, education reform. They believe in a welcoming, inclusive conservatism and a big-tent GOP. Representatives of this camp include conservatives like Tim Pawlenty, Charlie Crist, Lamar Alexander, Mitch Daniels, Christine Todd Whitman, John Danforth, Peggy Noonan, Kathleen Parker, David Brooks, and moderates like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Colin Powell, among others. 

 
The second group, the far right, is led by rigid ideological conservatives and populists who want to move the movement and the party far to the right and exclude anyone that does not agree with them one hundred per cent of the time. They are willing to continue with the tactics of division and hate that have expelled moderates, independents and even conservatives, and refuse to consider any change in the policy proposals they pursue. Their narrow-minded vision is characterized by litmus tests on every single issue for everybody who wants to run for office as a Republican: from abortion to amendments to the Constitution to preserve “traditional values,” from immigrant-bashing rhetoric to climate change denial. They think of themselves as the true inheritors of the Reagan Revolution and the only true conservative Republicans (no wonder not even Reagan nor Goldwater would be able to pass all their litmus tests). Representatives of this camp include conservatives like James Inhofe, Jim DeMint, David Keene; social fundamentalists like James Dobson, Tony Perkins and Gary Bauer; the talk-radio populist crowd (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Laura Ingraham); and neo-populist stars Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee.   

 
Now, since when did conservatism become the ideology of “traditional values” (whatever that means) instead of the philosophy of liberty? How was it possible for a group of rigid ideologues, populists and social fundamentalists to distort our ideology and take over our party? Would Abraham Lincoln have supported the narrow-minded approach followed by this minority of far-right demagogues? Would Barry Goldwater have tried to legislate morality and abandon any notion of personal liberty? Would Ronald Reagan have called for the expulsion of moderates from the GOP? If you know something about these Republican icons, your answer will be no.       

 
The truth is that the ones who think of themselves as the true inheritors of the conservative tradition are precisely the ones that have abandoned the core beliefs behind it. Anglo-Saxon conservatism is anchored on the principles of the classical liberal tradition of John Locke and Adam Smith: freedom, moderation and tolerance. Unfortunately, many self-described conservatives have forgotten this fact. 

 
If the Republican Party is to emerge from the electoral debacle it suffered on November 4th, it should follow the center-right approach, the one that truly represents the principles of conservatism and Republicanism. As many of the members of the far-right group are saying these days, America is still a center-right nation. The problem is that they forgot the center and went all the way to the right.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Reclaiming Reagan Conservatism

It is difficult to understand the conclusions to which many conservative leaders have arrived after the Republican electoral defeat on November 4th, denying the real causes of such a defeat throughout the country with such simplistic statements as “we lost because we were not conservative enough” or “we lost because we nominated a moderate.” It is even more striking to hear what they believe was the major asset of the campaign: the emergence of Sarah Palin to the national spotlight. Let me put this in the clearest possible way: THIS IS NON-SENSE. You cannot arrive to these conclusions unless you are in a state of denial. They are denying the facts. You just need to look at the numbers in the exit polls.

It is clear that John McCain was the only Republican who had a chance (before the economic crisis exploded) to retain the White House. It is also clear that the McCain Campaign’s pick of Sarah Palin as the VP nominee was a flawed decision. Sarah Palin was not an asset to the ticket. She cost us independent voters, moderate voters, upper-middle-class voters and suburbanites (a traditional Republican constituency), and those making more than $200,000 a year (a once GOP stronghold). Did she make inroads among the “working class”? No. Oh… She energized the base… which base? Evangelical Christians? You can’t just win elections if you are strong only among a single group.

It is also striking to hear these people say that “we need to kick moderates out” of the GOP. What are they thinking? Didn’t they look at the congressional map? Republicans have been officially wiped out of New England. They only have three congressional seats in New York State. The southwest is becoming a Democratic stronghold. The west coast was lost a long time ago. The Midwest is going away. To sum up: after Tuesday, November 4th, the Republican Party has officially become a regional party, a southern party. More than half of GOP congressional members come from the South. And, what about the Senate? Not much different. Who would have thought, just some years ago, that both senate seats in Colorado and Virginia would be in Democratic hands? A party that has litmus tests on every single issue in order to become a member cannot and will not survive.  

And what about the so common statement “we lost because we abandoned conservative principles”? Well, in this case I would have to agree. The problem is that what these “leaders” see as conservatism is totally at odds with what real conservatism is all about. Social “conservatives” are already saying “we lost because we didn’t stress abortion and gay marriage enough.” Cultural “conservatives” are saying we lost because we didn’t bash immigrants enough. Others are directing their anger to the typical targets: “the liberal media,” “RINOs,” “moderates.” They are even saying in these days (prepare to read this!): “We need to move to the right” (!).

As someone who considers himself a proud conservative, I simply can’t understand the way these people think. Moreover, as a proud Reagan conservative, I can’t help but think that these people have no clue to what Ronald Reagan stood for. Even when many of them were foot soldiers during the Reagan Revolution, they seem to have forgotten (I don’t want to think they are distorting Reagan’s real record) what Reagan’s conservatism was all about. Well, in case they forgot, let me remember them:

-Reagan conservatism stood up for freedom above all, not populism.

-Reagan conservatism believed in individual liberty, not in imposing certain religious beliefs.

-Reagan conservatism was inclusive and welcoming, not a promoter of hate and division.  

-Reagan conservatism was pragmatic, not dangerously dogmatic.    

-And, above all, Reagan conservatism inspired optimism and opportunity, not fear and chauvinism.  

Unfortunately, the latter describes better the current state of “conservative” politics. What used to be a movement of hope has turned into a machine that delivers populism and prejudice. The good news is, we, center-right conservatives, are still the majority, and we will not let the movement Ronald Reagan built to be destroyed by a group of self-proclaimed conservatives who could be best described as far-right populists. We believe in the true tenets of conservatism: the belief in the power of the individual, the belief in free enterprise and free markets, the belief in individual liberty and personal responsibility, the belief in a strong (and wisely used) defense, and the belief in inclusiveness and tolerance.

These are the true tenets of conservatism. These are the principles Ronald Reagan believed in. These are the principles we are fighting for. We are not going anywhere, we are staying here to bring our movement and our party back (and all those who believe in freedom are welcome to join!).     
Alejandro Honeker
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »