|
Analysis of the Conservative Movement -- Early 2007 Two years ago it looked as though the Democrat party was in shambles, that the Republicans were in great shape, and that Conservatives were looking forward to generations of majority status. As things stand now, the Democrat party has all of the momentum, their "leaders" are getting tons of face time on the television, the Conservatives lack a recognized national spokesman and the Republican party is devoid of true leadership. What happened? There are a myriad of concerns facing the Conservative movement and several of them deserve comment. First of all, it must be noted that the Democrat party is a conglomerate of minorities: Pro-Abortion, Environmentalists, Peaceniks, Social Justice Reformers, Blacks (should be referred to as "racism propagators"), Bush-haters, Communist sympathizers, and the list goes on and on. The Republican party is exactly the opposite. Sure there are party members with a different arrangement of priorities, but overall, the majority of today's Republican party is made up of Conservatives who are willing to tolerate a substantial-sized government. This is clear because the Conservatives who are not tolerant of big-government do not identify themselves as Republicans. And the Libertarians ("Losertarians," according to Michael Medved) don't want to be associated with the Republicans or the Conservatives, thinking that this is somehow selling out.
As a result, at the end of the day, in order for anything resembling Conservatism to prevail at the ballot box there have to be enough willing Conservatives and Libertarians joining the Republicans to elect a candidate that may not be ideal, but be better than the alternative. This is Problem Number One for Conservatives. Anytime a Conservative speaks out and attempts to fill the leadership void, he is pounded by one of the wings of the Conservative movement for one of two reasons. Let me give you the examples:
So which one is it, Conservatives?!!! Do we vote for the candidate that can win the election? Or do we vote on principle so we can live with our conscience when it’s all said and done? Pick an option and stick with it! But until then, as long as there is this divide in the Conservative movement/Republican party, winning national elections is going to be quite difficult. Was there a more morally bankrupt era in American history than the '70's? Out of that era, though, the American people responded in vast numbers to Ronald Reagan’s solid Conservative leadership. Is anyone in the Republican party taking notes? (And to illustrate my point about Conservatives not sticking together: someone somewhere is reading this column saying, "Reagan was no Conservative. He put moderate and Liberal judges on the Supreme Court." Give me a break.)
"The media bias prevents Conservatives from getting their message out." Give me a break. Conservatives can no longer blame media bias for their problems. Let’s face it: the media is slanted left and it will only become more so, not less so. So stop whining about it, stop trying to make friends with them, and stand up for your message! Instead, we’ve got a handful of Republicans who cripple the movement by not presenting a united front, especially in front of the television cameras, all in an effort to be portrayed in a positive light by the media. Richard Lugar, Chuck Hagel, Lindsay Graham, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, John Warner and John McCain do more damage to themselves and a good chunk of what they want to get accomplished when they take asinine, Liberal positions on National Security, Troop Support, Border Control and Domestic Economic agendas. As a matter of fact, while the Liberal "movement" dominates the Mainstream Media on television, the Conservative movement is doing quite well for itself on radio. With Rush, Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved, Dennis Prager, Bill Bennett, Laura Ingram, etc. talking good Conservatism every day on the radio waves, the movement has a collection of voices! (I'm excluding Michael Savage on purpose.) There is more infighting than policy-making. One of the keys to Newt's Republican revolution of '94 was that he and the Republican party leadership put together a list of policy initiatives (the Contract with America) that defined the party and furthermore aligned itself with Conservative movement. The American voters were given a clear picture of what they were voting for, and the rest, as they say, was history. No such policy-making initiative exists today. Republicans are currently posturing themselves all over the map on issues such as Border Security (from none [Bush] to cursory [McCain, et.al.] to aggressive fence-building [House Republicans]), Health Care, Social Security, National Security (incidentally, Joe Lieberman, D-CT, is more Conservative on National Security than any Republican), Tax Cuts, Pork Spending and the Federal Budget. Why all this posturing and grandstanding? Because some of these Republicans are more interested in face-time, name recognition and personal advancement than enacting real, positive change for the sake of America's future. Not only are definitions important when it comes to defining the Conservative position, as was the case with the Contract with America, it is also important that the Conservatives define just who the Liberals are and what they want for America. Somebody needs to because the only defining coming from the Democrat party leadership is: oppose Bush. Period. Nixon defined his opponents in the Vietnam era as anti-American protestors who wanted to see America lose. Reagan defined his oponents during the Cold War era as anti-American, Communist sympathizers who wanted to see America lose.
Ultimately, the Conservative party is paying the price for not following up Reagan's legacy with a strong, national Conservative leader. Similarly, the Republican party is paying the price for George W. Bush's decision to surround himself with qualified but old advisors rather than groom new successors to take his place. There are simply too many no-names waiting to receive the Republican torch to carry for the next election cycle, almost all of which currently make the Conservative voting block take a big yawn. I believe it is incumbent upon the Conservatives, the rank-and-file Joe Blows like you and me, to take our responsiblity very, very seriously. Unless Conservatives rise to the occasion, recognize real leaders who subscribe to Conservative values (like interpreting the U.S. Constitution to the letter, practicing fiscal responsibility, getting government out of the way of economic progress, supporting the millitary, respecting life at its earliest conception and its last moments, etc.) and work tirelessly for their advancement, we're going to be having these types of conversations after each election cycle. To do anything less is to allow Liberal wackos like Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, Carl Levin, and Socialists like Barak Obama and Sherrod Brown. to maintain a majority and the previoulsy mentioned Lugar, Hagel, Graham, Collins, Snowe, Warner, McCain and Voinovich to "represent" us in the minority. We simply cannot allow another 40 years of Conservative minority status. |
|
Archive | Home
|
