|
Analysis of the Conservative Movement In May of 2007 I wrote a piece entitled "Analysis of the Conservative Movement - Early 2007." It read much like the title describes, and now it is time to follow up the 2007 commentary with a 2008 version. We've all seen the results of the Florida primary that delivered a victory and important delegates to John McCain. Shortly thereafter, Rudy Giuliani, representing what may be the biggest flame-out disappointment of my personal political observation, dropped out of the race before even challenging Super Tuesday (his original strategy), and threw his support behind John McCain. It should not be forgotten that Fred Thompson, the man who was considered the "true Reagan Conservative" in the race, dropped out before Florida and endorsed, that's right, John McCain. And most recently, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger endorsed Senator McCain at a rally (at a solar energy plant, no less) in which he insinuated that McCain was best equipped to lead the fight against global warming.
Shall I go on? Are these the principles of the Republican Party? Why then is the GOP proceeding to nominate a man who stands for these principles? Can no one stop this madness and return the Republican party to a platform of Conservatism? Make no mistake about it, the Republican Party is not wholly Conservative. Never has been, never will be. However, Conservatives have nearly always been able to find a home under the GOP tent. Things are becoming more hostile, though. Speakers of the Movement If you would have asked me to name speakers of the Conservative movement beyond the obvious such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Jason Lewis, Roger Hedgecock, Mark Steyn, the Heritage Foundation and Ann Coulter, to name a few, I probably would have eventually come around to folks such as William Kristol and Michael Medved, among others. With the direction in which things are moving, however, it is becoming clear that there are those who have enjoyed letting others think they're speaking for the Conservative movement when in fact they're only speaking for the Republican Party. Many times their messages could double for both, but lately, they've become mutually exclusive on a particular number of issues, such as those mentioned above. One must be wary when one hears a pundit in the media speak highly of a Republican, especially if he has been thought to be a Conservative at some point in time, regardless of the affiliation of the pundit. Conservatives (not NeoConservatives, not Moderate Republicans) are not given influential chairs in the media unless it is within the confines of commentary (Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck). Hard news is reserved for the Liberals, and they will never, let me repeat, never speak well of a Conservative. It's a Movement, not a Party One of the first lessons in a Political Science course is to define Parties as groups of people whose goal it is to win elections. That's it. Political Parties will modify their platforms to maintain power. Movements will not. Political Parties will form alliances for strategic purposes. Movements will welcome those with whom they have previously disagreed once the dissidents have "come around" without coersion. All Republicans, and an increasing number of rank-and-file Conservatives have prioritized winning this election above principle. Don't get me wrong, I'll never advocate losing an election for a long-term strategic advantage. However, many Conservatives so fear a Hillary presidency that they will attach themselves to the candidate that they perceive as having the best chance beat her. The media has been telling us that the individual with the best chance of beating her head to head is John McCain, so the Conservatives have jumped on the bandwagon. But have these Conservatives stopped to consider why it is that the media is fawning over McCain? When William Buckley began the National Review in 1955, neither his plan, nor his expectations, were to win a majority in Congress, win the presidency, and have more than five Justices on the Supreme Court. Rather, the plan was to set the groundwork, a philosophy, for grassroots Conservatism. Many, including the Sr. Fellows at XEKE.com, have continued the fight for Conservatism. While winning elections is helpful, the Conservative movement is more interested in persuading minds than winning office. Where are we now? This commentator does not buy into the notion that we are suffering from a lack of leadership in the Conservative movement. We have plenty of leaders. The trouble is, these leaders are not in positions that can directly affect public policy, rather they can only affect public opinion. Consider where minds like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Jim Quinn, Mark Levin, and even Michael Savage would be in the 1800's. Prior to the broad access of radio, and without the medium of television, solid Conservative minds would have found outlets in print, but would also certainly have been prodded into government on at least the local level. Individuals, such as these and others, would have ascended the ladder and become influential in the political sphere and in the public opinion sphere. I'm not too optimistic about finding a strong Conservative leader to fill the void at the political level. I'd love to be proven wrong. The Liberal/Mainstream/Drive-By media is in the business of a couple of things:
In the meantime, Conservatives can continue to be informed with luxury as no previous generation has experienced. Talk Radio, the Internet and the Blogosphere have given us this gift. Armed with information, we can bombard Washington when pertinent issues arise such as with the McCain-Kennedy Amnesty Bill. This was an example of America rising up and telling Washington who works for whom. While we may not have solid, prominent Conservative voices in Washington, those who are there can hear from the citizens who employ them. We still have a voice! The Long Battle It is important to keep in mind that Liberalism is not going away. Liberal thinkers have the patience of Islamic terrorists (I'm not calling them terrorists, just that they have the patience of terrorists). While Liberals want rapid change, they're content to take what they can get over the long run. That is why Conservatives must have complete awareness that they are part of a movement, and a movement with a clear enemy. Conservatism's enemy is not a person or a people, but it is a philosophy: Liberalism! While Liberals attack the person of a competing philosophy, Conservatives ought to attack the opposing philosophy on its merits (or lack thereof). And Conservatives must not lose patience. . . because Liberalism will not go away on its own, it must be defeated by a consistent and resolved push of Conservatism. To the reader who recognizes that you are a part of the Conservative movement, stand strong. To the Liberal, we're not going to back down from your personal attacks, neither will we tire from your constant lack of reason. We have been convinced of the truth of Conservatism. Conservatism is consistent with all of life's experiences, Liberalism runs counter to life's experiences. The good news for the future of Conservatism is that Liberals are aborting their babies and Conservatives are reproducing. In the Conservative/Liberal debate, the numbers are moving to our side. The baby-race is now between Muslims and Conservatives. Liberals, who do you want defending you? The future of Conservatism Given the current state of the GOP, with Moderate and Liberal national politicians and Governors (Sonny Perdue [GA], Arnold Schwarzenegger [CA], Charlie Crist [FL], Rick Perry [TX]) speaking for the Republican Party, and considering that for the past 20 years we've been told that the GOP tent needs to be large enough to hold, for example, the Log Cabin Republicans, the EnviroConscious Republicans, etc., etc., the notion that the Conservatives have been thrust to the minority and marginalized is not as far fetched as one would have thought a few years ago. There is a thought brewing in the minds of intelligent Conservatives today, a thought which for some is too frightening to say aloud. It is a thought that, if dealt with in an intellectually honest manner, will raise more questions than it will provide answers at this time. That thought is this: Is the Republican Party the home of the modern Conservative movement? Wow. Think of the ramifications if one's answer is, "No." To where should/would Conservatives turn? I don't have the answers to all of the questions that this notion raises, however this question deserves thoughtful deliberation. Now having raised the possibility that the Republican Party may be as resistent to our principles as much so as is the Democrat Party, it is still vital that Moderate and Liberal Republicans defeat Democrats in Presidential and Senatorial general elections. I've heard all of the arguments against my previous statement, but the reason I hold fast to this opinion is because judicial nominations are at stake. It is of paramount importance that the courts be preserved by appointing strict constructionist Justices to the Supreme Court and judges to the federal courts. These judges and justices will more likely be appointed by Republicans of any persuasion than from the most conservative of Democrats. For this reason, and this reason only, I can advocate casting a vote for a non-Conservative Republican. What can we do? With the doom and gloom I've laid out for you, what can we, members of the Conservative movement, do to limit the damage or mount a comeback? This is the gameplan:
And if not, I have the assurance that good will overcome evil in the end. We have assurances from the LORD. But until that time, we must fight for a society and a nation that is conducive to Conservative principles. A decent society in which we can raise our children apart from the destructiveness of Liberalism. I intend to partake in this battle, this ideological struggle. Won't you join me? rg 2/2/2008 |
|
Archive | Home
|
