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

They Still Don’t Get It

A month has passed since the election, and the far right continues in a state of denial. They keep saying that the GOP can’t abandon “traditional values,” but needs to push them even in a stronger tone. Candidates for the RNC post don’t seem to see reality either. All the current candidates (Michael Steele, Katon Dawson, Saul Anuzis and Chip Saltsman) are pandering to the far-right element of the party. It’s not surprising, that element is the one that controls the Republican Party and the conservative movement, thus, in order to have a chance at winning, they need to gain support among the rigid ideologues.

 Social fundamentalists, along with the other wings of the far right, keep thinking that they can win elections dividing society and pandering to the “base.” They keep talking about the success of the marriage amendments in Florida, Arizona and, especially, California. Well, let’s analyze how big these victories were.

-Florida presented the biggest margin in favor of traditional marriage: 24% (62% to 38%).

-Arizona, which had rejected an amendment to the state constitution in 2006, passed it this time by 12 points (56% to 44%).

-And California, where “gay marriage” had been legalized in May by the State Supreme Court, passed the amendment by 4 points (52% to 48%).

What Tony Perkins and others don’t want to see is the fact that younger voters –the future of the American electorate– soundly rejected the amendment in California by 22 points (61% to 39%), and where split in Arizona and Florida (rejecting it in AZ and passing it in FL).

What about the other amendments pushed by the social far right? Well, we are not hearing much about them because they were soundly rejected by voters.

-In South Dakota, not precisely the land of liberalism, an amendment to ban abortion (except in the cases of rape, incest and when the mother’s life is in danger) was rejected by voters by 10 points (55% to 45%) for the second time. Moreover, voters 18 to 29 rejected the amendment by 20 points (60% to 40%).

-In Colorado, an amendment to define life as beginning at the moment of fertilization was rejected by 46 points (73% to 27%). The opposition was equal among all group ages (3/4 of voters).   

Finally, on stem cell research, Michiganders voted in favor of an amendment to allow embryonic stem cell research by 6 points (young voters supported it by 20 points).

Therefore, more than talking about triumph, the social far right should start to look at the numbers of where people stand on these issues and, particularly, where young voters stand. By continuing with the approach of divisive politics, the far right is guaranteeing a smaller and increasingly isolated Republican Party.

It’s time for moderate conservatives to take the party and conservatism back.

BTW, I write this as a proud pro-lifer, but one that doesn’t want to use division as a political tactic.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | 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

Respect the Will of Voters

By Alejandro Honeker - Conservative USA

Since Proposition 8 was passed by California voters on November 4th, hundreds of demonstrations, many of them with a violent nature, have taken place throughout the Golden State. We understand the divisive nature of this issue and the passions it generates among both sides of the aisle, but nothing justifies the kind of intimidation and, in some cases, persecution that many pro-gay marriage advocates are carrying out right now. Make no mistake, we would say the exact same thing if this kind of intimidation would come from the other side. We totally support the right of anybody, whether fighting for gay marriage or against it, to peacefully demonstrate. However, to persecute individuals that supported Proposition 8, to create black lists with the names of individuals, organizations and businesses that supported the proposition, to be fired just because of being a supporter of traditional marriage, to attack people and churches, has nothing to do with the right to demonstrate. It is nothing more than a form of persecution against those who have a different idea.

We are not saying here that all those demonstrating against the passage of Proposition 8 are acting in this way. In fact, there have been numerous peaceful demonstrations in many places that we totally support (even when we do not agree with the motive). Living in a democratic society means respecting the decisions of the majority, whether we agree with them or not. For instance, when the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage last May, people on the other side did not start intimidating the judges who decided in favor of gay marriage nor did they demonstrate in a violent way like we are seeing in the last days. Again, we are not saying that the other side hasn’t behaved in a violent way in the past. It has, and we do not agree with that kind of behavior. Also, we are not seeing pro-life advocates doing the same thing in South Dakota or Colorado after the defeat of the propositions which intended to make abortion illegal. They respected the will of voters. And that’s what everybody should do, whether it’s something we support or something we oppose.

Tolerance is one of the most important aspects of liberal democracy, if not the most important, and everyone should abide by it. If supporters of gay marriage do not agree with what the majority of Californians decided on the polls, they should start right now a campaign to get a new ballot measure in the next election. That’s their right in a democratic society. But they shouldn’t intimidate those who just have a different view of how marriage should be defined.

We must always practice tolerance, not just when we win. That’s what democracy is all about, to respect the will of voters.            

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

John McCain: A Proven Leader Who Can Bring America Together

America is at a defining moment. Not only are we facing risks to our economic and national security, but also to the most fundamental component of a strong and healthy society: its unity. After the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, we saw the best of America, as everybody united under the stars and stripes. However, during the last seven years, we have seen an increasingly divided country, with two polarized factions fighting against each other in a dangerous and self-destructive way, while the mainstream of America finds itself in between.

While we have been supportive of President George W. Bush in most of his policy proposals (with some important exceptions, like the lack of fiscal restraint and the runaway deficit), we lament the fact that the way the administration pursued many of its policy proposals was carried in a divisive and uncompromising way. We applauded the President for his courage and determination after 9/11, and we still believe that he made the right decisions concerning the War on Terrorism (reason why we haven’t had another terror attack on American soil), but, at the same time, we would have liked to see more bipartisanship and moderation in the administration’s approach to politics. However, it would be a childish and populist thing to do to pretend that only one man, or his administration for that matter, is responsible for the division and polarization in American society today. Americans shouldn’t forget that a new, Democratic-controlled Congress took over in January of 2007, promising a new era of unity and bipartisanship. Yet, the last thing they have done is to bring the country together. Democratic leaders in Congress Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have only deepen the division in our society, following the same approach the Bush administration had been following, with the only difference being the ideological content of their proposals.

In these times of unprecedented challenges, America cannot afford more division and polarization in its political class and its citizenry. In order to successfully resolve the big tests we are facing as a nation (an economic recession, a global War on Terror, oil dependency, environmental degradation, failing schools, a ballooning deficit, and a health care crisis, among others), we desperately need to bring the country together again, pursuing common sense solutions to the nation’s problems. Therefore, the question voters should ask themselves on Tuesday is: Which candidate can bring America together again?

Fortunately, there is one man in the presidential race that, throughout his political career has been eager to work across the aisle, bringing together Republicans, Democrats and independents to get things done, and resisting the criticisms from his own party and, we have to admit, sometimes our own. We believe the answer to that question is very clear. That man is Arizona Senator John McCain.

It is difficult not to see McCain as someone that deserves to be president of the United States. This is a man that spent five years of his life in a Vietnamese prison camp, being tortured and mistreated. It is also difficult not to see the courage in the man who, when offered early release, preferred to stay before breaking a code of honor (although, it would have been completely understandable in such inhumane circumstances to accept such a proposal). But that was not McCain’s idea. For him, honor, the sense of duty and love of country were above everything else. This has not changed throughout the years. It is precisely because of these values and his experience in Vietnam that John McCain is who he is. It is precisely because of his understanding of what torture is that he has opposed torture as an interrogation method employed by the U.S. military. It is precisely because of his understanding of the dignity of human life that he has always fought for comprehensive immigration reform (although, we have many times opposed his most liberal components, such as instant amnesty for those who break the law). It is precisely because of this life-changing experience that he fought to restore the U.S. relationship with the country in which he was tortured during so many years, far away from home.

Now, does this experience qualify someone to be commander-in-chief of the United States? Well, it sure shows the moral character that a leader of a nation should have. Even if we don’t think this kind of experience instantly qualifies someone for the job, we don’t need to ask that question. We just need to look at McCain’s record in Congress. His is a record of a person concerned about the unity of his country. Whether fighting for ethics reform, immigration reform, or fiscal sanity, John McCain has always put the interests of mainstream America before any other interest. This sure shows us leadership, and the kind we desperately need right now.  

We cannot write this endorsement without mentioning the historical characteristics of this presidential race and the impressive qualities of Illinois Senator Barack Obama. America should be proud of what she has achieved concerning equal opportunities for everyone. America should be proud of Barack Obama. His personal story is the best example of what the American dream is all about. His story shows us that anyone with ambition, hope and hard work can pursue his or her dream in America.

Nevertheless, while Senator Obama represents a new, intelligent and fresh voice in American politics, we cannot forget the nature of the challenges we face and the need for strong, conciliatory and decisive leadership. As we said before, we need someone that can bring the country together again. Unfortunately, we don’t see those qualities in Senator Obama’s record. During his four years in the U.S. Senate, Mr. Obama has never defied his party leadership in favor of common ground legislation. Moreover, his is a highly partisan voting record, far from the mainstream, center-right beliefs of the American people. Moreover, even if we believe the tone of Senator Obama’s speeches in the campaign (which we really want to), we cannot deny the fact that the Democratic Party, controlled by a far-leftist wing, will increase its majorities in both chambers of Congress, with even the possibility of getting a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Thus, even if a President Obama would be eager to compromise, his party leaders in Congress would not allow him to do so, generating more division and gridlock in Washington. We do believe that Senator Obama would be a formidable candidate in four or eight years, after having acquired leadership skills and showing more compromise in the legislative process.      

We cannot forget, also, the historic nomination of Sarah Palin as the Republican vice presidential candidate. We think it was time for the Republican Party to nominate a woman in such a position. We think Governor Palin has incredible political skills and personal charisma. Indeed, we cheered her nomination after Mr. McCain introduced her. However, we must recognize that her performances in many interviews and her political rhetoric, which we see as dangerously populist, have made us doubt about her qualifications to be commander-in-chief should something happen to Mr. McCain.

To choose the leader of the world’s only military and economic superpower is not an easy task (or at least it shouldn’t be), especially in these times of uncertainty and insecurity. However, we feel confident that the American people will make the best decision and, whoever the winner is, we hope he delivers his promise of unity and moderation.

We have no doubt that America can and will face all the challenges and finish stronger, united and more prosperous than she was before. After all, that’s what she has always done. The spirit of freedom provides the strength to face any challenge, no matter how difficult, and to be victorious in the end. We strongly believe that John McCain can and will keep that spirit strong and that’s why we proudly endorse him for president of the United States.   
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why We Support A Bloomberg Third Term

As conservatives, we strongly believe in the traditional classical liberal principles of balance of power and republicanism, notions which include, among other things, the belief in check and balances to prevent the demagoguery impulses associated with pure democracy (make no mistake, we support a liberal representative democracy or republican democracy). Therefore, it may sound strange that we are supporting New York City Mayor Bloomberg in his intent, now possible after the vote of the City Council, to seek a third term. We would never support the possibility of a president seeking a third term, especially now, with the growing power of the presidency during the 20th Century. At the local level, however, the risks of demagoguery diminish, since the elected official is closer to those who put him/her in office and, thus, is subject to a greater scrutiny and accountability. Therefore, we think that, at the local level, a mayor should be able to seek a third term (but no more than a third term) and ask constituents to decide if he/she deserves to continue on the job.  

That’s the philosophical explanation to justify our decision. Now, why do we think Mike Bloomberg deserves to run for a third term? While we, as conservatives, disagree with Mr. Bloomberg in many areas (for instance, on the dignity of unborn human life, judicial philosophy, the definition of marriage, etc.), we do have many agreements on other issues, and, moreover, we think he has done a good job as mayor of New York City. Mr. Bloomberg has continued the legacy of former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, keeping New York City the safest largest city in America. We also believe that Mr. Bloomberg steps to protect the environment and make NYC a greener place to live are commendable (although we sometimes disagree with the means employed to that end).

Finally, while many conservatives are troubled by Mr. Bloomberg’s centrist and/or liberal positions in certain social issues, he is clearly the best choice available in NYC to prevent a one hundred per cent liberal takeover of the mayoral office by a liberal Democrat. After all, what is better, to have a centrist, pragmatic fiscal conservative (who, by the way, balanced the city budget) in office, or an extreme liberal with whom we have nothing in common?

Therefore, for the above mentioned reasons, philosophical and practical, we applaud the decision of the New York City Council to let Mayor Bloomberg seek a third term, and, furthermore, we encourage New Yorkers to re-elect Mike Bloomberg in 2009.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

McCain Wins Debate, No Game Changer

By Alejandro Honeker - www.CUSA.weebly.com
The debates are over and, even though the constant "Joe the plumber" rhetoric, the final debate was the most substantive of all. Candidates finally got a little more specific on certain issues and moderator Bob Schieffer did a very good job. Overall, McCain had a stronger performance than Obama, although the Democratic nominee did not make any gaffes. 

These were McCain's strongest points:

-Painting Obama as too liberal and partisan. ("Tell me one thing in which you've stood up against your party leaders.")

-McCain did manage to give an image of an independent and maverick, mentioning several issues in which he has broken with the GOP (climate change, campaign finance reform, the conduct of the war in Iraq under Rumsfeld, torture, immigration, importation of drugs).

-On free trade, McCain really put Obama on the defense, when he mentioned Obama's proposal to renegotiate NAFTA. (McCain: "Canada will then say, 'we'll sell our oil to China'.") It was also funny, by the way, listening to Obama saying "I believe in free trade" (Yeah, sure, the same way I'm a communist). McCain also scored when the Colombia free trade agreement was discussed (McCain: "Maybe he should travel south of the border").

-The Obama-Hoover association was a good idea. Actually, it's scary to think about it; amid a recession, the worst thing would be to isolate the economy, adopting a protectionist trade policy and raising taxes on businesses.

-McCain's "no litmus test" answer on Supreme Court's nominations was also a good, middle-of-the-road way to go.

-On education, McCain also showed a strong performance, promoting school choice through vouchers (which Obama opposes) and encouraging more competition and reform, not puting more money into a failed system. Both agreed on the necessity of more charter schools.

-Finally, McCain's "Senator Government" slip was great. Actually, it's a good way for conservatives to call Obama.

In conclusion, even with Joe the plumber and the usual populist rethoric we've been used to during the campaign (I know, once again our special guest "greed" was present in the candidates' vocabulary), this was the best debate. At least we had a little more substance than in the previous ones. 

The closing lines:

McCain: Americans will choose the candidate they can TRUST

Obama: Americans are tired of MORE OF THE SAME.

McCain won this one, but it's still not enough to change the game. If no major event takes place (think, for instance, of a Bin Laden video or a terror threat) , this will be a Dem blowout at all levels.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Tories Pull Off A Victory in Canada

Canadian Conservatives got a victory in yesterday's election, though it was not enough to get a majority. However, the party strengthened his position in Parliament, while Liberals suffered a major defeat, losing the popular vote for the fourth consecutive election.

These are the results from yesterday's election:

Conservative Party > 143 seats (38 %)
Liberal Party > 76 seats (26%)
New Democrats> 37 seats (18%)
Bloc Québécois> 50 seats  (10%)
Green Party > 0 seats (7%)

It seems that Canada is starting to look as a good refuge, not for American liberals anymore, but for conservatives after November 4th.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

There He Goes Again

By Alejandro Honeker - www.CUSA.weebly.com
Once again Dick Morris has come with a non-sense Electoral College map on Newsmax.com. While everyone knows that Obama would win big in the electoral college map if the election were held today, Dick Morris once again makes terrible mistakes, putting strong McCain states in the Obama column (just as he put Iowa in the McCain column one month ago, when it has always been in the strong Obama column).

According to Morris' map, NV, CO, NM, OH, FL, VA, MO & AR (yes Arkansas!) are in the "strongly Obama" column. This is non-sense. While we could leave NM in that column (though I think that "leaning Obama" is a better category), the other states are "leaning Obama" or "toss-up" states (with the exception of AR, which is a solid McCain state) . You cannot classify a state like MO or NV as a "strong Obama" state when both, historically speaking, tilt Republican and in this election cycle have been leaning McCain until two weeks ago. That's simply irresponsible.

But maybe the funniest thing is the place Morris gives to AZ and TN: "leaning obama." Non-sense again. McCain may not be the most beloved politician in his home state, but he will definitely carry AZ. Concerning TN, it has always been a "strong McCain" state throughout the election cycle.

Finally, Morris classify LA, GA and SC as toss-ups. While LA and SC are solid GOP states, GA is leaning McCain. Oh, it seems even Alabama is just leaning McCain (Of course that's not the case).

Maybe Morris should consider the possibility of a different job. As an election analyst, he just doesn't get it.
  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Happy Birthday Lady Thatcher!

Conservative USA wants to wish a happy birthday to one of conservatism's greatest champions, former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Not only did Lady Thatcher lead Britain to one of its most sustained periods of economic expansion, but she also built the foundations of the conservative renaissance that would follow, for instance, in the United States with the victory of Ronald Reagan.

To one of freedom's best friends, our warm regards!!! 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Republican Party & Populism

By Alejandro Honeker - Conservative USA
Monday, October 13, 2008


Some commentators said after the first bailout vote in the House that those Republicans that voted against it were playing the populist card, trying to appeal to the anti-Wall Street sentiment among many Americans. In fact, the majority of those who stood up against the bailout bill did so because of a disdain for populism. They were rejecting the idea that government should rescue those who behaved in an irresponsible way. After all, what is more populist than the phrases we’ve been listening from Democrats and pro-bailout Republicans (including John McCain and Sarah Palin) in the last days? The constant reference to the “greed” of Wall Street and the necessity of more government regulation to “help” homeowners is at the heart of populism. Those who stood up, protecting taxpayers’ money from being used to pay the debts of irresponsible individuals and financial institutions, are far from being populist. The fact that their vote was “popular” among many Americans angry with the bailout bill does not mean that they were populists. In this flawed interpretation lies the misunderstanding that many people have on the real meaning of the word populism. A politician can be popular and at the same anti-populist. The best examples that come to my mind are Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. No one can deny their popularity among Americans and Britons, but, at the same time, they were profoundly anti-populist. Both pro-free enterprise, pro-free market and pro-business, Reagan and Thatcher were staunch opponents of the populist view of government as the solution to people’s problems. They were not demagogues; in fact, when they took office amidst an economic recession, they told Americans and Britons that the best way to get out of the crisis was through individual entrepreneurship and sacrifice, not through government handouts and regulations. Reagan’s and Thatcher’s rhetorical styles were decidedly anti-populist in the sense that they were not against “the business elite”; indeed, businesses, whether big or small, were the foundation of economic prosperity.           

Unfortunately, this strong anti-populism has been abandoned by many Republicans (anti-populism has never been in the Democratic Party’s DNA). From President Bush to Senator McCain, big government Republicanism has taken over the GOP during the last years. Moreover, the disdain for intellectual curiosity and individual freedom, which lies at the heart of populism, helps explain the decay of the party in once GOP strongholds like the suburban middle-class and high income voters.

In the months and years to come, especially if Republicans lose the White House and more seats in Congress (as it seems right now), the Republican Party will have to examine the reasons for its decay and decide if it wants to continue toward the disastrous path of populism (which, by the way, used to be the Democrats’ way and they are still masters at it), or if it wants to go back to its roots of free enterprise, free markets, individual freedom, strong defense, tolerance, strong families and strong communities.

I think the latter is the way to go. We’ll see what happens in the coming years.      
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »